General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOn scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being strongly agree and 5 being strongly disagree ...
Please rate the following statements:
I am OK with my opposition getting some of what they want, so long as I get some of what I want.
I am OK with getting none of what I want, so long as my opposition gets none of what they want.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)"You can keep your liver but I'll take your head" question?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Because when you deal with Republicans, that is what you get.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
ismnotwasm
(41,975 posts)There are a few things I won't budge on, so I guess-- argh. This is hard.
Ok. As long as it doesn't involve human rights violations or pseudoscience woo woo crap (and I include reproductive rights as a human right) I'm a one.
So I guess I'm a three
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I think that you need to try and make progress, even if sometimes you need to give something up in return.
With time, the better policies should tend to be kept while the failing policies should tend to be ended. If we assume this to be true then getting what I want (assuming it is the better policy) is a long term change and giving up something I don't want would be a shorter term change.
This give me more of what I want, in the long run, than my opposition.
petronius
(26,602 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)It's a compromise! Something for the poor and something for the rich... Everybody wins?
No thanks.
It's either a great compromise or mass extortion, depending how you look at it.
I'm not ok with the whole way these compromises are framed in politics. We should sweep away that whole compromising mindset and instead simply fight as hard as possible to empower our own class, to advance our own causes.
The outcome should be the result of the balance of forces of the different competing groups.
In other words, no compromise. Always keep fighting. That's what the bad guys do, and that's what we have to do. When we compromise we lose ground.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I disagree; but, that's okay.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Why the hell are you pushing so hard for a compromise with the likes of Cruz and Paul anyway?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and ... the government STILL needs to room, the infrastructure STILL needs repair, the Minimum Wage STILL needs to raised, and all the other stuff on the left's wish list STILL needs to be accomplished.
That's why.
ETA: Movements require movement, even if incremental.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)who are the opposition? What do they want? What am I (or, we) getting out of the deal?
Presuming "the opposition" here to be "the batshit insane Republican Party", then, what if what they want is incompatible with what I want? Lower taxes vs spending on infrastructure and addressing income inequality; LGBT civil rights vs "right to discriminate on religious grounds"; environmental responsibility and addressing the problem of climate change vs "drill baby drill"; reform of the justice system, addressing police brutality, reproductive rights, systemic and structural racism, basically most of the things I can think of that are serious political issues, are cases where "the Republicans getting what they want" is a Bad Thing. On the other hand,making no progress at all on any issue whatever is also a Bad Thing. It depends on what the compromises and tradeoffs are.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)I am OK with my opposition getting some of what they want, so long as I get some of what I want. I rate this a 1.
I am OK with getting none of what I want, so long as my opposition gets none of what they want. I rate this 4.
But of course this is just in principle for me - there are a few non-negotiables that could move these numbers for me, based on my personal philosophy/priorities.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I am okay with compromise in interpersonal settings. However as far as political opposition well I have an I don't deal with terrorists attitude.
as for the second statement it's not okay for both sides to shut down to the point where no one gets taken care of.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)There can be no true negotiation if the only acceptable position is that you get everything you want and the other side gets nothing
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)infect your internet persona.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Compromise means give and take as you allude to. However, it depends on the deal. What you are getting, and what you are losing.
For example, stepping away from Politics for the moment. Let's hypothesize that you are negotiating a labor contract. You want wages and raises and benefits that are good for your workers. Starting at say $15 an hour plus ten percent raises every year, plus cost of living. The Company is willing to give that to you, but wants to cut money from the employee protective equipment fund. So if you took that deal, you would get what you wanted, and so would the employer. However, the employees who are making that good wage, would be exposed to dangerous working conditions with limited protection. In other words they would be risking their lives for that job.
This compromise would not help the workers.
In Politics, let's take a bit of a hot button topic and run with it. The Republicans offer to vote for protections and funding for Family Planning Clinics. They will even fund Abortions, providing that the person who is getting the abortion get a pamphlet about adoption prior to the appointment. In exchange, the Republicans want to be the ones who decide what goes on the pamphlet. Obviously they intend to horrify the woman with the most grotesque pictures possible.
That deal is not one we should accept. Funding for the clinics would be wonderful. However, the pamphlet would likely turn a bad experience into a traumatic experience resulting in serious psychological harm in far too many women. The Republicans would be out there talking about how they wanted to make a deal, but we wouldn't agree to a simple pamphlet in exchange for the funding. We would be using our experience to tell the people that the pamphlet would likely be outrageous, and we were willing to agree providing that the Surgeon General approve the pamphlet.
We would be wise to agree to the idea if the Surgeon General drew up the pamphlet. We would be fools to agree if the pamphlet is drawn up by some lunatic political action type.
The details of the deal are a big part of if the compromise is a good thing. I'd be willing to accept a pamphlet from the Surgeon General about Adoption if the Republicans would fund the clinics. Wouldn't you?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Now run the calculus on ... say ... tax credits for the wealthy and corporations for investing off-shored dollars into domestic infrastructure repair projects.
The benefits: good paying(?) Jobs, a repaired infrastructure and a revved up economy ...
The Cost: The wealthy/corporations get tax breaks (on money that previously went untaxed.
pampango
(24,692 posts)than are conservative republicans. I don't like that either but that does not make it untrue. Perhaps we should be more like conservative republicans with respect to the acceptability of compromise, just from the opposite direction.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/17/section-2-views-of-congress-and-the-parties/
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
RobinA
(9,888 posts)on who is getting what. I could not care less if Bill Gates gets a free government yacht if I can retire with a decent pension and SS payment. I'll even throw in a free goverment airplane if I can get legal marijuana. I will not, however, let them ban abortion in return for free Ivy League educations for all. So it kind of depends...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)See post #22.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)while volunteering at a kitchen ...
On a monthly basis, I and a group of youth my Fraternity mentors, perform some type of community service project ... it might be cleaning the yards/houses of the elderly, or visiting a shelter for abused kids ... on one occasion, the project was helping out at a kitchen for the homeless, and/or hungry.
As is usual (during the holidays), they were other volunteers, most of who are liberal and politically active, if not, aware. And, just as often, the conversation turns to politics.
This time were talking about the "Administration's 'caving' on raising the taxes on the wealthy." Just outside of the circle of liberals, was a homeless guy ... after listening to the discussion for a while, he just shook his head and laughed. I saw him and asked him his thoughts. He said, "{something to the effect of} Mannn, I'm homeless. This is the first good meal I've had in a couple of days (weeks?). I'm eating ... what the F@$% do I care that some rich guy is eating, too?"
Most of our unwillingness to compromise is born in the luxury of not (personally) suffering the resulting effect of NOT compromising.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)With no identification for what "I" and "the other side" want.
I give both a 6,................................ define what "it" is that is wanted.
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Dem's are 1 with statement 1 and the Do nothing republicans are 1 with statement 2.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that are a 1 with statement Two and a 5 on statement One.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Are we talking about ponies, nuclear weapons, etc..
Details matter when it comes to those type of questions.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)Example of my 4 -
I'm not okay with cutting ss benefits to senior citizens or privatizing SS if it means the cap is lifted on my income to include all of my earnings in the SS pool and a line is put into the legislation that allows this that we are going to completely open up offshore drilling in NJ.
I'd rather lift the cap (a get for the far left) and expand/increase benefits to this extremely vulnerable population while not giving a get (drill baby drill) to the far right.
Would I agree with giving corporations who (see what I did there? :roll) make investments in green energy, production and infrastructure development tax breaks for those activities while lifting the cap on my SS contributions salary to give seniors a raise?
You betcha 1 strong!
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... A democratic form of government is supposed to work that way. The second proposition is a stagnant clusterf**k where nothing happens.
I'll qualify it by saying that it also depends on the particular issue at hand - some things really can't be completely compromised - but overall the yin and the yang is the very essence of a free society.
still_one
(92,118 posts)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Which means I want to get my way 64% of the time.
Because most of American culture is shared by both sides, living in WI I get about 60% of what I expect about 60% of the time...or that I get my way about 36% of time. Which leaves me unhappy with my State government.
I can't expect to get what I want when republicans get elected. Which means in order to average out over time, I need dem candidates to support more of my wants more of the time than I expect to end up with.
In WI I don't get that, either.
democrank
(11,092 posts)because I don`t want to get my leg caught in that bear trap.
Compromise can be a good thing or a not-so-good thing, depending on the issue at hand. Also, sometimes a sell-out gets passed off as a compromise. There`s a difference.
I could agree to a cut in spending, but I`d never agree to a cut for Head Start.
I could agree to increasing revenue, but I`d never agree to raising the interest rates on student loans.
I`d never compromise on not supporting the death penalty.
President Obama has been willing to compromise with Republicans ad nauseam. It took him many years to figure out they had no intention of cooperating. You can`t compromise with people like that, especially with umpteen knife blades in your back.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and context is paramount ... But as you can is in this thread, there are a bunch of folks that simply oppose any compromise because the wealthy/corporations/g ... o ... p, might get something, too.
I disagree ... I cannot think of a single compromise of President Obama's, where Democrats/America, actually, lost something.
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Let's say Clinton and Warren are squaring off over the Democratic Party Platform. Then it would be:
First statement - 1, second statement - 4
But let's say Obama and McConnell/Boehner are squaring off over...well, almost anything. Then it would be:
First statement - 4, second statement - 2
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)because, sometimes that one thing they want, however small, may be lethal enough to kill me.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Republicans are vandals and saboteurs. Everything that they want requires surrendering something we currently have.
