For anti-Trump conservatives like BigDave and myself...

[RiverguyVT]

... Unfortunately, the GOP has made it abundantly clear that they are the party of Jesus and all things Holy ....

Do you really see it that way?

Now, I'm a Jesus guy...but typically don't vote for a candidate hoping that he'll advance my views of Christianity; for that, I look to the church as a whole, the faith community. Not D.C.

[HvilleHokie]

Gary Johnson will be on the ballot. I'll vote for him again.

The democrats have been successful in implementing socialism incrementally over the last century. Rather than refusing to vote for anyone who isn't an open Marxist, they vote for the person who moves the nation incrementally in the direction that they want.

Libertarians, on the other hand, rather than vote for the guy who agrees with you 80% to keep the person who agrees with you 5% from getting elected, vote for the Libertarian and the end result is that the guy that they agree with on only drugs gets elected. And even on that one issue, Obama has done absolutely nothing different than what McCain, Romney, or Trump would have done.

its incorrect to state that libertarians agree with 80% of republican stances. i think its more accurate to say libertarians agree with about 10% of republican stances and 10% of democrat stances and disagree with the other 90% of each.

both parties have been the parties of large government, foreign intervention, war on drugs, high taxes, entitlements, and the establishment.

libertarians are not republicans who favor drug reform. they fundamentally disagree with the very essence of big government that both parties engage in.

[Techmomof2]

I simply refuse to vote for a candidate just because The Party™ says I should. If I don't like the nominee, I won't vote for him. It's that simple. So, if Trump wins the nomination, would you rather I vote for Johnson or stay home? Cuz those are the only options.

I don't understand the notion that we should be beholden to the Republican Party no matter who they nominate. Positive change does not occur if they have your vote no matter what they do.

I'm not beholden to a party. I vote for the candidate that I think is best, and part of determining who is beat is looking at the field of candidates and also understanding the downsides of each candidate as well. As such a vote is both FOR one candidate and AGAINST all of the others. To me you have to understand the field and vote such that the best candidate in the field wins AND to ensure the worst candidate doesn't win.

I have fully taken that into consideration, but given my issues with Trump, I still can't cast a vote in his favor.

It is rare that I vote 'for' someone. I usually vote 'against' a greater evil. Regardless of who is the Republican candidate, I will vote for that person rather than a self-admitted socialist or a lying traitor. And if it's Trump, hey, the career politicians have done so well in screwing up the country, I'm willing to give a businessman a chance. At least he'll put competent people in his Administration.

[VoiceOfReason]

As I said, I can support Paul, Cruz or Rubio. I've said as much several times in this thread. But I will not vote for Trump.

Incidentally, I know those guys talk a big game about balancing the budget and paying down the debt, but I don't expect Congress to play along, regardless of who controls it. The debt is going to continue to grow.

Thank you for mentioning my favorite subject. Sadly, nobody from either party is talking seriously about balancing the budget. Because in order to be serious about it, you need to talk about at least one of these four things:

1) Cuts to spending on Social Security
2) Cuts to spending on Medicare
3) Cuts to spending on Defense
4) Raising taxes

The first 3 things represent 75% of the federal budget - when combined with mandatory debt service, it's 80%. Nothing else is more than 2%.

So... big talk about welfare, food stamps, Planned parenthood, NPR, whatever... are simply statistically insignificant. If you are voting for a candidate because you think he/she will balance the budget... and they have not campaigned on at least one of the these 4 things... you're just letting a politician fool you again.

[HokieJoe]

I'm sorry but you're not fooling anyone on this board anymore. I don't know why you keep saying you're a "conservative."

Depends what you consider it to be. Because I'm not a far right loon doesn't mean I'm not conservative. I generally favor lower taxes, lower spending, less government intrusion, etc, but not in absolutes. In the three Presidential elections I've been eligible to vote, I voted for Bush, abstained in '08, and Romney in '12. Of those three, the only Republican I didn't vote for was the most liberal, ill-tempered candidate who wasn't quite fit for that office.

If you don't want to vote for Trump, that's fine, but anyone that would even consider voting for Hillary is no conservative. Why don't you just come out of the closet and admit you're a democrat? I don't get why you keep up this charade.

I already said I'm not voting for Hillary. If the general election is Trump v. Hillary, there will be conservatives who vote for Hillary. Brace yourself.

Trump is not my first choice, but at least he does have some conservative positions (even if you don't think he's a conservative). His immigration stance alone is enough to pull the lever for him over Hillary. Plus he's good on the 2A, and he's been great for our veterans. Not to mention, I think he would give us much better SCOTUS Justices than Barrack Obama (which is who Hillary said she would appoint). Any vote for Hillary is a vote for Obama to the SCOTUS.

Trump's got you fooled. His immigration plan is rabble rousing to rile up the racist part of the conservative base knowing full well it has zero chance of ever being implemented (Trump's not stupid). Further, he's not a conservative. He's an opportunist. Trump's history and character tells you he'll sell out conservatives in the same manner he's sold out liberals, business associates, etc.

No one who calls themselves a conservative, provided they know what the hell the term means, would EVER vote for Hillary. That would require epic daftness; or utter delusion.

[133743Hokie]

As I said, I can support Paul, Cruz or Rubio. I've said as much several times in this thread. But I will not vote for Trump.

Incidentally, I know those guys talk a big game about balancing the budget and paying down the debt, but I don't expect Congress to play along, regardless of who controls it. The debt is going to continue to grow.

Thank you for mentioning my favorite subject. Sadly, nobody from either party is talking seriously about balancing the budget. Because in order to be serious about it, you need to talk about at least one of these four things:

1) Cuts to spending on Social Security
2) Cuts to spending on Medicare
3) Cuts to spending on Defense
4) Raising taxes

The first 3 things represent 75% of the federal budget - when combined with mandatory debt service, it's 80%. Nothing else is more than 2%.

So... big talk about welfare, food stamps, Planned parenthood, NPR, whatever... are simply statistically insignificant. If you are voting for a candidate because you think he/she will balance the budget... and they have not campaigned on at least one of the these 4 things... you're just letting a politician fool you again.

The dems and repubs are so far apart on these issues that they will never, I repeat never, reach a consensus on deficit spending. Never.

[awesome guy]

As I said, I can support Paul, Cruz or Rubio. I've said as much several times in this thread. But I will not vote for Trump.

Incidentally, I know those guys talk a big game about balancing the budget and paying down the debt, but I don't expect Congress to play along, regardless of who controls it. The debt is going to continue to grow.

Thank you for mentioning my favorite subject. Sadly, nobody from either party is talking seriously about balancing the budget. Because in order to be serious about it, you need to talk about at least one of these four things:

1) Cuts to spending on Social Security
2) Cuts to spending on Medicare
3) Cuts to spending on Defense
4) Raising taxes

The first 3 things represent 75% of the federal budget - when combined with mandatory debt service, it's 80%. Nothing else is more than 2%.

So... big talk about welfare, food stamps, Planned parenthood, NPR, whatever... are simply statistically insignificant. If you are voting for a candidate because you think he/she will balance the budget... and they have not campaigned on at least one of the these 4 things... you're just letting a politician fool you again.

The dems and repubs are so far apart on these issues that they will never, I repeat never, reach a consensus on deficit spending. Never.

They are one day when our devalued currency or interest rates force them.

[133743Hokie]

As I said, I can support Paul, Cruz or Rubio. I've said as much several times in this thread. But I will not vote for Trump.

Incidentally, I know those guys talk a big game about balancing the budget and paying down the debt, but I don't expect Congress to play along, regardless of who controls it. The debt is going to continue to grow.

Thank you for mentioning my favorite subject. Sadly, nobody from either party is talking seriously about balancing the budget. Because in order to be serious about it, you need to talk about at least one of these four things:

1) Cuts to spending on Social Security
2) Cuts to spending on Medicare
3) Cuts to spending on Defense
4) Raising taxes

The first 3 things represent 75% of the federal budget - when combined with mandatory debt service, it's 80%. Nothing else is more than 2%.

So... big talk about welfare, food stamps, Planned parenthood, NPR, whatever... are simply statistically insignificant. If you are voting for a candidate because you think he/she will balance the budget... and they have not campaigned on at least one of the these 4 things... you're just letting a politician fool you again.

The dems and repubs are so far apart on these issues that they will never, I repeat never, reach a consensus on deficit spending. Never.

They are one day when our devalued currency or interest rates force them.

That's never going to happen

[awesome guy]

As I said, I can support Paul, Cruz or Rubio. I've said as much several times in this thread. But I will not vote for Trump.

Incidentally, I know those guys talk a big game about balancing the budget and paying down the debt, but I don't expect Congress to play along, regardless of who controls it. The debt is going to continue to grow.

Thank you for mentioning my favorite subject. Sadly, nobody from either party is talking seriously about balancing the budget. Because in order to be serious about it, you need to talk about at least one of these four things:

1) Cuts to spending on Social Security
2) Cuts to spending on Medicare
3) Cuts to spending on Defense
4) Raising taxes

The first 3 things represent 75% of the federal budget - when combined with mandatory debt service, it's 80%. Nothing else is more than 2%.

So... big talk about welfare, food stamps, Planned parenthood, NPR, whatever... are simply statistically insignificant. If you are voting for a candidate because you think he/she will balance the budget... and they have not campaigned on at least one of the these 4 things... you're just letting a politician fool you again.

The dems and repubs are so far apart on these issues that they will never, I repeat never, reach a consensus on deficit spending. Never.

They are one day when our devalued currency or interest rates force them.

That's never going to happen

Rome thought the same. Even governments can get too big.

[133743Hokie]

As I said, I can support Paul, Cruz or Rubio. I've said as much several times in this thread. But I will not vote for Trump.

Incidentally, I know those guys talk a big game about balancing the budget and paying down the debt, but I don't expect Congress to play along, regardless of who controls it. The debt is going to continue to grow.

Thank you for mentioning my favorite subject. Sadly, nobody from either party is talking seriously about balancing the budget. Because in order to be serious about it, you need to talk about at least one of these four things:

1) Cuts to spending on Social Security
2) Cuts to spending on Medicare
3) Cuts to spending on Defense
4) Raising taxes

The first 3 things represent 75% of the federal budget - when combined with mandatory debt service, it's 80%. Nothing else is more than 2%.

So... big talk about welfare, food stamps, Planned parenthood, NPR, whatever... are simply statistically insignificant. If you are voting for a candidate because you think he/she will balance the budget... and they have not campaigned on at least one of the these 4 things... you're just letting a politician fool you again.

The dems and repubs are so far apart on these issues that they will never, I repeat never, reach a consensus on deficit spending. Never.

They are one day when our devalued currency or interest rates force them.

That's never going to happen

Rome thought the same. Even governments can get too big.

The Rome analogy is weak and has been shown to be not a parallel. But regardless, none of that will ever change without one party rule of both branches with a supermajority.

[awesome guy]

Thank you for mentioning my favorite subject. Sadly, nobody from either party is talking seriously about balancing the budget. Because in order to be serious about it, you need to talk about at least one of these four things:

1) Cuts to spending on Social Security
2) Cuts to spending on Medicare
3) Cuts to spending on Defense
4) Raising taxes

The first 3 things represent 75% of the federal budget - when combined with mandatory debt service, it's 80%. Nothing else is more than 2%.

So... big talk about welfare, food stamps, Planned parenthood, NPR, whatever... are simply statistically insignificant. If you are voting for a candidate because you think he/she will balance the budget... and they have not campaigned on at least one of the these 4 things... you're just letting a politician fool you again.

The dems and repubs are so far apart on these issues that they will never, I repeat never, reach a consensus on deficit spending. Never.

They are one day when our devalued currency or interest rates force them.

That's never going to happen

Rome thought the same. Even governments can get too big.

The Rome analogy is weak and has been shown to be not a parallel. But regardless, none of that will ever change without one party rule of both branches with a supermajority.

We're over 100% of GDP in debt and during peacetime. How long do you think that can last?

[133743Hokie]

Quite a long time, because in some respects it's irrelevant

[awesome guy]

Quite a long time, because in some respects it's irrelevant

Ok, I don't believe it for a second though.

[VoiceOfReason]

As I said, I can support Paul, Cruz or Rubio. I've said as much several times in this thread. But I will not vote for Trump.

Incidentally, I know those guys talk a big game about balancing the budget and paying down the debt, but I don't expect Congress to play along, regardless of who controls it. The debt is going to continue to grow.

Thank you for mentioning my favorite subject. Sadly, nobody from either party is talking seriously about balancing the budget. Because in order to be serious about it, you need to talk about at least one of these four things:

1) Cuts to spending on Social Security
2) Cuts to spending on Medicare
3) Cuts to spending on Defense
4) Raising taxes

The first 3 things represent 75% of the federal budget - when combined with mandatory debt service, it's 80%. Nothing else is more than 2%.

So... big talk about welfare, food stamps, Planned parenthood, NPR, whatever... are simply statistically insignificant. If you are voting for a candidate because you think he/she will balance the budget... and they have not campaigned on at least one of the these 4 things... you're just letting a politician fool you again.

The dems and repubs are so far apart on these issues that they will never, I repeat never, reach a consensus on deficit spending. Never.

I agree. In this polarized climate there is no compromise possible. The only way this gets done is COMPROMISE... and the TP faction of the GOP will not compromise. The only way for compromise is for the Dems to give in on spending reductions to SS & Medicare and the GOP to give in to spending reductions to defense and tax increases primarily on the wealthy. No party is going to be able to have it their way and shove it down the other party's throat. It will take grown ups, leadership and compromise... something neither party has shown much of an appetite for lately. Sigh...

[RiverguyVT]

As I said, I can support Paul, Cruz or Rubio. I've said as much several times in this thread. But I will not vote for Trump.

Incidentally, I know those guys talk a big game about balancing the budget and paying down the debt, but I don't expect Congress to play along, regardless of who controls it. The debt is going to continue to grow.

Thank you for mentioning my favorite subject. Sadly, nobody from either party is talking seriously about balancing the budget. Because in order to be serious about it, you need to talk about at least one of these four things:

1) Cuts to spending on Social Security
2) Cuts to spending on Medicare
3) Cuts to spending on Defense
4) Raising taxes

The first 3 things represent 75% of the federal budget - when combined with mandatory debt service, it's 80%. Nothing else is more than 2%.

So... big talk about welfare, food stamps, Planned parenthood, NPR, whatever... are simply statistically insignificant. If you are voting for a candidate because you think he/she will balance the budget... and they have not campaigned on at least one of the these 4 things... you're just letting a politician fool you again.

The dems and repubs are so far apart on these issues that they will never, I repeat never, reach a consensus on deficit spending. Never.

I agree. In this polarized climate there is no compromise possible. The only way this gets done is COMPROMISE... and the TP faction of the GOP will not compromise. The only way for compromise is for the Dems to give in on spending reductions to SS & Medicare and the GOP to give in to spending reductions to defense and tax increases primarily on the wealthy. No party is going to be able to have it their way and shove it down the other party's throat. It will take grown ups, leadership and compromise... something neither party has shown much of an appetite for lately. Sigh...

For all the grief that R's get for supposedly not compromising, can you offer me more than 2 examples of D's compromising on anything? Anything at all?

[VoiceOfReason]

For all the grief that R's get for supposedly not compromising, can you offer me more than 2 examples of D's compromising on anything? Anything at all?

I see what you are doing here. But, like it or not, the GOP is far more resistant to compromise than the Dems. The Dems do not threaten to "primary" their members who are not sufficiently liberal. There is no such thing as a DINO, but there is a RINO.

But I can give you a few things, since you asked so nicely

1) Both parties have PLENTLY of culpability in creating this mess. It's a simple math equation - cash out must equal cash in - and NEITHER party has been willing to face up to their responsibilities in balancing the equation. Rather, BOTH parties are masters at pointing to the other one for blame.

2) What will the Dems not compromise? The Dems will agree to no tax increase that impacts the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. If they have a "NO COMPROMISE" item... that would be it. They will also not compromise on a repeal of the ACA.

3) What do the Dems not want to compromise? They don't want to reduce SS, in fact, both candidates want to increase spending on SS. They don't want to reduce Medicare. They don't want to increase defense spending.

Why is appropriate to blame the GOP more than the Dems? Well... both sides DID establish a basis for compromise - the "Grand Bargain" between Boehner and Obama a few years ago. It contained significant reductions that both sides did not like. The Dems had the votes lined up... and establishment R's seemed to support it... but the Freedom Caucus/TP killed it. And offered up nothing in it's place. There you go

[Hokie CPA]

For all the grief that R's get for supposedly not compromising, can you offer me more than 2 examples of D's compromising on anything? Anything at all?

I see what you are doing here. But, like it or not, the GOP is far more resistant to compromise than the Dems. The Dems do not threaten to "primary" their members who are not sufficiently liberal. There is no such thing as a DINO, but there is a RINO.

But I can give you a few things, since you asked so nicely

1) Both parties have PLENTLY of culpability in creating this mess. It's a simple math equation - cash out must equal cash in - and NEITHER party has been willing to face up to their responsibilities in balancing the equation. Rather, BOTH parties are masters at pointing to the other one for blame.

2) What will the Dems not compromise? The Dems will agree to no tax increase that impacts the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. If they have a "NO COMPROMISE" item... that would be it. They will also not compromise on a repeal of the ACA.

3) What do the Dems not want to compromise? They don't want to reduce SS, in fact, both candidates want to increase spending on SS. They don't want to reduce Medicare. They don't want to increase defense spending.

Why is appropriate to blame the GOP more than the Dems? Well... both sides DID establish a basis for compromise - the "Grand Bargain" between Boehner and Obama a few years ago. It contained significant reductions that both sides did not like. The Dems had the votes lined up... and establishment R's seemed to support it... but the Freedom Caucus/TP killed it. And offered up nothing in it's place. There you go

You answered a question that wasn't asked.... He didn't ask what the D's will NOT compromise on. He asked for two examples of the Democrats compromising -- giving in -- in order to meet Republicans in the middle. Cuz I honestly cannot remember a single incident for as long as I have been paying attention to politics (going back to at least 1992). Even before that, whenever the Dems "compromised" it was always the Wimpy method (talking about the character from the Popeye cartoons here). They would gladly give a spending or tax cut in the future for a spending or tax increase today. They would always take that spending or tax hike today and then NEVER deliver on the future promise of a cut. This is the source of my MASSIVE DISTRUST of anything the Democrat Party says.

[awesome guy]

For all the grief that R's get for supposedly not compromising, can you offer me more than 2 examples of D's compromising on anything? Anything at all?

I see what you are doing here. But, like it or not, the GOP is far more resistant to compromise than the Dems. The Dems do not threaten to "primary" their members who are not sufficiently liberal. There is no such thing as a DINO, but there is a RINO.

But I can give you a few things, since you asked so nicely

1) Both parties have PLENTLY of culpability in creating this mess. It's a simple math equation - cash out must equal cash in - and NEITHER party has been willing to face up to their responsibilities in balancing the equation. Rather, BOTH parties are masters at pointing to the other one for blame.

2) What will the Dems not compromise? The Dems will agree to no tax increase that impacts the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. If they have a "NO COMPROMISE" item... that would be it. They will also not compromise on a repeal of the ACA.

3) What do the Dems not want to compromise? They don't want to reduce SS, in fact, both candidates want to increase spending on SS. They don't want to reduce Medicare. They don't want to increase defense spending.

Why is appropriate to blame the GOP more than the Dems? Well... both sides DID establish a basis for compromise - the "Grand Bargain" between Boehner and Obama a few years ago. It contained significant reductions that both sides did not like. The Dems had the votes lined up... and establishment R's seemed to support it... but the Freedom Caucus/TP killed it. And offered up nothing in it's place. There you go

You answered a question that wasn't asked.... He didn't ask what the D's will NOT compromise on. He asked for two examples of the Democrats compromising -- giving in -- in order to meet Republicans in the middle. Cuz I honestly cannot remember a single incident for as long as I have been paying attention to politics (going back to at least 1992). Even before that, whenever the Dems "compromised" it was always the Wimpy method (talking about the character from the Popeye cartoons here). They would gladly give a spending or tax cut in the future for a spending or tax increase today. They would always take that spending or tax hike today and then NEVER deliver on the future promise of a cut. This is the source of my MASSIVE DISTRUST of anything the Democrat Party says.

Yep

[RiverguyVT]

For all the grief that R's get for supposedly not compromising, can you offer me more than 2 examples of D's compromising on anything? Anything at all?

I see what you are doing here. But, like it or not, the GOP is far more resistant to compromise than the Dems. The Dems do not threaten to "primary" their members who are not sufficiently liberal. There is no such thing as a DINO, but there is a RINO.

But I can give you a few things, since you asked so nicely

1) Both parties have PLENTLY of culpability in creating this mess. It's a simple math equation - cash out must equal cash in - and NEITHER party has been willing to face up to their responsibilities in balancing the equation. Rather, BOTH parties are masters at pointing to the other one for blame.

2) What will the Dems not compromise? The Dems will agree to no tax increase that impacts the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. If they have a "NO COMPROMISE" item... that would be it. They will also not compromise on a repeal of the ACA.

3) What do the Dems not want to compromise? They don't want to reduce SS, in fact, both candidates want to increase spending on SS. They don't want to reduce Medicare. They don't want to increase defense spending.

Why is appropriate to blame the GOP more than the Dems? Well... both sides DID establish a basis for compromise - the "Grand Bargain" between Boehner and Obama a few years ago. It contained significant reductions that both sides did not like. The Dems had the votes lined up... and establishment R's seemed to support it... but the Freedom Caucus/TP killed it. And offered up nothing in it's place. There you go

I see what you are doing here. - Do you, now? Apparently not. I asked a pretty simple question, since you made the bold statement that "...the TP faction of the GOP will not compromise..." You couldn't answer it. I doubt anyone can, because "compromise" carries a different definition depending upon whether one is a liberal or a conservative.

Liberal: R compromise means for the R's to simply give in to what the D's want.
Conservative: R compromise means to meet the D's half-way on a piece of legislation.

R's have been rolling over for years & years. I can't think of a single time that D's have met the R's half-way on anything. Short of total capitulation, R's aren't compromising as D's see the word.

[VoiceOfReason]

I see what you are doing here. - Do you, now? Apparently not. I asked a pretty simple question, since you made the bold statement that "...the TP faction of the GOP will not compromise..." You couldn't answer it. I doubt anyone can, because "compromise" carries a different definition depending upon whether one is a liberal or a conservative.

Liberal: R compromise means for the R's to simply give in to what the D's want.
Conservative: R compromise means to meet the D's half-way on a piece of legislation.

R's have been rolling over for years & years. I can't think of a single time that D's have met the R's half-way on anything. Short of total capitulation, R's aren't compromising as D's see the word.

I did answer your question. During the "Grand Bargain" negotiations, the Dems offered spending cuts to liberal programs such as SS. That is meeting the Rs halfway. But is was the R's that scuttled the deal because they did not want to meet then Dems halfway.

Let's be very clear - to really meet then Dems halfway on anything would require a tax increase. The Dems would have to agree to social spending cuts and the GOP would have to agree to a tax increase. I have shown you an example of when Dems have been willing to reduce social spending. The evidence is very clear that the GOP will never compromise on taxes. So what is this foolishness you seem to be arguing about Dems never compromising?

[Hokie CPA]

I see what you are doing here. - Do you, now? Apparently not. I asked a pretty simple question, since you made the bold statement that "...the TP faction of the GOP will not compromise..." You couldn't answer it. I doubt anyone can, because "compromise" carries a different definition depending upon whether one is a liberal or a conservative.

Liberal: R compromise means for the R's to simply give in to what the D's want.
Conservative: R compromise means to meet the D's half-way on a piece of legislation.

R's have been rolling over for years & years. I can't think of a single time that D's have met the R's half-way on anything. Short of total capitulation, R's aren't compromising as D's see the word.

I did answer your question. During the "Grand Bargain" negotiations, the Dems offered spending cuts to liberal programs such as SS. That is meeting the Rs halfway. But is was the R's that scuttled the deal because they did not want to meet then Dems halfway.

Let's be very clear - to really meet then Dems halfway on anything would require a tax increase. The Dems would have to agree to social spending cuts and the GOP would have to agree to a tax increase. I have shown you an example of when Dems have been willing to reduce social spending. The evidence is very clear that the GOP will never compromise on taxes. So what is this foolishness you seem to be arguing about Dems never compromising?

Like I said above... the Dems still owe the Reps for SEVERAL ROUNDS of spending increases/tax increase for promised future cuts which never materialized. The fact is, the government collects enough. It collects MORE than enough to pay for all things it is required to do. The budget needs to be balanced at this point on spending cuts. Dems just got their tax increase a couple of years ago.

[ElbertoHokie]

I wish Dems would buckle on social program and entitlement cuts and Republicans would buckle on our ridiculous defense budget.

There are spending cuts to be had out there. But compromise is a four letter words in both parties. That's what Reagan did masterfully. Compromise.

[ElbertoHokie]

I see what you are doing here. - Do you, now? Apparently not. I asked a pretty simple question, since you made the bold statement that "...the TP faction of the GOP will not compromise..." You couldn't answer it. I doubt anyone can, because "compromise" carries a different definition depending upon whether one is a liberal or a conservative.

Liberal: R compromise means for the R's to simply give in to what the D's want.
Conservative: R compromise means to meet the D's half-way on a piece of legislation.

R's have been rolling over for years & years. I can't think of a single time that D's have met the R's half-way on anything. Short of total capitulation, R's aren't compromising as D's see the word.

I did answer your question. During the "Grand Bargain" negotiations, the Dems offered spending cuts to liberal programs such as SS. That is meeting the Rs halfway. But is was the R's that scuttled the deal because they did not want to meet then Dems halfway.

Let's be very clear - to really meet then Dems halfway on anything would require a tax increase. The Dems would have to agree to social spending cuts and the GOP would have to agree to a tax increase. I have shown you an example of when Dems have been willing to reduce social spending. The evidence is very clear that the GOP will never compromise on taxes. So what is this foolishness you seem to be arguing about Dems never compromising?

Cutting anything around SS is not popular in either party. Dems because it's a social program and Republican's because a large demographic of their reliable voting bloc is collecting SS. Neither group of politicians wants it because they may not get reelected and that would hinder their political career.

[VoiceOfReason]

Like I said above... the Dems still owe the Reps for SEVERAL ROUNDS of spending increases/tax increase for promised future cuts which never materialized. The fact is, the government collects enough. It collects MORE than enough to pay for all things it is required to do. The budget needs to be balanced at this point on spending cuts. Dems just got their tax increase a couple of years ago.

Well... that's your opinion. But as a negotiating strategy - which is what this thread is about - it lacks realism. The "I gave in last time, it's your turn" strategy wouldn't work anywhere.

As for taxes... what the government is REQUIRED to do is of no consequence. Taxes are not high enough to cover the services Americans want and expect from their government - hence, the deficit. Social security, Medicare, Welfare, Transportation Programs, many things are not required. So?

I think you hit the nail on the head with your repetition of the GOP mantra: "The budget needs to be balanced at this point on spending cuts." This is not meeting the Dems halfway. What do you expect to happen? The Dems offer SS cuts and the GOP matches them with Welfare cuts? LOL Welcome to Fantasy Island

[VoiceOfReason]

Cutting anything around SS is not popular in either party. Dems because it's a social program and Republican's because a large demographic of their reliable voting bloc is collecting SS. Neither group of politicians wants it because they may not get reelected and that would hinder their political career.

True. But it is one of only 4 meaningful things for balancing the budget. Without touching SS... you must cut Medicare, cut Defense and/or raise taxes. At some point... both parties are going to have to swallow hard and do something good for the country. I don't think Dems or you guys are holding their breath for that to happen. Sigh...