• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

Is it good or bad to work with Obama?


  • Total voters
    9

Amadeus

Chews the Cud
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
3,216
Location
Benghazi
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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?


That depends on the issue.If it is something I support then a compromise is good.If it is something I oppose then a compromise is bad.
 
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?

Depends on the issue. For instance, there is no middle ground when it comes to Rights.
 
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.

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).
 
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.
 
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?

So far, Obama has shown no propensity to work towards middle ground. *shrug*
 
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).

When he stated that it was not occurring, saying it was a "phony scandal". Do you really feel that healthcare has been satisfactorily reformed? Immigration "reform" in no way requires amnesty - the concept that one applies for immigration before deciding to enter/remain in the US does not need to be changed.
 
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.
 
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 actually have the authority to use executive agencies to get around congress.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

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.
 
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.
 
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?

It is said politics is the art of the possible. What we have to today is both side taking the “My way or the highway approach.” The all of nothing or nothing approach. You see this in the senate where Republican filibuster some 150 times to stop anything Democratic, where Senator Reid has tabled some 200 House passed bills to stop anything Republican. No debates or votes on anything Republican.

For compromise to work both sides must be willing. Both sides have to be willing to give and take. The president must be willing to say I will give you that because it is important to you if you give me this because it is important to me. Both sides also must be willing to accept a half of loaf if they can’t get a full one. This willingness to take a couple of steps back on an issue so latter on you can take three or four steps forward is totally lacking.

I consider the best president’s in my lifetime to be Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan and Clinton. IKE worked very closely with LBJ, then senate majority leader and had him over to the White House three times a week to discuss how IKE could get what he wanted through congress. Of course this also included what LBJ wanted. JFK worked very closely with Everit Dirksen, then senate minority leader to do the same. Then there is the legend of Reagan and Tip O’Neal, then Democratic Speaker of the House coming together so each could get some of what they wanted. Even Clinton worked across the aisle with Gingrich, Hastert and Lott. But the bottom line is each president has to be the first to approach those across the aisle and to show he is willing to work with them. This four president's reached out to those across the aisle and had serious discussions with them and in the end worked out compromises where each got some and gave some. President Obama has never reached out, he has no one on the opposite of the aisle he can go to when things gets tough. Tradition and History have shown it is the president who must first show a willingness to work with the other side, who must reach out first. This president hasn’t done that preferring to make those fellow Americans across the aisle his own worst enemy.

So I assume the “My way or the highway,” the all or nothing approach will continue for the next 2 and one half years. Neither side budging an inch.
 
Last edited:
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?

Absolutely. The trouble is that the President so far hasn't offered anything close to what one would call a middle ground and has rejected all such proposals from the other side. If it's not 100% his way he's not interested.
 
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.
 
Given the simplistic and incomplete nature of the poll, I chose it was bad.
 
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.

An amendment really wouldn't work with a government that actively ignores their own laws, so I guess nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom