Liberals, Conservatives…willing to compromise?

F

flaja

New member
If you didn’t have a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority in Congress, is there anything you as a liberal would be willing to let conservatives have in order to get something that liberals want? Are you willing to compromise in order to achieve any of your goals?

If you didn’t have a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority in Congress, is there anything you as a conservative would be willing to let liberals have in order to get something that conservatives want? Are you willing to compromise in order to achieve any of your goals?

I won’t ask this question of libertarians and they need not answer since libertarians comprise such a small portion of the American population and they are generally too belligerent for others to want to associate with them so compromise on their part is pretty much impossible.
 
I'll give conservatives all the guns laws they want for free government provided health care. Anyone?
 
As I suspected. All of you are too belligerent, too ignorant of the real world and/or too partisan to compromise. This means that none of you have any business participating in politics in a republican system because you will never advance your goals one iota, and thus my time amongst you has been utterly wasted.
 
flaja said:
If you didn’t have a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority in Congress, is there anything you as a liberal would be willing to let conservatives have in order to get something that liberals want? Are you willing to compromise in order to achieve any of your goals?

If you didn’t have a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority in Congress, is there anything you as a conservative would be willing to let liberals have in order to get something that conservatives want? Are you willing to compromise in order to achieve any of your goals?

I won’t ask this question of libertarians and they need not answer since libertarians comprise such a small portion of the American population and they are generally too belligerent for others to want to associate with them so compromise on their part is pretty much impossible.
Click to expand...

so, basically what you're asking, is you dont' want to hear what red blooded americans would do, only what appeasers and apologists would do?
 
Fish said:
I'll give conservatives all the guns laws they want for free government provided health care. Anyone?
Click to expand...

not a very good bargain.....you are offering to let them keep something you can't take away in the first place....in exchange for giving you something that can't exist (free).....
 
flaja said:
If you didn’t have a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority in Congress, is there anything you as a liberal would be willing to let conservatives have in order to get something that liberals want? Are you willing to compromise in order to achieve any of your goals?

If you didn’t have a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority in Congress, is there anything you as a conservative would be willing to let liberals have in order to get something that conservatives want? Are you willing to compromise in order to achieve any of your goals?

I won’t ask this question of libertarians and they need not answer since libertarians comprise such a small portion of the American population and they are generally too belligerent for others to want to associate with them so compromise on their part is pretty much impossible.
Click to expand...
Well that's really the art of politics isn't it? You must be able to compromise in order to get anything accomplished. There's to many issues to name that I'm willing to comrpomise on as long as real and measurable positive results are achieved. In fact, there are very few principled stands on which I'd be unwilling to compromise to some degree or the other.

You make an excellent point though. For example, everyone is for a rational fiscal policy that balances the budget and reduces or eliminates debt, that is until it's their pet program that's on the chopping block.

In other words you can ask your question like this, what government programs/services are you (the individual) willing to sacrifice for fiscal responsibility? You'll find that many or most Americans will not be willing to make those sacrifices (compromises), they then turn around and blame the politicians who represent them instead of accepting a measure of the blame themselves.
 
Last edited:
I would accept higher taxes if I were confident they were being used for services for those in need, instead of to enrich corporate friends of the government, expand new programs we don't need, or continue wars we can't afford.

They used to call taxing and spending "investing" for our future, but many of these investments have questionable returns.

Of course, my real thought on this comprise is that if we really reassessed what the government should be doing, we could have a lot more money left over for Americans in need.
 
flaja said:
I won’t ask this question of libertarians and they need not answer since libertarians comprise such a small portion of the American population and they are generally too belligerent for others to want to associate with them so compromise on their part is pretty much impossible.
Click to expand...

Do you have some kind of libertarian-related trauma in your past? Few of the libertarians on this board are belligerent about much of anything. If you take offense because they disagree with your economic leftism and your social conservatism, you're taking the matter too personally.
 
Fish said:
Ok, what do you want for UHC?
Click to expand...

the original House version?.....more than the bluedogs got....how about removing all the artificial blocks preventing domestic energy production, including wind energy within sight of the Kennedy compound, nuclear plants, domestic oil wells, etc......hopefully we can at least generate some revenue there to offset the costs you intend to lay on us.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the original House version?.....more than the bluedogs got....how about removing all the artificial blocks preventing domestic energy production, including wind energy within sight of the Kennedy compound, nuclear plants, domestic oil wells, etc......hopefully we can at least generate some revenue there to offset the costs you intend to lay on us.....
Click to expand...
How about a windfall profits tax on telecommunications companies that have been raping the public?

