Should Democrats and Republicans Compromise With Each Other for Good of the Country?

Struggling to correlate your condescending response with my post.

Please describe the purchased "goods" in detail?

Who specifically are "they?"

Obviously, like most of us here, you're opinionated, you've made some claims in your referenced post, can you objectively support/explain/define them?

 

Me? Opinionated on politics??? How DARE you sir!!!
Sure. Be happy to address this although I already did. In order to keep our attention away from what a horrible job they are doing, the members of congress have become more and more polarizing. This has been going on for some times and pundits like keith Olberman and Rush Limbaugh have become millionaires by flaming the fires of hatred. If we didn't hate each other so much, we might DEMAND that our government function and (gasp) even be accountable. As it is now, Liberals foolishly believe that ALL of our problems result from the existence of Conservatives and vice versa.

 

Some truth there. You know though, in their defense, politicians are faced with an impossible problem. The only way we're going to dig ourselves out of the hole we're in, is for the American public to start accepting some sacrifices. Voters aren't ready to elect or support people that recognize that fact. So if someone wants to get into politics, pretty much his only way to get elected is to promise a painless and immediate solution (even when he knows none exist). Then his only recourse in explaining his failure to deliver the impossible is to point across the aisle and say "he wouldn't let me do it."

I think the problem is less with our representatives, than with American voter's own impossible expectations and refusal to face hard truths. Accountability has to start at the top and, as unpopular as it is to admit, the guys really running the show are the voters.​

 

I disagree. I think the politicians and pundits have done a REALLY effective job of completely BSing the American public. We complain about OMG we owe money to China! And we gave them over $11 BILLION in humanitarian aid last year. We gave Pakistan over $20 Billion. The list goes on. We complain about GE not paying taxes but do NOTHING about the laws that allow them to get away with it. And Bi Oil. And 30 other global companies. We spend more than China, Russia, The UK, France and Israel COMBINED and we complain about deficits. We complain about the Mexican cartels, the cost of fighting drugs and keeping the borders safe but if we just legalized pot, it would deliver a crushing blow to the cartels and also bring in BILLIONS in tax revenues.
Because here's the deal. We are a great country and lots of money. But we waste it on planes and tanks that don't work and 100% of the time, run over budget. We get involved in land wars that we have no business in and bankrupt us. We spend billions fighting problems that the majority of people don't consider a problem and we give hundreds of billions to contries and companies that don't need it and complain when our government gives it to who actually do. We pay attention to countries that are nothing more than political prostitutes we pay to be our friends and ignore our sick and our veterans.
But as long as they get us to hate each other enough, we'll be distracted from what they're doing.

 

And so have they always done. I think that, generally, the electorate is pretty stupid. They continue going for the same thing over and over. I've quit voting. It no longer has any meaning to me at all. It is just a choice between two lying thieves. The cost of government could be trimmed by 20% without americans even noticing it. I think the same thing is probably true of Greece. Just goes to show you how attached to power politicians are.

 

Can you provide sources for that $31 billion in U.S. aid to China & Pakistan? I'd like to understand how much of that came from government sources as opposed to private, and how much was actually given to these countries as opposed to a calculated benefit based on things we did for our own good but for which estimate they may also have benefited. I'm trying to understand this issue myself and any sources you can provide would be appreciated.

Dismissing for the moment your personal opinion on whether we should legalize drugs, which causes are reasonable to go to war about, and how we should accomplish tax reform -- your central point is that the American public is a victim here. I disagree with that point.

If the American people wanted to accomplish the things you suggest, they only have to elect someone who says he will do these things and support them in that cause. Ron Paul for example has offered to champion the cause of ending foreign aid. It's unlikely he will be elected. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool the voters every four years with the same promises... well at that point it's hard to see the voters as victims. Each year they make their choice to stop looking at the hard choices and elect a guy who promises we can keep spending without cost. At what point do we stop making excuses for bad decisions?​

 

Compromise. I hate that word. Any time the right idea has to compromise, it - by default - becomes the wrong idea.

We've been corrupted by wrong ideas for over 100 years. Enough compromise.

 

That's something that only a person with perfect ideas can assert. Anyone that confident that no one else can improve on their ideas or beliefs is either more than human, or hopelessly ignorant of the human condition. I don't believe in supermen and I'd rather not have someone who does serving in office.​

 

And you "saw this" ^ in the words of my original post? Hmm. You left out the President...onboard with his path for the nation?

I think more people are forming opinions after having their eyes opened. There are more visible political agitators (and fibbers) then ever before and information is instantaneous 24/7. Well, didn't Jefferson think that every twenty years...?

I enjoy openly opinionated people. Never a doubt about what they're thinking or where they stand, the quiet and the quietly insane now those are the ones to watch . But beware the loud crazy, sometimes they share their intentions/near future acts too

Nonetheless appreciate your humor.

Maybe you'd be interested in; http://goooh.com/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

 

You're wrong - it isn't something that only a person with perfect ideas can assert; it's something that someone with a brain can assert, as it is impossible to 'compromise' the right idea with the wrong idea and result in the right idea.

