View Poll Results: Is it good or bad to work with Obama?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's good. Although I don't like him, the country needs solutions.

    4 44.44%
  • It's bad. Never give an inch.

    5 55.56%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

  1. #11
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    You mean he has the stated agenda of doing unconstitutional acts. He doesn't have the authority to use executive agencies to get around congress.
    If he can get the courts to agree then whether or not he has the right by philosophy, he has that right

  2. #12
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Assuming you dislike Obama and his policies, do you think it's good or bad to work with him so that a middleground solution is reached?
    That depends on where each person's perspective of where middle ground is. I believe the most effective thing congress could do in order to achieve legislative progress would be to simplify bills. One item at a time, all these "comprehensive" bills filled with gimmicks and handouts is the what creates the mess.

    I didn't vote because it's a false choice. Middle ground is by definition a more conservative bill, because our country has tipped past the middle and we are firmly living in and with a left leaning bureaucracy.
    "It is only when men contemplate the greatness of God that they can come to realize their own inadequacy." Jean Calvin

  3. #13
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,677

    Re: Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Can't really be answered on it's own without context.

    What is the issue in question? What is the "middle ground" solution? Etc.

    Compromise is great in theory, and in practice at times, but people make it out to be an end all without really giving it much thought.

    There are some instances where compromise simply means continually losing, but just slower.

    For instance, take the Minimum Wage and some generalized views of both sides. The Republicans don't want it to increase, or perhaps even decrease. The Democrats want it to increase by $1.00. They "comrpomise" and it increases "only" $.50.

    They "compromised", but the Republicans didn't get anything they wanted at all. All they got was LESS of an inrease than the Democrats wanted. The number still increased. Furthermore, it sets the baseline for the NEXT debate and "compromise" even higher. So 3 years later the Democrats come back and go "We want to raise the minimum wage, and you need to compromise" and again it goes their way.

    This is an example of a poor "compromise". One side gets nothing tangable, they just make the other side get LESS of what they want. This is only worthwhile "compromise" in a situation where the other side is DEFNITELY going to get what they want if you don't go along with it, so you may as well sign on in order to make it less of an impact.

    Another instance where comrpomise is not likely is if it's tied to something you're inherently against.

    For examples, if the Republicans were trying to pass a law that somehow banned planned parenthood and other things like it from operating I would not expect Democrats to get on board regardless of what "compromises" the Republicans added...because the primary action of the bill violates a deeply held principle (abortion being safe and legally accessible to the public).

    Another instance where compromise for a "middle ground" solution is when, in reality, no middle ground is actually given.

    If a "compromise" is such where in reality one side is getting 70 or 80 percent of what they want and the other side is left with scraps, there's little incentive TO compromise. This is doubly true if the things the other side is getting basically invalidates what you want. Other times the "compromise" offers are actually fraudulent themselves; less an example of what your side wants and more an example of what the othe side thinks they can spin as what you want.

    The ACA is an excellent example of this and a highlight of dishonesty by many of those on the left who continually erroniously claim that it's simply the same thing the Heritage Foundation supported in 93. While there are some simliarities, there are a multitude of significant differences as well. The Heritage plan, as well, was widely rejected by Republicans over 20 years ago, so attempting to portray it as a "republican" idea that should just be grabbed onto today is ludicrous. But that didn't change that hyper partisans continually tried to present this as "compromise".

    Another great example of this is with the instances where it's "We get something immedietely, you get something over 10 years" type of thing. These are problematic because things YET TO PASS can easily be removed or ignored by future administrations or congresses while things actively occuring are harder to do away with for a myriad of problems. So for instance, a tax hike today in exchange for budget cuts 5 years from now is an amazingly poor "compromise". This is evidence in the 80's with the "compromise" plan that legalized illegal aliens within the country in exchange for stronger support for border security...that never significantly came to fruition.

    ------------

    I absolutely do think compromise CAN happen, and it's okay if it happens. But for it to happen there needs to be a level of trust (which, given the "politics as usual" approach by Obama for executive action that's questionable), a belief of a relatively even (in terms of quantity AND impact) distirbution of "win" situations within the compromise, and it needs to be on something where there's a shared goal by both sides but the destination is simply not there.
    Yep, as they say in AA - half measures avail us nothing.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #14
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,495

    Re: Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

    Like it or not "working with" the other side is the way things get done in this country. It's always been that way. Unless you want 3 more years of nothing getting done - why frankly may not be a bad thing - accomodations have to be made by both sides.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by tacomancer View Post
    If he can get the courts to agree then whether or not he has the right by philosophy, he has that right
    Sorry, but he really doesn't have the authority to so. Executive agencies aren't really even constitutional and the executive order was only put in the Constitution to carry out existing law. It wasn't meant to create new law or to allow the president to change existing law.

  6. #16
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Can't really be answered on it's own without context.

    What is the issue in question? What is the "middle ground" solution? Etc.

