Damn right, when the alternative is intransigence and gridlock and nothing gets accomplished! People expect representatives to be diplomatic and cooperate to find prudent solutions that move everyone forward. That means finding workable compromises between inflexible principles.
Putting aside the dispute on whether or not the stimulus worked, I wasn't talking about the financial crisis. I'm talking about the current fiscal crisis. We can't pass a budget, we have enormous deficits and the time is approaching where we will be in trouble and all our government is doing is spending like crazy. It is the only issue I'm considering in this election with Obama's record, I don't think he is serious about reducing the deficit. Increased debt by over a trillion dollars every year. Have you? The buck stops here. There's one guy in charge. His partisanship pushed away the gop. I mean look at the healthcare debate. That's when the party of no started. Not one republican vote because he did not include them. They are far from innocent but so is barack. Is this sarcastic or do you really think it's a good idea? I would think you would be on board with encouraging a third party but I get the feeling that's not what you meant.
People like you want compromise. People like me want good governance and that means sticking to principles.
It takes two parties to make a fiscal impasse. I think The Republicans are obstructionists. They are the fools who led us into the economic crash. I do no want them back. They speak with forked tongues. When in office they spend like democrats. He backed off of "single payer" as a concession to republicans, he backed off of "Universal Health Care" as a concession to Republicans, he made it a system where the insurers were all profit-making private companies instead of non-profit government agencies as a concession to Republicans. And they rewarded that with not a single vote. Because they are obstructionists with the stated agenda of insuring that the Obama government fails . . . even if it brings America down with it. Both. I encourage third parties if they are moderate third parties, but not parties that are to the left of the democrats or to the right of republicans. And I encourage libertarian and other votes because they take away from GOP votes.
Only if it is a single-party authoritarian government, Adolph. Democracies with multiple parties must compromise to make government work. Inflexibility, obstinance, and intransigence are hallmarks of right-wing fascism.
I thought so too until I saw how the democrats spend in the last four years. Are you not concerned about our debt or do you think the dems are the best to handle it? Haven't we argued about this before? He backed off of all those things for the blue dog democrats. Not the republicans. With the initial plan he couldn't even get his own party to vote for the bill. Louisiana doesn't need gop votes. They've got plenty.
Years of poor governance led us to the financial crash. You are right to blame Republicans. You are wrong to not blame Democrats. This is false. He compromised with the more moderate and conservative members of his own party who did not want single payer. At one point not one Republican amendment was allowed through committee. And three separate comprehensive Republican alternatives to the bill passed were killed in committee on strictly party line votes. From the beginning conservatives were told Tort reform was strictly off limits. Obama made no attempt to incorporate true cost saving ideas from the right such as expanded benefits for HDHP with HSAs and tort reform. Lots of evidence is showing that Johnson voters are hurting Obama more than Romney. Johnson could very well spoil Nevada for Obama. http://www.politico.com/politico44/...on-draws-mostly-from-obama-138084.html?hp=l14
Concern, yes. But not panic. And it's certainly not a single-issue campaign for me. I think the dems are best to handle all facets of government right now. This is NOT Ronald Reagan's Republican party. The GOP foreign policy ideas are severely flawed, their economic ideas favor the wealthy and the corporate over the middle class American and their social ideas take us back to the 18th century. They slash income without cutting spending. Like children, they want something for nothing. They denigrate science and promote mythology.
So if you opposed the party that was gassing all Jews, you would compromise and let them gas just a few Jews. You speak as if the policy being compromised on isnt relevant, as if compromise is inherently valuable in democracy.
