Can someone help me on the question of the value of "compromise"?

[CTyankee]

I was listening to the President of the University of Pennsylvania on Morning Joe today about the value of compromise, particularly with the value of Obama to "stop the endless campaign and start to govern." Here's what stymies me:

If we can factually prove that raising the eligibility age for Medicare by 2 years does not lower the deficit and in fact may INCREASE the deficit,

and if the purpose behind such a move is really one to WEAKEN support for a popular program and NOT for its purported reason, with the endgame of destroying a "big government program" in the name of ideology,

and if such a compromise would visit hardship and suffering on vulnerable, poorer people in their 60s when MORE, not fewer, health issues arise and need medical attention,

and doing so further worsens the problem of income disparity and the destruction of the middle class in our country with a result of lower broad based prosperity,

what then is the VALUE of compromise?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

1. I think you meant "raise" the eligibility age....

There is no value to compromise in this particular situation because the stated purpose of "saving medicare" is not the true purpose. Unfortunately, most people don't know that. Democrats would be well served by running ads showing the old Reagan ads against Medicare and the long history of republicans trying to undo the program.

[CTyankee]

4. thanks, made the change...

but really my point is that when you remove the reason FOR the compromise what then is the "value" of compromise? If I want to sell my house for one price and you want to buy it for a lower price and we come to a compromise on the price of the house, both of us eventually get value out of the deal. In this instance, there is NO value to one side...

[Sekhmets Daughter]

5. Yep....that's what I said.

[CTyankee]

6. Yes, you did...I'm not quite awake yet (obviously)...

Last edited Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Perhaps the value is in getting the raise in rates on upper income earners. Is that a pyrrhic victory?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

22. I am reminded of that

obnoxious creature Michelle Malkin who does a "look, squirrels" routine on a fairly regular basis....at least it must be regular as it seems I've seen it whenever I have had the misfortune of seeing her at all.... In any case, I think the GOP launches these regular attacks against SS and Medicare to divert us from the real problem... a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Australia passed a new minimum wage several months ago, $15.51 per hour. So many of our problems would be solved by simply paying workers the wages they deserve.

It is absolutely a pyrrhic victory and it moves the GOP one step closer to their ultimate goal.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Compromise replaces principle in DC. It is a way to do what you know is wrong

while wrapping it up in fuzzy language and claiming the other side HAD to be allowed to kick old people in the ass in order to show them respect.

[LWolf]

3. The value, in this case,

is convincing a gullible public that there is something worthy about compromising to begin with; then the term can be used to gut social programs, with an uneasy public looking on, feeling obligated to support such "compromise."

[rock]

7. Compromise in and of itself is not valuable

It depends on the context. Suppose Hitler wanted to kill six million Jews and you wanted to kill zero Jews, what would a good compromise be?

[CTyankee]

9. Yeah, altho a Hitler comparison is never a good example, but you are right.

The problem here is that it isn't as dire, but is in the folly of compromise on specious grounds that don't even work for the "reason" that has been stated and in fact does the exact opposite.

I guess the issue then is "how do we get the word out to the general public?"

AARP is doing a pretty good job...

[rock]

19. Hitler comparisons always seem to me to be the best for stark contrast

Although I admit there does seem to be a distinct avoidance of it on the interwebs.

[KharmaTrain]

8. So What Do You Put On The Table??

Let's take a couple steps back here and see the whole playing field. We as Democrats can sit on our hands and "go off the cliff" after Jan 1...and most of us won't be upset one bit. The corporate media will go nuts yelling how President Obama raised taxes et all but the overall impact on the economy and our lives will not force the world to come to a halt. However in the year ahead there are things that will cause big problems...raising the debt limit being one...getting any sort of desperately needed stimulus package put together...even comprehensive immigration reform. All of this will require votes in the House...a House dominated by rushpublicans who are dominated by teabaggers who would rather see the economy go down the crappers than to raise taxes one dime on their billionaire benefactors. The hope is that Boner may be able to peal off 25 or so "moderate" (sic) rushpublicans along with all Democrats to avoid seeing the government shut down. That's no sure thing.

So, yes...you have to deal...you have to compromise. No, it doesn't mean giving in to all demands and I don't see this administration doing that. However to get the votes to get things done you're gonna have to make it "worth their while". Their bid is raising the SS eligibility age...so what's the counter? Cuts in some social program? Or do you take your chances..."stick to ones guns" and hope for the best? I don't see this administration doing that...so, again, the question is, what can you negotiate with that will get just enough votes to move things through the House...

[CTyankee]

10. Obama has no choice, IMO, than to expose the republicans arguments as specious.

For one thing he has already made adjustments in Medicare that really save money. And that is provable.

Then, it is back in the republicans court to come out and say OUT LOUD that their REAL objective is to take down "big government programs" because they don't like them. Show the American people that the republicans are doing this on purely ideological grounds and point out that the endgame is the destruction of Medicare, NOT saving Medicare!

[KharmaTrain]

12. Still...

I agree about the adjustments and DO NOT want to see SS put on the table as its not tied to what created this huge defecit. I'd love to eliminate all oil subsidies and to big agra...but that's not even being mentioned and no way rushpublicans will accept it. Ya see, when they talk about "reducing costs" they strictly mean social spending...they'll protect their corporate welfare at all costs.

So...you make a lot of noise about the rushpublicans not playing fair and the government runs out of the ability to borrow money...the market tanks (ruining the savings of not just the 2% but a lot of the other 98% as well) and the government shuts down (people don't get their checks, et al). So then do you think you'll get a better deal or the rushpublicans will be any more willing to "see things my way" than they do right now?

Ideology works in campaigns...we just had one and ours prevailed. Pragmatism works when governing...a whole different issue. So...again...we're back to this chess game created by divided government. What do you put on the table that will get the necessary votes in the House to pass???

[TheKentuckian]

15. I'll give them hell and will use every possible tool, no matter how dubious to go around them.

I am not going to get behind a toxic and counter-productive plan to get them to do their fucking duty.

We should have never got rid of the mob and I mean that, you need people that can get their hands dirty when dealing with the intractable.

Of course I would have already had this out instead of allowing more hostages to be taken without going to such extremes and mostly would fear assassination as their political teeth would have been chipped and shattered on the curb.

I don't believe how anyone doesn't see how this works. You give in and there will be even more hostages next time and more concessions until no one has shit.

Don't pretend they bargain in good faith. You have nothing but a blue print to be stripmined in return for pretty much nothing.

[KharmaTrain]

18. Noble...However...

I personally enjoy giving rushpublicans hell. Watching them melt down is one of my favorite past times. In my ideal world they would just roll over and get out of the way of social and technical progress. Unfortunately that's not the world we, or President Obama, has to deal with. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here as I think it's instructive in how things are going and how they can and will work out down the road.

You are 100% spot on when it comes with dealing in good faith with rushpublicans. They're immune from any public pressure...especially those who live in ruby red districts where there are no political consequences for being obstructionist...if anything, it's a bonus. The only people these corrupt oxygen thieves are responsible to are guys named DeVos or Koch or whomever writes the big checks. That's who they really serve and until that their connections and gravy train become a liability, they'll continue to only answer those calls, not from their constituents and most definitely not from us.

So this brings us back to the matter at hand. The rushpublicans don't want to see the taxes raised on those earning over 250k a year and are willing to hold Medicare and Social Security hostage in the process. If you're willing to go over the cliff to raise their taxes, they're more than willing to let the government go broke in January...shutting the whole thing down. Politically I think it'll be a disaster for them, but that price doesn't get paid for another two years...and there's no sure thing that Democrats will answer the bell in 2014 any better than they did in 2010. Thus you have to negotiate...and if you don't want to put Medicare and SS on the table...then what? Being an "all or nothing" here will get you nothing...

[TheKentuckian]

25. No shut down, Constitutional crisis, if we must.

I'm not willing to give shit, we're bled dry. We'll take it to the Senate and see if they can get the votes for Impeachment.

[nenagh]

13. I dispense medication in Ontario. Our Rx drug costs are regulated..

Our systems are completely different...so what works here does not apply in the USA..

But there must be a method of starting to control run away drug costs in Medicare.

That is a start.

But I still say...spend some time this Christmas asking some of your Republican relatives, friends or neighbors if they will be OK if Medicare eligibility age is raised from 65 to 67 years...

That is a large part of what cutting Entitlement spending means....although Repubs don't want to say it.

If your friends, relatives don't want the eligibility age raised...

They must voice their opinion to their Representatives...

What could go wrong in that approach?

[KharmaTrain]

16. That Is Part Of The Savings Plan...

From what I've read, one of the things the President wants and should eliminate is the Medicare Part B program that is the root cause as to why we pay far more for pharmaceuticals on this side of the border. As one who worked with my late father's medical practice and had to deal with insurance companies and hospitals, there's a lot of "expenses" that can be cut (of course that means less profit...thus will be fought) that could bring down...or at least put the brakes on the escalating costs of health care.

Here's the problem with the "tell your friends and relative" approach...with rushpublicans it doesn't work. Public opinion doesn't matter...only the opinion of those who spew out of their hate radios and off of Faux Noise. They only answer the calls from those who write the big checks...the "little people" (those 47%...more like 90%) can go pound sand.

Fortunately I have few, if any rushpublican relatives...and those that are know better than to bring up politics around me.

Cheers...

[nenagh]

11. See above

[CTyankee]

14. I don't have many repub friends. One that I have is such an ideologue that he would agree

with the destruction of Medicare. He is a very self destructive person in his own personal life, even tho the guy has a Ph.D in Economics. In social situations where a discussion like this would come up, he would just drink more and pretty soon he's yelling stuff like "I have a dick!" and that's when it's time for his wife to gently take him home.

I find it difficult to discuss the real issues with another repub I know because he is so scattered in his thinking. He can't concentrate on a single issue without going into several different directions all at once. And we're aren't speaking to repubs in my husband's family, precisely because of their actions which I would call "typically republican" but unfortunately due to shared property interests must involve us, if only in a frosty way. They are bitter people.

I would probably have more success with my "mushy middle" friends who feel vulnerable in their own lives to peer pressure not to like Obama (unfortunately, some of it racist). One such acquaintance can't really get past Obama being black, but does understand the issue as it relates to her and her family. She has been on food stamps and her kids got SS because their dad was disabled and couldn't work. She "gets" part of it (the part that directly affects her!).

[nenagh]

20. It is so difficult...there is a frightening aspect regarding how brain function must have been..

studied by Right Wing think tanks.. regarding how we process information...that has resulted in the entrainment? of people's minds that are immersed in the Fox entertainment bubble.

I saw it here (I'm just across the St Lawrence River:I can see NY!). When a young, fit man, possibly a Canadian soldier..

stood in a grocery checkout line on Nov 6th. We were all talking about the election...and all for Obama, when he bellowed from the front of the line: "Remember Benghazi.. Obama is..unprintable..". we older ladies were shocked into silence...

Immediately you know he is a Fox viewer, my point is that the propaganda works across the boarder..

and causes people to become enraged.

As someone who dispenses medication here, but was born in the USA...my heart and head are sore with worry for my fellow Americans.

I was trying to think of a method of reaching across the isle, so to speak, to enlighten those who might be reached..that do not realize this Entitlement battle, may actually mean raising the Medicare eligibility age.

I have emailed the White House twice... . But imagine the emails are lost in the haystack.

My heart is heavy while we wait to hear...and I continue to dispense medication to people who have access to medical care while worrying about you all.

[99Forever]

17. The word should be capitulation.

It has no value for the 99%. None. Zero.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. There seems to be different definitions of compromise depending on whom you speak to

I've understood compromise to be about two sides working out a problem by meeting each other halfway. Both sides give a little but both walk away with something they want as well and are, presumably, satisfied in the end. The kind of "compromise" that you're talking about regarding Medicare seems like extortion or, in other words, "if you give us this trophy (raising the eligibility age for Medicare, which, as you correctly point out, won't do anything meaningful to lower deficit), we'll (maybe) stop trying mess the system over and let it keep working like it's supposed to."

BTW I really hate when Republicans complain about President Obama "campaigning instead of governing". They're just mad IMHO that he's going straight to the people about what the Republicans stand for and what they're trying to do and stirring them up against them which he is, entirely justified in doing, particularly since the Republicans are not working with him in good faith and acting as though they won the election or something. I suppose that they forget that George W. Bush spent most of 2005 taking his plan to privatize Social Security around the country?

[CTyankee]

23. I have to laugh, too, when I hear that. One day last week Joe Scarborough was complaining about

Obama "continuing to campaign." How dare he continue to seek out the people and talk to them about what is going on in their lives?!

I remember when Joe was giving Obama hell for staying in Washington too much and being "out of touch."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. Obama can never do anything right by them

They will attack him for any reason that they happen to think up on any given day. If he's getting out too much talking to the people, he's "campaigning". If he's spending too much time in DC, he's "out of touch". You won't catch them saying anything nice about President Obama unless they're forced to do.