Comments about ‘Reader's forum: Founding compromise’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Aug. 18 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hellooo
Salt Lake City, UT

Mr Baldridge not much compromise in your letter, either compromise your way or you quit the party. Thanks for the example of moderation.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

It's strange that Democrats talk about compromise when they used the words, "Dead on arrival". No discussion. No vote. No compromise.

They cost us our excellent credit rating, but somehow it is the Republicans fault because the Republicans would not "compromise" and give in 100%.

That's not compromise. That's surrender.

No, the Democrats "own" our costly credit reduction. They will own every ill effect that comes from it. They will own every job lost. They will own every bankruptcy when jobs are cut because the private sector is paying higher interest rates rather than buying new products.

They've earned our contempt. They worked for it. They campaigned for it. They got it.

Rand
FLAGSTAFF, AZ

Ken, great letter. But it doesn't matter how much we explain that bipartisan solutions are needed, there is always a contingent of folks who want absolutely nothing to do with compromise. People so absorbed in their own world view that they absolutely cannot accept the possibility that the world is a more complicated place and that they have to share it with others.

Which is odd, because most of these people went hysterical over another person who refused to compromise his principles and acted rashly over it--Tim DeChristopher.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

Careful Ken, someone might mistake you for reasonable.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Isn't it amazing how history is ignored, rewritten and spun for political purposes? It's amazing we are even having this conversation. The opponents of moderation and compromise really want only their way as they try to plant seeds of totalitarianism.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Seriously Mike, Boehner couldn't sell a three to one proposal he approved, that was the compromise from the dead on arrival, cut, cap, an balance passed previously.

Brett
Marietta, GA

I'm confused on why Democrats have become so focused on the importance of compromise recently. They sure weren't interested in compromise from 2009-2010. The did not compromise at all with the Republicans on the stimulus, on Obamacare.

Why wasn't compromise important then?

When planning the stimulus, the Republicans wanted to include somethings and Obama responded with, "I won," and the Republicans did not get what they wanted.

Why all the outrage when the Republicans say, "We won (in Nov. 2010)"?

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Before President Obama took office, we had a $10 TRILLION deficit. He added $4 trillion in TWO years! His income tax revenues were over $2.1 trillion, but he thought that he could spend $4 trillion per year.

When the credit limit was reached, what did he want? More credit! He already proved that he had no idea how to manage money, but he wanted more money to spend.

What was his plan to pay it back? He wants to tax some "rich guy". The CBO told that his "rich guys" could cough up $60 billion a year. At $60 billion a year, it will take 66 YEARS to pay back the $4 trillion that he has overspent.

He can't do the math. None of the Democrats can do the math. They stomp their feet and blame the Republicans when the Republicans tell them to stop spending, to cut back and to balance the budget.

Compromise? The Democrats think that compromise means to keep doing exactly what caused the problem. They have not compromised since 2006. They think that by using that word they can fool us. Fool me once, maybe, but never again.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Hellooo | 1:06 a.m. Aug. 18, 2011
Salt Lake City, UT
Mr Baldridge not much compromise in your letter, either compromise your way or you quit the party. Thanks for the example of moderation.

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

Totally illogical answer, Hellooo. How do you compromise on compromising?

___________________________

Brett | 7:46 a.m. Aug. 18, 2011
Marietta, GA
I'm confused on why Democrats have become so focused on the importance of compromise recently. They sure weren't interested in compromise from 2009-2010. The did not compromise at all with the Republicans on the stimulus, on Obamacare.

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

Oh, but they did! First, the stimulus would have been MUCH bigger if the demos had their way and second, we would have a national single-payer option if the demos had their way with healthcare. Just because they passed does not mean that they were not put through a compromise proceedure.

KM
Cedar Hills, UT

Like most terms that used to mean one thing and now mean something altogether different. Compromise now means giving our country over to the big spending marxists and thinking this will turn out good for our children. The tea party is right; we have overspent and now we have some hard choices to make. S&P downgraded the U.S. because it, c'mon children, SPENT too much!

Brett
Marietta, GA

Lane

I am sorry Lane, but that was NO compromise. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid DID NOT propose a lower stimulus than THEY WANTED or go Single-Payer because of the GOP.

They had the House, the Senate, and the White House, they could have passed all that if they wanted to.

It is true that liberals wanted more stimulus and single payer, but Obama, Pelosi, and Reid DID NOT EVER propose it.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Apparently, to modern liberals, moderation in the defense of freedom IS a virtue.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

brett,

I think the Demo are smarter than the Repubs when it comes to initializing a bill. They know before hand when it is "dead on arrival." They compromise and tweak it to make it more palatible, obviously not to everyone, though.

Repubs want to make statements, not pass bills. What kind of a congress just makes statements and does not find solutions?

isrred
Logan, UT

"They sure weren't interested in compromise from 2009-2010. The did not compromise at all with the Republicans on the stimulus, on Obamacare. "

They didn't? Even though the Republican demands of tax cuts made up 40% of the stimulus? Even though the Democrats not only did not go after a single payer health care system, but they also compromised and dropped the public option as well?

Revisionist history at its finest.

Brett
Marietta, GA

Lane you can just make stuff up if you want so it fits what you want to believe, but the Dems had the House, a super-majority Senate, and the White House, there was NO such thing as Dead on Arrival. They could have passed ANYTHING they wanted. They did not compromise. They passed what they wanted. The Nov. 2010 vote showed that that was not what WE wanted.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

Mike Richards. Could you explain how it is "compromise" when the Republicans refuse to raise new revenue (taxes)?

To get control of our debt we need to (A) cut spending and (B) raise revenue.

Democrats were willing to compromise on A.
Republicans are not willing to compromise on B.

You sure do beat that "dead on arrival" drum, even though you know full well that "dead on arrival" meant the Democrats would not vote on the Tea Party's contribution of (C) a balanced budget amendment. Why?

Look at the formula above again. (C) is not in the equation. A balanced budget amendment is not required to solve our debt issue.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

No compromise tea party is just starting too create havoc.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Brett: "a super-majority Senate."

Never had this. They were always under 60 senators.

Brett
Marietta, GA

Moderate:
"A balanced budget amendment is not required to solve our debt issue."

That is the flaw in your analysis, C is required to solve the debt crisis.

Future Congresses are not bound to legislation of former Congresses. This Congress could cut $15 trillion and the next Congress could add $20 trillion.

The only PERMANENT solution is to set limits on what Congress is able to do in the future. And S&P said, had they done this, they wouldn't have down-graded our rating. Why? Because it was a permanent solution that would offer credibility to long-term sound fiscal policy.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

@KM, As a progressive person, I'm tired of your intellectual dishonesty in calling me a Marxist. FYI Marxism is state ownership of all enterprises and property. We progressives are NOT for this. We are for a market system with adequate counterweighing controls to make up for its obvious imbalances. So your calling me a Marxist is the equivalent of my calling you a Nazi. How does that grab you? Would you consider that intellectually dishonest?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments