Quantcast
Opinion

Reader's forum: Founding compromise

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 1:06 a.m.

    Mr Baldridge not much compromise in your letter, either compromise your way or you quit the party. Thanks for the example of moderation.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 18, 2011 5:08 a.m.

    It's strange that Democrats talk about compromise when they used the words, "Dead on arrival". No discussion. No vote. No compromise.

    They cost us our excellent credit rating, but somehow it is the Republicans fault because the Republicans would not "compromise" and give in 100%.

    That's not compromise. That's surrender.

    No, the Democrats "own" our costly credit reduction. They will own every ill effect that comes from it. They will own every job lost. They will own every bankruptcy when jobs are cut because the private sector is paying higher interest rates rather than buying new products.

    They've earned our contempt. They worked for it. They campaigned for it. They got it.

  • Rand FLAGSTAFF, AZ
    Aug. 18, 2011 5:35 a.m.

    Ken, great letter. But it doesn't matter how much we explain that bipartisan solutions are needed, there is always a contingent of folks who want absolutely nothing to do with compromise. People so absorbed in their own world view that they absolutely cannot accept the possibility that the world is a more complicated place and that they have to share it with others.

    Which is odd, because most of these people went hysterical over another person who refused to compromise his principles and acted rashly over it--Tim DeChristopher.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 7:05 a.m.

    Careful Ken, someone might mistake you for reasonable.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 7:24 a.m.

    Isn't it amazing how history is ignored, rewritten and spun for political purposes? It's amazing we are even having this conversation. The opponents of moderation and compromise really want only their way as they try to plant seeds of totalitarianism.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 18, 2011 7:33 a.m.

    Seriously Mike, Boehner couldn't sell a three to one proposal he approved, that was the compromise from the dead on arrival, cut, cap, an balance passed previously.

  • Brett Marietta, GA
    Aug. 18, 2011 7:46 a.m.

    I'm confused on why Democrats have become so focused on the importance of compromise recently. They sure weren't interested in compromise from 2009-2010. The did not compromise at all with the Republicans on the stimulus, on Obamacare.

    Why wasn't compromise important then?

    When planning the stimulus, the Republicans wanted to include somethings and Obama responded with, "I won," and the Republicans did not get what they wanted.

    Why all the outrage when the Republicans say, "We won (in Nov. 2010)"?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 8:26 a.m.

    Before President Obama took office, we had a $10 TRILLION deficit. He added $4 trillion in TWO years! His income tax revenues were over $2.1 trillion, but he thought that he could spend $4 trillion per year.

    When the credit limit was reached, what did he want? More credit! He already proved that he had no idea how to manage money, but he wanted more money to spend.

    What was his plan to pay it back? He wants to tax some "rich guy". The CBO told that his "rich guys" could cough up $60 billion a year. At $60 billion a year, it will take 66 YEARS to pay back the $4 trillion that he has overspent.

    He can't do the math. None of the Democrats can do the math. They stomp their feet and blame the Republicans when the Republicans tell them to stop spending, to cut back and to balance the budget.

    Compromise? The Democrats think that compromise means to keep doing exactly what caused the problem. They have not compromised since 2006. They think that by using that word they can fool us. Fool me once, maybe, but never again.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 8:33 a.m.

    Hellooo | 1:06 a.m. Aug. 18, 2011
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Mr Baldridge not much compromise in your letter, either compromise your way or you quit the party. Thanks for the example of moderation.

    ----------------

    Totally illogical answer, Hellooo. How do you compromise on compromising?

    ___________________________

    Brett | 7:46 a.m. Aug. 18, 2011
    Marietta, GA
    I'm confused on why Democrats have become so focused on the importance of compromise recently. They sure weren't interested in compromise from 2009-2010. The did not compromise at all with the Republicans on the stimulus, on Obamacare.

    ---------------

    Oh, but they did! First, the stimulus would have been MUCH bigger if the demos had their way and second, we would have a national single-payer option if the demos had their way with healthcare. Just because they passed does not mean that they were not put through a compromise proceedure.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 8:39 a.m.

