Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

awallejr (80.10)

Compromise is the Name of the Game

Recs

3

November 15, 2012 – Comments (20) | RELATED TICKERS: CO , M , P

This is what has been bothering me,  the fact that the art of compromise is being shunted aside.  The two party system works when both sides engage in compromise.  It is a recognition that both sides have legitimate points but to remain stubborn on those points will crash the system.  Hence compromise.

Many Republicans have discarded this concept.  Compromise is a dirty word to them.  This is the position of Grover Norquist who has strong armed many Republicans to follow this mantra.  This is also the very thing Boehner said on Kudlow, that he won't compromise.

I am a "centrist."  I believe the extreme right is nuts and the extreme left is nuts.  I do, however, acknowledge that there is some validity in the points both extremes make.  Hence I would compromise to a certain extent embracing to a degree those extremes.

Without compromise, the system freezes.  Mr. Boehner and the Norquist Republicans, before you throw this Country into another recession, stop with the "common ground" baloney and get back to compromising, a concept which this nation was founded upon.

20 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 15, 2012 at 12:19 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

Ok I don't know what is the story with MF's deal with ticker symbols.  I know I set it up as CO,M, P but it winds up printing M, CO, P.  They are so taking the fun out of trying to be clever with the ticker spellings.

Report this comment
#2) On November 15, 2012 at 1:03 AM, WhichStocksWork (99.88) wrote:

History has shown us that awful things can happen when both sides of our two party system start agreeing with each other. Bipartisanship isn't automatically a good thing. While compromising in itself is neither good or bad, be careful when you start asking the political-extremes of our nation to look for common ground. When political-extremists find common ground, look the hell out.

Report this comment
#3) On November 15, 2012 at 1:35 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

Stop equating "common ground" with "compromising."  Those are two different things. "Compromising" and "agreeing" are also two different things. When you talk like that you are so missing the point.

Report this comment
#4) On November 15, 2012 at 6:24 AM, WhichStocksWork (99.88) wrote:

Yep, I'm completely missing the point by using these near synonyms interchangeably. And that point would be... that Grover Norquist is bad? Lol. :p

If you think both sides of the extremes are "nuts" (your word), why exactly would you want to incorporate anything into a compromise from people you think are"nuts". That sounds... well, nuts.

Report this comment
#5) On November 15, 2012 at 11:13 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Compromise always moves us toward greater statism, which is probably why you like it.

As Tom Woods once said, "In America, you have the choice between the stupid party and the evil party.  And once in a while they get together and do something stupid and evil.  They call that bi-partisanship."

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#6) On November 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM, mdk0611 (57.66) wrote:

Until I hear something more specific on spending cuts and entitlement reforms from the Democrats I'd say they've abandonded the concept as much or more completely than Boehner. 

Report this comment
#7) On November 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM, edwjm (99.83) wrote:

Three Cheers to CAPS for shuffling the symbols!  Using symbol for reasons other than their intended purpose degrades their usefulness to those who look for them to serve their original purpose!

Report this comment
#8) On November 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

Seriously Ed?  You are talking about a system that allows people to short 200 3xETFs and illiquid pink sheet stocks.

And Which, I point at PETA which I think are extremist nuts but there is some legitimacy to their viewpoints.

mdk what is the point when the other side keeps saying no to any tax increase on the wealthy? 

And finally David, compromise is how millions of people with millions of viewpoints can actually work together.

As I always say if both sides are unhappy with a deal it is probably a fair one.

Report this comment
#9) On November 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM, JaysRage (94.10) wrote:

In other words, you would like the Republicans to do what King Obama asks, instead of what King Norquist asks.  

Report this comment
#10) On November 15, 2012 at 1:29 PM, JaysRage (94.10) wrote:

Which one is stupid and which one is evil?  I can't tell the difference.  

Report this comment
#11) On November 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM, mdk0611 (57.66) wrote:

Awallejir - Boehner did NOT rule out any tax increase.  You seem to be confusing tax increases and RATE increases.   He specifically said in his press conference after the election that he was open to revenue increases.  In essence, he was being as vague as the Democrats are with respect to spending cuts and entitlement reforms. 

Report this comment
#12) On November 15, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Melaschasm (88.99) wrote:

The "fiscal cliff" was a compromise between Democrats and Republicans.  If you like compromise so much, why do you want to undo their prior compromise?

The moderate Republican leadership will give Obama most of what he wants regarding the "fiscal cliff".  We will see tax rate increases for the rich, and most of the spending rate reduction that were included in the compromise will be reversed, with the possible exception of defense spending slowdowns.  

