Mr Baldridge not much compromise in your letter, either compromise your way or
you quit the party. Thanks for the example of moderation.
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.
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
Careful Ken, someone might mistake you for reasonable.
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
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
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)"?
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.
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.
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!
LaneI 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.
Apparently, to modern liberals, moderation in the defense of freedom IS a
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
"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.
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.
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.
No compromise tea party is just starting too create havoc.
Brett: "a super-majority Senate."Never had this. They
were always under 60 senators.
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
@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?
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?
Re:BrettCompromises 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
The word "Compromise" is being abused by modern society.
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.
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?
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!
Irony guySo 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.
" 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?
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.