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?
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?
The poll question is too general. There is no middle ground on granting amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens, denying tax exempt status based on political ideology or pretending that increasing student loan subsidies makes college more affordable.
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?
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?
Not sure about the other ones, but when did Obama push for denying tax exempt status based on political ideology? I must have been sleeping.
I guess my question assumes that both parties identify a problem and that a solution is required (e.g. healthcare reform, immigration).
The one thing I would ask about is the unintended consequences of not working with him. Obama has a stated agenda is going to try to achieve that with what tools he has available. So it becomes a question of whether or not you would want to hold your nose but has some positive control or influence over the outcome.
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.
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?
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.
If he can get the courts to agree then whether or not he has the right by philosophy, he has that right
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 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.
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
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
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?
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?
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.
Again, this has happened and has been held up in courts, so here we are, what solutions do you propose that can be realistically be implemented outside of an armed revolution? This is the scope of my discussion.