OK, I'm being a bit facetious there but that does bring up an interesting topic for discussion. What private/public partnerships can be organized to generate revenue for UHC? It's going to be some sort of private/public partnership that helps to solve this issue as most Americans are willing to admit that our current system is broken but that they find a purely socialist approach unpalatable and probably to expensive.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Do you have some kind of libertarian-related trauma in your past? Few of the libertarians on this board are belligerent about much of anything. If you take offense because they disagree with your economic leftism and your social conservatism, you're taking the matter too personally.
Click to expand...
Flaja is half right, they are to small a group to be politically relevant, if he/she had said that and that they have an unworkable governing philosophy, Flaja would have been spot on.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the original House version?.....more than the bluedogs got....how about removing all the artificial blocks preventing domestic energy production, including wind energy within sight of the Kennedy compound, nuclear plants, domestic oil wells, etc......hopefully we can at least generate some revenue there to offset the costs you intend to lay on us.....
Click to expand...

Ok, how about I give you nuclear plants, offshore wind farms, but no new offshore or ANWR oil?
 
Fish said:
To be clear I'm talking about UHC, not some pussy public option.
Click to expand...
Define exactly what you mean by universal health care. Of course, I can understand it means everyone can go get the medical treatment they need, which is a laudable goal. But what are the limits? And there have to be limits, because health care is not an infinite resource. The biggest question is who determines need? The patient, the doctor, or the administrators of universal care? Are people allowed emergency room visits for common cold symptoms?

Until you define what universal care entails, then I cannot tell you what it will "cost" you in compromise legislation to support it.
 
flaja said:
If you didn’t have a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority in Congress, is there anything you as a liberal would be willing to let conservatives have in order to get something that liberals want? Are you willing to compromise in order to achieve any of your goals?

If you didn’t have a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority in Congress, is there anything you as a conservative would be willing to let liberals have in order to get something that conservatives want? Are you willing to compromise in order to achieve any of your goals?

I won’t ask this question of libertarians and they need not answer since libertarians comprise such a small portion of the American population and they are generally too belligerent for others to want to associate with them so compromise on their part is pretty much impossible.
Click to expand...

My recommendation to the GOP is not to compromise whatsoever. Let the liberals have all they want, bankrupt the country, and when the voters figure out what happened the Democrat Party will be out of power for a long time and conservatives can repair the damage.
 
flaja said:
If you didn’t have a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority in Congress, is there anything you as a liberal would be willing to let conservatives have in order to get something that liberals want? Are you willing to compromise in order to achieve any of your goals?

If you didn’t have a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority in Congress, is there anything you as a conservative would be willing to let liberals have in order to get something that conservatives want? Are you willing to compromise in order to achieve any of your goals?

I won’t ask this question of libertarians and they need not answer since libertarians comprise such a small portion of the American population and they are generally too belligerent for others to want to associate with them so compromise on their part is pretty much impossible.
Click to expand...
I think the real barrier to compromise in the conflict between political philosophies in today's political environment is both sides are way too focused on HOW they want to accomplish a specific goal, instead of focusing on WHAT they want to accomplish.

The controversy of health care is a prime example. Liberals are (in general) absolutely set on some version of universal care. Conservatives are (in general) absolutely focused on free market. Liberals decry free market is not working - which is not entirely true considering that we do not have a genuine free market - especially in health care. Conservatives point out the difficulties other countries which have gone to universal care are having.

NEITHER side of the issue are using an unbiased view when looking at the GOAL of providing decent health care across the board of socio-economic strata. Both have their pre-conclusions about what is best, and refuse to acknowledge the problems with their solution. So we end up with battle lines drawn between two "solutions", both of which have innumerable problems, and are therefore not very good solutions to attaining the actual desired goal. And, of course, that generates the atmosphere of "no compromise" where both sides "want" a solution that is not a solution at all while complaining how the other side will not compromise (which in their vernacular means give them what they want.)

The same can be said about national security, welfare, crime, recreational drugs, education, energy, economics in general, etc. etc. etc. Both sides are so intensely focused on their "solution" they have no time or effort left available to work out any REAL solutions. It could be that one or the other proposed solutions in a particular issue is the best one available, but I doubt that highly. I believe that no issue has been thoroughly, intensely examined to determine exactly what the problem is, let alone what the CAUSE of the problem is, let alone the best way to actually address the cause of the real problem.

We have politicians who come up with "ideas". But their "ideas" are, in actuality, designed to sound pleasing their constituency rather than aimed at solving the problem. The ideas SOUND good on the surface, but do they REALLY address the problem (specifically the actual cause of a problem)? In most cases (99%+) no, they do not. So we end up in a political battle between two nice-sounding but non-working "solutions" to the problems that face us, and because no one is willing to back off their "solution" (and I use the term loosely) no one is therefore willing to compromise.

And the sad part is, I (nor anyone else I know) haven't a foggy clue how to address this problem. In fact, damned few are even willing to compromise so far as to admit it IS a problem.
 
Last edited:
If you didn’t have a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority in Congress, is there anything you as a liberal would be willing to let conservatives have in order to get something that liberals want?
Click to expand...


I’d let them privatize police, fire services, and roads, and legislate sexual morality.

But, only in red states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top