If all I want is what we have, then I'd answer your second question with "1"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)consider my Investment Tax Credit proposition (posted here ... try and filter out all the noise ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026508721), where the wealthy and corporations are given Tax Credits for investing in infrastructure repair projects.
The way I see it, this would be a ++ proposition ... we (the Left/America) wouldn't be surrendering anything (as the money invested would likely be that money that is currently off shored and therefore not taxed) ... the wealthy/corporations would be able to avoid criminal liability on the off-shoring and we get the good paying(?) jobs, the infrastructure repaired and a revved up economy. No?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... be paid for with tax breaks? 
Business revenue directed into private infrastructure (i.e. factories) is already tax free.
In general, no. I think that public infrastructure should be paid for by the public. That informed public, through their representatives, should decide which projects are worthy as well as how to share the tax burden.
Private infrastructure, such as Toll roads, suck.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Think of it what as, simply put, more like a "charitable fund", where the wealthy/corporations give money to the fund, in exchange for a (tax) credit towards their tax liability. The wealthy/corporation do not/will not control the fund, or the project, just like when you/I give money to the United Way or the UNCF, and write the amount of the donation off our own tax liability, as a charitable gift.
The difference being, the wealthy/corporations have trillions of off-shored dollars at risk.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Who would administer the charitable fund?
We could ask the group of adult citizens within the relevant geographic boundary to select representatives. Those representatives could then decide how to budget those revenues.
But is it fair to ask one business to foot the bill for the bridge that benefits a great many businesses? Is it reasonable to plan these kinds of projects around charity? The projects need to be delayed until the last dollar of charity is received and this fundraising might last many years. If the charitable fund could borrow money to build these projects, they could take advantage of good interest rates and install the bridge now when it is needed. But they can't borrow money unless they had a predictable revenue stream. So, it makes sense to request periodic donations from all the businesses who would benefit, right?
Sounds like a plan! I'm happy to have helped promote your idea!
I even know what we can call it. We'll call the charitable fund "government" and the donations "taxes".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The Federal Government. It would probably require the creation of a new agency that would coordinate, or possibly, subsume the dozens of Federal Agency that oversee the national infrastructure. I know this might seem like unnecessary governmental growth; but, we currently have too many agencies with overlapping and contradictory jurisdiction.
We do it all the time ... the childless citizen's tax dollars goes to pay for the education of all children in the district; and, my insurance premium goes to pay the medical expenses of the woman with a high risk pregnancy, despite the fact I will never have a child. Besides, it wouldn't be "one business" ... the money would go into a fund to benefit the commons.
It's not charity when the donor accrues a benefit.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)There have been many, many whats that I am not okay with.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The question as asked provides inadequate data.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But as you note, the answer turns/should turn on what our opponent wants versus what I would get.
The point of this "exercise" is to point out that not all "compromise" is bad ... particularly, when (as in my Investment Tax Credit proposition, see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026508721) the only real loss to us (the Left) is, having to give the wealthy/corporations tax credits on revenue, currently not being taxed. (and that, is not a loss)
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)But they wouldn't be my opposition if it were possible for us both to get all of what we want.
brush
(53,764 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)It is unacceptable to want even a little of what the Klu Klux Klan, Hitler, or Pol Pot wanted.
Most times, I think a negotiated solutions where both sides get something, is the best solution.
So I can't give you a number on either question.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm sure, as much as I detest the klan, I could find common ground with them on non-racial issues ... and if in doing so, I could advance my interests, I would do so in a heart beat.
For a real life example, I have built a Habitat home ... driving nails, right next to a guy with a "peckerwoods" tattoo (a white supremacist prison gang) across his back and "white power" tattooed on his hands.
We talked about football, work and life, in general, as we built a home for someone less fortunate than ourselves.
Now, did I go have a drink with him or would I invite him to my home ... hell no; but, it was about the soon to be homed family, not ourselves.
Did I care what he thought about me ... not at all.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Their world view informs their every action. I have NP problem with people who hold those points of view. I just do see how they can be a partner
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)I say 2 because I'm pragmatic and I never had "it's my way or the highway" work well for me, personally. So I can imagine in our political landscape, it'll never work.
I say 5 because I'm not a republican. Those guys seem to play that way and revel in it. If some good can come from some compromise, then I'm game.
So what I'm saying is, I guess I'm a "play ball" type of guy. And I don't think it lessens my stance or convictions. I feel just as strongly and with compromise comes a hope of winning over the opposition eventually. Call me an optimist. It's my one flaw. That and a weakness for pizza. Any pizza. You guys got some pizza? Cuz I'll compromise for some pizza.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)to reach an end not the end.
It is 100% relative to the deal, there is no magic formula. No one size fits all right answer.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
DrDan
(20,411 posts)those statements do not take into account priorities one might set on the issues.
For example, I might get "some of what I want", but not the important things.
Simply throwing some bacon to the voters does not excuse positions on other, more important issues.