If Obama learned anything from his decision to spurn moderate republicans on his health care reform, he is already reaching out to moderate republicans in Congress.  This will be a slam dunk victory for Obama unless he goes out of his way to annoy moderate republicans, such as making radical changes to the filibuster rules in the Senate.

Report this comment
#13) On November 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, miteycasey (95.17) wrote:

We'd be best to go over the cliff.

Niether side has the heart to make the tough decisions that need to be made. They are too concerned about being re-elected.

Report this comment
#14) On November 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

No Jay.  I would like the Republicans to work with the President of the United States who was duly elected into office, not for some punk lobbyist who somehow got his claws into many Republicans.

And mdk yes you are right I am talking rate increases. The Democrats have said many times they are willing to discuss cuts but not if the Republicans keep refusing to make any kind of rate increase on the wealthy.

And Mela you are wrong.  The automatic spending cuts are a small piece of the pie.  The biggest chunk has to do with the cost to the Average Joe if the Republicans let their current rates expire. That part had nothing to do with the tax and spending cut compromise.

That's the biggest hit because you would be pulling almost $396 Billion out of the Average Joe's hands which odds are would have been spent into the economy.

See:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/the-fiscal-cliff-solving-the/774543

There really isn't any excuse to hold up 98% of the people which I suspect everyone replying here is a part of.  Both parties agree with the bill pending before the House.  Both parties do not agree with the one pending in the Senate.  So pass the one both agree with to remove market stress and then work out something more comprehensive without keeping guns to people's heads.

Report this comment
#15) On November 15, 2012 at 9:47 PM, rd80 (99.11) wrote:

Rate increases do little to correct the issue of very high income people paying a low percentage of taxes.  High income folks whose income is regular income pay a ton of taxes. 

If Obama really wanted a fairer tax system, he'd be looking for fundamental ways to treat income as income regardless of its source. He doesn't and he isn't.

If Republicans had any brains, they'd look at the election results, get a little pragmatic and offer up some changes to how dividend income, muni bond interest, carried interest and cap gains are treated in exchange for deeper spending cuts from the President.  As a political bonus, they might have a chance at looking like they're leading and putting the President on defense if he didn't go along.

As it is, both sides are saying they want to deal while standing fast and looking for ways to pin blame on the other side.  The President seems to be doing a better job at that.  In both cases, the definition of compromise is 'you give me what I want.'

Report this comment
#16) On November 16, 2012 at 12:35 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

Oh I agree that it goes beyond just rates Russ. But I disagree that it is about pinning blame.  The only blame would be regarding extending the Bush tax rates for 98% of the people.  That should just be passed and stop with the "extortion."  The rest can be negotiated.

I am telling you now, if the Republicans want to play "chicken" with that they can kiss their House majority goodbye.

Report this comment
#17) On November 16, 2012 at 1:16 PM, edwjm (99.83) wrote:

Actually, I think I would be willing to let the highest marginal tax rate stay at 35% if (and only if) they would be willing to give up the deductions for charitable gifts and mortgage interest, and tax both dividends and capital gains the same as all other income.  Fat chance of that happening!

So far, I think the sequester is a better deal than anything the Republicans seem willing to offer.

Report this comment
#18) On November 16, 2012 at 5:00 PM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

Actually I really wouldn't want to see any cap on charitable contributions since that cut could cause a cutback to many charities.

At least after today's meeting there appears to be some hope.  I just wish, out of good faith, at least pass the House bill keeping the tax breaks for the 98%.  That would take a lot of pressure off the market.

Report this comment
#19) On November 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Melaschasm (88.99) wrote:

awallejr, you want the republicans to rubber stamp all of Obama's agenda without even trying to negotiate for some of what they want.  That is not compromise.  

The republicans will give Obama most of what he wants, but they are obligated to their constituents to at least pretend to negotiate for some of the things for which they promised to fight.

Report this comment
#20) On November 20, 2012 at 12:44 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

Mela where in the world have I ever said I want a rubber stamp? What I want is for them to stop extorting the Average Joe and to at least pass the bill extending the Bush tax cuts for 98% of the people which both sides agree to.

Are you in the top 2%?  No? I thought so.  So keep arguing for those people which you never ever will be a part of. The Norquist Republicans tried to force an agenda that MOST poeple don't want.  Keep pushing it and watch the Republicans lose the House as well come next election.  Boehner saw the writing on the wall.

I am tired of being repetitive.  You aren't a stupid person.  I have shown over and over how the term "common ground" is NOT the same thing as "compromise."

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement