Depends on the issue. My main issue, currently, is spending. If one person proposes 0% growth and another proposes 100% growth in spending, the compromise position is untenable. I am fine with compromises on most social issues. A lot of people aren't. Abortion is currently a compromise position. Gay unions was a compromise solution. Don't ask, don't tell was a compromise solution. Other social issues sometimes can't be solved by compromise. What would be the compromise position with equal rights for minorities and women?
^^^^^^^ BINGO and Mcbrett she is a RINO and that's OK but don't for a moment think she is anywhere near conservative like RR. In fact don't mention the GREAT RONALD REAGAN and Olympia Snowe in the same breath.
I forgot to add Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana- didn't he retire/quit for the same reason? HH and Deez- I agree somewhat with your points. It just upsets me as you can tell that people don't compromise more. Why? Look at the **** our country went through in 2011 for partisan, artificial reasons. We haven't passed a budget in years despite a bevy of good ideas (see the Gang of 6's proposal) because people on both sides want to stand on principle rather than help the country. We bring this country to the verge of default and credit crisis and stock market swings simply to play politics. It is disgusting. Whether it is Charley Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, or Sen. Mitch McConnell- these idiots seem to be the worst of the partisan bunch! When women like Sen. Snowe quit- our country suffers for it. She voted alongside Democrats but only after they moved their positions closer to the center for her support. If you gave me another 20 Snowe's- we'd have a functional government. While she is not of the caliber of RR, her views are certainly in line with RR as a moderate.
The Compromise on Spending was $15 Trillion ago. There is no more compromise on spending. All other issues are on the table but spending is not a compromise issue.
Good riddance! Agree with the others on the social issues. Compromise all you want. But there can be no more compromising with the current crop of loons on fiscal issues. It's what got us in this mess in the first place.
Sadly we the people are responsible for the current climate in Washington. We elected a far left president over a centrist in the last election. After watching him force through a far left agenda, we elected a far right congress to keep him in check. Again, many centrists were forced out in that election. So, this is where we are, gridlock. We got what we asked for. Maybe this election we will put a centrist in the White House and some things will move forward. We'll see. I would argue that we need a far right President and a far right congress to have any hope of correcting our budget problems, but the media in this country will do there best to ensure that does not happen.
Tip never gave the reach around that he agreed too!!!!! Amazing how HS history books distort and limited the liberal mind is in regards to history.
based on the results they have produced over the past 12 years with ushering in 400 billion dollar deficits, then escalating them to 1.2 trillion with the help of skid mark in chief, i would say the less they get done the better. Let their be gridlock forever for all i care. everything they touch the fvck it up worse than it was when they originally decided to take up whatever cause. fvck her too. RINO see you next tuesday voted for obamacare for which she will never be subjected. she can fvck off.
A lot of guys, judging from their posts, would rather negotiate to get 0% out of 100% vs. 50% of 100% of what they want. It's funny to giggle about if we were negotiating against each other, except when the topic is the USA and we share the consequences. I guess when I learned game theory at Texas they taught us that often its better to partner up with your adversaries to work together to make the pot bigger for all involved. Clearly not everyone here subscribes to that lesson- at the expense of everyone. The lesson was called "prisoners dilemma"- it's a classic business case. It shows in math, not some wise sage's opinion who relies on Drudge Report for their news, why bi-partisanship is superior in every way.
You speak spend spend spend very well. As far as spending goes everything should be cut from top to bottom. the budget should be balanced every year,no exceptions,no compromises, no stealing from other funds now for Peter to pay Paul. The time to compromise was $15 Trillion ago, that time is dead. Anything else you want to discuss and compromise on, I would be glad to consider. 50% of $15Trillion is another $7.5 Trillion, not from me, and I am not going to let you do it either. Enough is Enough!!!
The Prisoner's Dilemma is not very applicable to politics because in a classic dilemma you only have one time period to achieve your best outcome and the potential outcomes are fixed. Politico's think multi-period (i.e. re-election) and voters can never be sure if their candidates actually follow through on anything promised to voters. There is also little downside for politicians to act like douches. They either keep their job or remain surprisingly and annoyingly relevant. Newt Gingrich actually being relevant these days is case in point. So basically you never know what you will get through negotiations. Based on recent history and congressional approval ratings, though, the average voter does expect any negotiation to yield awful legislation that is more shaped by special interests than the average voter's needs and wants.