It doesn't even require that the correct idea be known as correct entering the compromise: you've just assured that the correct idea will never be implemented.

Capisce?

 

Funny how NoParty has the right idea about not supporting the party, but doesn't realize it's because both of the parties are ridiculously corrupt and owned, so meeting in the middle will give you what? Satan and the Devil met in the middle to forge a new America.

 

To the OP: No.

For Americans who favor the rule of law, and especially the exceptional American version of it: Make no compromises with the Republican and Democratic Party. Make them compromise their "principles" with you.

 

True and I believe in compromise in most cases however I see where he is comming from. History has shown these compromises are only temporary. One side doesn't like the way things are and start trouble. The other side resists but eventually Both sides compromise. The first side is satisfied for a while but this satisfaction is only temporary and the process repeats.

The second side who wants to conserve things continually loses ground because of constant compromise. The poster you quoted recognizes this and wants to stand ground. And stop the change.

 

True and I believe in compromise in most cases however I see where he is comming from. History has shown these compromises are only temporary. One side doesn't like the way things are and start trouble. The other side resists but eventually Both sides compromise. The first side is satisfied for a while but this satisfaction is only temporary and the process repeats.

The second side who wants to conserve things continually loses ground because of constant compromise. The poster you quoted recognizes this and wants to stand ground. And stop the change.

 

Democrats are economic morons, they've been in control of congress since Jan 2007 and had a super majority in congress and the white house in 2009 and 2010. They gave us over 8% unemployment for the longest sustained time in the history of this country since the great depression. 19% underemployment (stimulus jobs), $4+ trillion dollars in new debt in less than 4 years, home foreclosures continuing unabated by any Obama plan, gasoline around $4.50+ a gallon driving up prices of all consumer goods, food prices hitting the stratosphere and GDP growth below 2% which means we're losing ground. How much more painfully obvious does it need to be that they have the management skills of Celery and wouldn't know their asses from burnt biscuits if they looked at them both at the same time?

 

so republicans want to break our country so they can say they fixed it... nice
---
---

 

Why do you think the Republicans and Democrats compromising is good for the country? The argument is typically that the government gets nothing done when they don't compromise. But these people think that government action is a good thing. In reality, government inaction is FAR preferrable to government action.

Look at what compromise has gotten us: The Republicans and Democrats have compromised on increasing debt spending, increasing the police state, increasing miltary action in the Middle East, raping the free market, and violating the Constitution.

 

You're coming at this from a point of view that your 'right' idea cannot be improved upon. Further, that anyone with a brain would agree with complete certainty that your idea cannot be improved upon. If this is not true, then you would need to concede that a compromise could improve that idea. You would need to concede that another person's point of view, might have value even if you do not recognize it at the time.

I don't share your certainty. I am uncomfortable with anyone, on either side of the aisle, implementing 'right' ideas unilaterally (at least on a large scale). I think that honest and frank discussion, consideration and compromise with different points of view often results in ideas that are more right that even the 'right' ones we started with.

I think that when anyone stands up and says, "your idea is wrong, just do what I say because I'm right" ... very bad things can happen.​

 

*shrug* When a bone grows crooked, when time has passed and layers of resources are committed to that unhealthy path... I dunno. Sometimes you do have to break things to make them healthier.

I think there are processes in this country that are unhealthy and the more we build upon them, the worse it's gonna get. I wouldn't mind slowing down a bit and reconsidering the basics. In time, I think many folks might agree we're going to need to break some stuff to get back on a healthy path.​

 

This exactly.

I love how people think that government doing anything=good.

No government doing things usually is bad.

 

It's interesting to observe. I don't blame people for their cynicism. I understand it.
So what we should do is let unions completely run some states and use the tactics of the olds days to force even small businesses into becoming union shops.
We should leave our borders unprotected.
We should let oil companies use old and outdated equipment in the Gulf.
Because you know, handling anything would require compromise so we should never do it. We should have a government that really does nothing about anything.
Tickets to Rwanda are cheap, btw.
Jus sayin'

 

How do you compromise with someone who is wrong on 95% of the issues?


.
.
Doing whatever the Democrats want to do--Compromise.
.
.
.

 

Simply yes common sence come on the only reason they don't is because they don't care about us regular non previlige people. Our entire political system is garbage no one can do anything without political interest. We separate each other through race,income,religion...etc we then employ these people who stay in congress for years they look good talk real nice and we beleive them. They should all be replaced since they all get richer by getting inside information first in all financial investments. Snotty noose politicians I swer fire all of them I say.

 

In another thread, we discuss the government wanting to tax and regulate food (more than they already do). Others resist that. What is the compromise?

The government banned incandescent light bulbs. Others want them back. What is the compromise?

It seems to me that what passes for "compromise" merely cements in the liberal agenda, just a little slower.

What the nation needs is not compromise but rollback, repeal, and recission.

 

No I'm not. I'm coming from the notion that if a 'right idea' was proposed, any compromise to it would automatically ruin it.

You're not getting the concept. What I'm describing is mathematical purity, which is impossible to attain in your assertion.

Unprincipled people often have this problem.

You do not understand the concept I attempted to explain to you, because you are likely a moral relativist.