    Like most terms that used to mean one thing and now mean something altogether different. Compromise now means giving our country over to the big spending marxists and thinking this will turn out good for our children. The tea party is right; we have overspent and now we have some hard choices to make. S&P downgraded the U.S. because it, c'mon children, SPENT too much!

  • Brett Marietta, GA
    Aug. 18, 2011 8:42 a.m.

    Lane

    I am sorry Lane, but that was NO compromise. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid DID NOT propose a lower stimulus than THEY WANTED or go Single-Payer because of the GOP.

    They had the House, the Senate, and the White House, they could have passed all that if they wanted to.

    It is true that liberals wanted more stimulus and single payer, but Obama, Pelosi, and Reid DID NOT EVER propose it.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 9:02 a.m.

    Apparently, to modern liberals, moderation in the defense of freedom IS a virtue.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 9:06 a.m.

    brett,

    I think the Demo are smarter than the Repubs when it comes to initializing a bill. They know before hand when it is "dead on arrival." They compromise and tweak it to make it more palatible, obviously not to everyone, though.

    Repubs want to make statements, not pass bills. What kind of a congress just makes statements and does not find solutions?

  • isrred Logan, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 9:15 a.m.

    "They sure weren't interested in compromise from 2009-2010. The did not compromise at all with the Republicans on the stimulus, on Obamacare. "

    They didn't? Even though the Republican demands of tax cuts made up 40% of the stimulus? Even though the Democrats not only did not go after a single payer health care system, but they also compromised and dropped the public option as well?

    Revisionist history at its finest.

  • Brett Marietta, GA
    Aug. 18, 2011 9:22 a.m.

    Lane you can just make stuff up if you want so it fits what you want to believe, but the Dems had the House, a super-majority Senate, and the White House, there was NO such thing as Dead on Arrival. They could have passed ANYTHING they wanted. They did not compromise. They passed what they wanted. The Nov. 2010 vote showed that that was not what WE wanted.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 9:26 a.m.

    Mike Richards. Could you explain how it is "compromise" when the Republicans refuse to raise new revenue (taxes)?

    To get control of our debt we need to (A) cut spending and (B) raise revenue.

    Democrats were willing to compromise on A.
    Republicans are not willing to compromise on B.

    You sure do beat that "dead on arrival" drum, even though you know full well that "dead on arrival" meant the Democrats would not vote on the Tea Party's contribution of (C) a balanced budget amendment. Why?

    Look at the formula above again. (C) is not in the equation. A balanced budget amendment is not required to solve our debt issue.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 9:37 a.m.

    No compromise tea party is just starting too create havoc.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 9:41 a.m.

    Brett: "a super-majority Senate."

    Never had this. They were always under 60 senators.

  • Brett Marietta, GA
    Aug. 18, 2011 9:49 a.m.

    Moderate:
    "A balanced budget amendment is not required to solve our debt issue."

    That is the flaw in your analysis, C is required to solve the debt crisis.

    Future Congresses are not bound to legislation of former Congresses. This Congress could cut $15 trillion and the next Congress could add $20 trillion.

    The only PERMANENT solution is to set limits on what Congress is able to do in the future. And S&P said, had they done this, they wouldn't have down-graded our rating. Why? Because it was a permanent solution that would offer credibility to long-term sound fiscal policy.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 18, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    @KM, As a progressive person, I'm tired of your intellectual dishonesty in calling me a Marxist. FYI Marxism is state ownership of all enterprises and property. We progressives are NOT for this. We are for a market system with adequate counterweighing controls to make up for its obvious imbalances. So your calling me a Marxist is the equivalent of my calling you a Nazi. How does that grab you? Would you consider that intellectually dishonest?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 9:59 a.m.

    brett; Were you counting independents too?

    The dems had a "super majority" in the Senate for four months after president Obama was elected and thats if you count every Independen­t and Blue Dog. Anything passed after those four months had to have republican support as they have been able to filibuster (block) any and all meaningful legislatio­n since then. Senate Republican­s have filibuster­ed an historic number of times since Obama was elected. What is it you think he can do about that?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 18, 2011 10:01 a.m.

    Re:Brett
    Compromises in the healthcare plan to woo Republicans?
    First, single payer wasn't even considered. The healthcare plan was modeled after a REPUBLICAN plan put forth when Clinton was president and Romneycare. The mandate itself was something the Heritage Foundation had suggested in the 80's and then again when Clinton was president. Secondly, Dems gave up the notion of a public option, and thirdly, Pres. Obama offered tort reform to Republicans but they refused to engage.

    Tax cuts comprised 1/3 of the Stimulus bill, again to attract Republican votes.

    The Democrats had 58 seats and 2 Independents voting with them in the Senate on Dec 24th 2009 when the healthcare bill was passed. When Congress reconvened in Jan 2010, the number of Democrats stood at 56 and the Republicans broke the all time record for filibusters.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Aug. 18, 2011 1:39 p.m.

    The word "Compromise" is being abused by modern society.

  • Bunnyhop SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 3:05 p.m.

    So if Soloman actually cut the baby in half - Would it have been the right choice? Compromise is fine in some circumstances but other times compromise is the WORST alternative.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 18, 2011 3:42 p.m.

    Moderate | 9:26 a.m. Aug. 18, 2011

    Do you understand the difference between more "revenue" and higher "taxes"? They are NOT the same.

    When people are working, we will automatically have higher revenue. Each person earning income will pay a portion of that as Income Tax. What will kill ALL new jobs is higher taxes. The Democrats want to kill all new jobs by raising taxes. The Republicans want to put people back to work.

    When a person would be liable for up to $33 per $100 if he paid income taxes, Republicans understand that tax payers would pay much more than the $3 per $100 that Mr. Obama wants to fleece from the 'rich guy'.

    Which would you rather have, if you ran the treasury, $33 or $3. The Republicans know the difference. The Democrats would rather stomp their feet and demand that $3 is better than $33.

    There is no point of compromise when Democrats want to destroy more jobs. Mr. Obama has done that very successfully. He has destroyed more than 3,000,000,000 jobs since he took office.

    Democrats have no idea what the word "balanced" means. Why would they vote for it?

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 8:24 p.m.

    So let me get this straight, since the dems compromised on the stimulas bill by giving into republicans demand for fellow countrymen to keep more of what they earn; this makes them noble and the republicans narrow minded?
    Here's a selfish, uncompromising statement: STOP SPENDING our childrens future away like it won't hurt them!

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 8:27 p.m.

    Irony guy

    So you like Karl Marx. What is that to me? Just stop pushing for redistribution of wealth/property from those who work to those who work not so much. From each to each is just another way of taking a persons agency and drive away from them. How does that grab ya?
    ps. Nazis were socialists, and, therefore, more like Karl Marx than not like him.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 8:42 p.m.

    " STOP SPENDING our childrens future away like it won't hurt them!"

    Stop spending refusing to PAY for deficit spending YOUR generation has already made. Stop refusing to PAY for YOUR generations mistakes. YOU should have your taxes raised to pay for that spending so that your children won't have to. Because as it stands now, your children that you claim to care so much about in this fiscal mess are going to have to pay for YOUR generation's mistakes through higher taxes.

    Who is the selfish one now? The one proposing tax increases or the one rejecting higher taxes in favor of future generations paying higher taxes?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2011 8:47 p.m.

    Brett: "That is the flaw in your analysis, C is required to solve the debt crisis".

    There is no flaw in the analysis. The budget has been balanced before in the history of this country without an amemendment.

    An amendment is going to take years to pass. You seem comfortable with letting our debt problem fester for years as we wait, thumbs twiddling, for the amendment to be ratified.

    I am not opposed to the amendment, because I recognize what it is. It is an impeachment by the Tea Party of their fellow Republicans (not Democrats). The Tea Party was horrified that under a Republican President and Republican Congress, spending SKYROCKETED. They went totally against what Republicans are "supposed" to stand for. Since they can no longer be trusted, the Tea Party wants to impose Constitutional controls to protect this nation from Republicans drunk with power.

    Really not a bad idea. It might have kept GWB out of Iraq.