The Annoyed Man wrote: CB, I get that, but here's the problem. The other side almost never compromises its principles to the same extent that conservatives end up doing. Only conservatives or libertarians are expected to compromise. This is not just true in the present, it has been that way for decades.....pretty much since the FDR administration. If both sides are 12" apart with the left at the 0" end and the right at the 12" end, and they meet at the 6" mark, THAT is compromise. But when the left consistently meets the right at the 9" mark, those are bad compromises for the right. So in the end when conservatives/libertarians have had enough and refuse to bargain away any more of their principles, they are called obstructionist for standing up for them. Nobody in the mainstream media called Obama an obstructionist for flatly stating that he will not negotiate with republicans in congress. It's the same kind of logic as labeling a reduction in the rate of increase for spending on a line item as a "deep cut." NOTHING got cut, it just didn't go up as much. It almost NEVER actually gets CUT......unless it is military spending..... and this is just one of the lies the left perpetrates on us.
I suggest compromise not speaking just to the conservatives of this forum, but I suggest it as the only viable option on both sides of the isle. And I am sorry, but I don't buy one side (either one) telling me that compromise isn't happening because the other side won't play ball. If you can factually show that to me - that Conservatives are the ones that are offering up compromise measures and never the other way around, then the solution becomes a lot more clear to me. And if that's the case, I really need to get educated on it. And of course, we really never know what bargains are being discussed behind closed doors.
I completely agree with you on spending. The government gets an F. I was actually happy with some parts of sequestration, as it illustrated that the sky didn't fall.
And look, sometimes the 6" mark that you mention results in something that is worse than either the 0" or 12". Those deals shouldn't be done.
But sometimes we end up at 5", 6", or 7" and both sides are not happy. The far left and far right start throwing their own party under the bus, but those compromises, which often bend fundamentals such as immigration reform, gun control, etc might just be better than doing nothing at all. Any time I hear that the tea party is throwing a fit and liberal Democrats are throwing a fit about a compromise, I usually listen - because it's probably something centric and perhaps a true compromise. I didn't say it's automatically a great solution, but at least it's progress rather than stalemate and often better than the status quo.
I can talk about the ACA all day. It's off topic here, so my only comment is that I saw an interesting commentary from an Australian the other day.. What he said was:
"With all these stories that I read about people dying because they can't afford the healthcare that they need, why are so many Americans against reforming healthcare?"
Of course, it's not that simple, but it's an interesting observation. Ignoring the ADA - we were headed to a Very Bad Place. I'm not sure if the ADA gets us there faster or helps us avoid it, to be honest.
I hear you that you've already compromised all that you can and you've got nothing more worth bargaining with that isn't a fundamental. I get it. And certainly I see that on both sides of the isle, especially the farther you get away from center. I'd just point out that if everyone took that stance, we're done.. We've got nothing more to discuss, because no one gets or gives anything going forward.
The President was pretty assertive last night. He strikes me as being fed up. He's obviously ready to ram his agenda down congress - or ram his agenda through where his powers allow. Take heart in knowing that whatever "reforms" he rams through on executive power will quickly be undone as soon as we have a new president, so I think any extreme changes will be pretty limited in how long they live. It definitely wasn't a tone of compromise. I also take it as someone who is fed up with inaction in Congress - left in his position: Get more nothing done or start using executive powers, what do you do? I'm not worried about a dictatorship. He doesn't have a line item veto and I'd point to other administrations in terms of overstepping constitutionally defined bounds much more than this one. Show me that he's exercising power that the executive doesn't have and you'll get me worried.
Obama isn't very popular, certainly even less popular in this state and on this forum... However, he's still a rock star compared to Congress on approval ratings. (Don't take that as support of his agenda, please)
Pass or not, standing on principle and righteousness is it's own reward.