    Compromise is great in theory, and in practice at times, but people make it out to be an end all without really giving it much thought.

    There are some instances where compromise simply means continually losing, but just slower.

    For instance, take the Minimum Wage and some generalized views of both sides. The Republicans don't want it to increase, or perhaps even decrease. The Democrats want it to increase by $1.00. They "comrpomise" and it increases "only" $.50.

    They "compromised", but the Republicans didn't get anything they wanted at all. All they got was LESS of an inrease than the Democrats wanted. The number still increased. Furthermore, it sets the baseline for the NEXT debate and "compromise" even higher. So 3 years later the Democrats come back and go "We want to raise the minimum wage, and you need to compromise" and again it goes their way.

    This is an example of a poor "compromise". One side gets nothing tangable, they just make the other side get LESS of what they want. This is only worthwhile "compromise" in a situation where the other side is DEFNITELY going to get what they want if you don't go along with it, so you may as well sign on in order to make it less of an impact.

    Another instance where comrpomise is not likely is if it's tied to something you're inherently against.

    For examples, if the Republicans were trying to pass a law that somehow banned planned parenthood and other things like it from operating I would not expect Democrats to get on board regardless of what "compromises" the Republicans added...because the primary action of the bill violates a deeply held principle (abortion being safe and legally accessible to the public).

    Another instance where compromise for a "middle ground" solution is when, in reality, no middle ground is actually given.

    If a "compromise" is such where in reality one side is getting 70 or 80 percent of what they want and the other side is left with scraps, there's little incentive TO compromise. This is doubly true if the things the other side is getting basically invalidates what you want. Other times the "compromise" offers are actually fraudulent themselves; less an example of what your side wants and more an example of what the othe side thinks they can spin as what you want.

    The ACA is an excellent example of this and a highlight of dishonesty by many of those on the left who continually erroniously claim that it's simply the same thing the Heritage Foundation supported in 93. While there are some simliarities, there are a multitude of significant differences as well. The Heritage plan, as well, was widely rejected by Republicans over 20 years ago, so attempting to portray it as a "republican" idea that should just be grabbed onto today is ludicrous. But that didn't change that hyper partisans continually tried to present this as "compromise".

    Another great example of this is with the instances where it's "We get something immedietely, you get something over 10 years" type of thing. These are problematic because things YET TO PASS can easily be removed or ignored by future administrations or congresses while things actively occuring are harder to do away with for a myriad of problems. So for instance, a tax hike today in exchange for budget cuts 5 years from now is an amazingly poor "compromise". This is evidence in the 80's with the "compromise" plan that legalized illegal aliens within the country in exchange for stronger support for border security...that never significantly came to fruition.

    ------------

    I absolutely do think compromise CAN happen, and it's okay if it happens. But for it to happen there needs to be a level of trust (which, given the "politics as usual" approach by Obama for executive action that's questionable), a belief of a relatively even (in terms of quantity AND impact) distirbution of "win" situations within the compromise, and it needs to be on something where there's a shared goal by both sides but the destination is simply not there.
    /like X10 Dang...this was so well thought out and stated that this should end the thread. I know it won't. But it should.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  7. #17
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    Like it or not "working with" the other side is the way things get done in this country. It's always been that way. Unless you want 3 more years of nothing getting done - why frankly may not be a bad thing - accomodations have to be made by both sides.
    "Working with" and "compromising" are not the same things.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #18
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Sorry, but he really doesn't have the authority to so. Executive agencies aren't really even constitutional and the executive order was only put in the Constitution to carry out existing law. It wasn't meant to create new law or to allow the president to change existing law.
    Im not so concerned with your opinion on this one. You cite problems that have already been upheld in court, such as the authority f agencies to create regulation.

    Again, judges have in the past upheld any number of executive orders, so in the scope f this discussion, unless you are in a position to influence this in DC then your personal is taste has no barings on the choice congress faces

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by tacomancer View Post
    Im not so concerned with your opinion on this one. You cite problems that have already been upheld in court, such as the authority f agencies to create regulation.

    Again, judges have in the past upheld any number of executive orders, so in the scope f this discussion, unless you are in a position to influence this in DC then your personal is taste has no barings on the choice congress faces
    I'm not interested in talking about self interested justices upholding government power. I'm only interested in power actually granted by the constitution, and as it stands you and the justices are wrong.

    If you actually think it makes sense for the Constitution to say flat out that congress is the only branch of government with the power to create law and at the same time say the president can create law, I have nothing else to say to you.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by tacomancer View Post
    Im not so concerned with your opinion on this one. You cite problems that have already been upheld in court, such as the authority f agencies to create regulation.

    Again, judges have in the past upheld any number of executive orders, so in the scope f this discussion, unless you are in a position to influence this in DC then your personal is taste has no barings on the choice congress faces
    Oh and just so you know, congress can't actually give up any of it's powers to the president. It's not really legal for them to pass a law that creates an executive agency for example.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •