In explaining why the North and South went to war in 1861, historian Shelby Foote argued that “the genius of American politics is compromise.” He was referring, of course, to the compromises that made the writing and adoption of the Constitution possible in 1787, of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that quieted the debate over slavery for a generation, and of the Compromise of 1850 that briefly silenced the dispute over the expansion of slavery in the territories won from Mexico during the Mexican-American War.

However, I think it's safe to say that once again the political center, where compromises are fashioned, no longer exists. Are we drifting back to the climate of 1860?

Heh, interesting thought. If anything, nothing will get done. Ever. If both sides want it their way and no other, then nothing will get done. Meanwhile, the country will crumble down around them. I'll wager that in the future, In the history books, They'll be a chapter on "The American Era", and the conclusion of the chapter that describes how the era ended. Amongst other factors, one of which that ill be listed was constant infighting and bickering which contributed to internal stagnation and crucial issues of the day not being resolved. I'd bet money on that acutally, but that's a bet i'll never get to collect on.

@Tater
No, what you should mean is "sometimes a few might be" which is very different from "specificly, often(always)".

In an alternate reality maybe, but it has never happened anywhere throughout history.

Oh dear, there we see the problem, you believe in the myth of free markets, I hate to burst your bubble but that ideology is only a fairytale.

What on earth has that got to do with corporation tax?
So you want uniform import tarrifs

So now its uniform duty not corporation tax.

So lets get this straight, you want uniform income tax across the board with no write offs or allowances. You want uniform corporation tax with no write offs, delays or subsidies. You want uniform import tarrifs on all goods and materials. You want the same duty on everything so a bottle of whisky has the same duty as a bottle of childrens cough syrup.

You sound like a cambodian communist economist who thinks all things and everyone are absolutely equal.

Good point.

Unfortunately though compromise is rarely a permanent answer to anything. The Missouri Compromise for example might have delayed the civil war but it did not solve the underlying issues that caused the war to eventually break out.

Indeed had the 1820 compromise not happened the war might have been fought before the introduction of modern weapons (like the rifled musket) that made civil war battlefields so particularly bloody.

As to whether we're drifting back to the climate of 1860, you may be right, but a key difference is that the polarization is not concentrated into definable geographic areas. In a new civil war every state would be a "Bleeding Kansas" or "Bloody Missouri".

As Thomas Jefferson put it:

"...but this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper."

It has been a while since politicians worked for the country. Party before country is the state of our politics these days (and has been for many years). It is sad and makes me frustrated.

I wish I knew a solution to the party politics problem we have. Our fore fathers were right when they were concerned with political parties. :yep:

Here in my country once in a while the discussion flares up about introducing a two-party system like in the US, but this is exactly the reason why I'm opposed to that; there are only two sides. Reaching a compromise is much harder that way; since neither side wants to lose face, and that's what becomes increasingly important: every decision becomes a 'win' or 'lose' thing.
Multiple political parties partly takes this problem away. This doesn't mean this system doesn't have it's drawbacks (it usually takes three to four months between elections and the formation of a government coalition for example) but it does help governing parties to focus a little less on 'we win you lose' tactics.

Ok, well, that's a different topic, politicians promising but not delivering. It doesn't preclude tax cuts, spending cuts and balancing the budget.


Maybe so, but am I mistaken when I say I sense a degree of glee from a lot of people when the 93% (exorbitant) tax rates are mentioned?

:yep: x 10

...and I don't claim to know everything about this particular budget proposal, but between the two school of thoughts:

1. Tax the rich until everyone's need and wishes are satisfied
2. Cut spending and taxes and allow business to work with minimal interference

I will opt for #2. Sure, we disagree.

Well, that's certainly your opinion. You've earned the Skybird award for posing an opinion as undisputed fact.

My opinion contrasts that, I believe that free markets deserve a large share of credit for getting us this far. I sure don't think state run economies are the answer.

At least someone is making an effort. :)

@Neal
Can you find any example of a true free market system ever existing in any nation?
If it has existed you can surely produce one example as an item of fact, if you are unable to produce one then it reverts to mythical status.

A State run economy is just another ideology, and like most it is mythical.

I believe you're right - radical deregulation and unwavering worship of "The Free Market" ideology in the face of all sense and prudence has led us into the most expensive financial crisis this country has ever seen. So yes, in a way the "free market" has got us to where we're at. :03:

Enjoy this crop of related comics:
http://www.cagle.com/news/GovShutdown/main.asp

So...is this like some kind of governmental BSOD? :hmmm:

Is Lizzie going to have to come over and hit the reset button? :hmmm:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NPYix0wNfI.../FedReboot.jpg

Looks like enough processes were closed to prevent bluescreen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13022575

So the compromise was to keep condoms but get rid of some pollution regulation

And wanting to get rid of them never made any damn sense in the first place. If you're against abortion, you should be all for Planned Parenthood. It was started by Nixon with the support of Bush 1 because contraception kept women from having more babies and kept them off welfare.

Well, that's when "the GOP" didn't mean "eat your own feces insane."

Reboot the federal government. I wish. :yep:

yeah, then they advocated "abstinence only programs" Pretty much the Sexual education they give kids is summed up as "don't have sex".

Closing down places Like Planned parenthood would be a GIANT mistake, and one done purely to benefit one interest group at pretty much every sexually active young person's expense, not just women. Opponents said they were abortion mills and people were using them like birth control (which is madness because abortions are a pretty good amount of money and not something any woman takes lightly), but they also provided other services like STD tests etc.

With all the new abortion laws etc, I can can bet were gonna start having more welfare babies. And that's going to cost us even more money in the long run. This pretty much shows this isn't a fiscal move. It's another way of controlling moral and social issues with the purse strings. Programs Like planned parenthood and the EPA aren't going to bankrupt this nation, but thats what the GOP is saying so they can slash their budgets and make big business happy there's nobody to regulate the sludge they dump into a river, or the Far religious right and Pro-lifers happy because they can regulate somebody else's womb, making them stop frothing at the mouth long enough for them to vote "red" next election.

They really want to get rid of condoms?! ZOMGOMG they're even worse than I thought:o

Hah - to clarify what I meant, PP started receiving federal funds in 1970. Now they want to de-fund it for some twisted weird reason. Having known many women who would not have had the level of access to birth control they did if not for PP, this is a completely idiotic stance.