you're reading...
News/Politics, The ACT Era, The Liberal Complaint

The President’s Case For No Negotiation

Within the confines of critical thinking passion predominates, and we often find ourselves rapidly moving away from critical cognition, and continued consideration for those that are diametrically opposed to a favored point of view.  However, if you do this you are then violating the primary tenet of the aspiring critical thinker, the hallmark.

The hallmark of the critical thinker is the sincere ability to seek to internalize the perspectives of others, most especially when that perspective is diametrically, or even violently opposed to your own.

With that consideration where does this leave us in the next four years of the Obama Presidency?  Some say a President truly has at best 18 months to be effective in a second term, at worst two years. President Obama will not run in another election.  He has attained the highest office, and any good work he does beyond 2016 will be beyond the mainline corridors of power.  He has a mandate.  He won the election, but he still presides over a divided Congress, which is even more divided than our nation.  With the ideological divide being so wide, can he make demands?

As a writer for the The American Complaint Department (www.tacdnews.com) we ask questions of this nature and pose them to liberals, conservatives, extremists and moderates alike.  I am not a liberal but I am often painted as such, and my articles appear in the Liberal Complaint.  However, what I am is an aspiring critical thinker and as such I must force myself to consider the facts, which I clarified during last week’s radio broadcast (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-american-complaint-department).

This President held out the hand of compromise on health care.  This President held out the hand of compromise on stimulus.  This President held out the hand of compromise on the Bush Tax Cuts.  This President held out the hand of compromise again, and again, and again, most recently in a grand deal to cut almost 4 trillion dollars from the federal budget for a very real and meaningful start at closing the deficit and eliminating the debt.  President Obama made this offer, and Speaker Boehner seemed ready to truly consider the offer.  However, what happened with the rest of the GOP, the Tea Party?  The end result is as we have seen before, no compromise.  The GOP is the party of NO.  For all his effort, if one were to view the President’s hand as a metaphor in compromise we would conceivably see a gnawed nub, a stump, no fingers, no hand.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again.  The GOP has no interest in real compromise.  The President has tried time and time again.  The GOP has spread the lie that they are willing to compromise and that it is the President who is recalcitrant, when nothing could be further from the truth. The facts simply do not bear this out.  But far too many Americans simply aren’t interested in the facts.  They are only interested in hearing how the President is a Kenyan stealth terrorist hell-bent on delivering us into a socio-communistic hell where we all live out our lives in FEMA internment camps.  It boggles the mind the sheer level of mendacity.

With due consideration for the facts of the last four years, the President need not negotiate a thing.  He is fully justified in running roughshod over the GOP and pursuing his agenda in full earnest with no consideration for a party who openly said their primary objective was to make President Obama a one term President.  He does not need to worry about the next election.  He does not need to worry about pushing the Executive Order and relegating the Tea Party to the role they have earned for themselves … minstrel show.  He should dismiss negotiation and compromise and act unilaterally as the President we seek for these difficult times.  Yes, that’s what he should and must do.  Right?

Do we really want a President who dismisses compromise and acts unilaterally?

We may want to disregard that which we know in our hearts and critical thinking minds is right, and in the final analysis can and does work through rational consideration, appropriate approach and visibility.  We may want to dismiss the hallmark of the critical thinker in an effort to get to the objective faster without disregard for some of our fellow Americans.  It may be tempting, but in holding to the appropriate mind-set, the rationality to navigate the political waters with a clear thinking mind free of the need to give as good as we get, we can define clear solutions that work best for us all.  Yes, it may be tempting dismiss compromise, but we know in our hearts and minds that doing so would be wrong.

The President cannot and must not act unilaterally.  He may use Executive Order.  He may choose to not negotiate with Congress on some issues.  But he is a president, not a king, and as such he must adhere to the ethos of our nation and the law of the Constitution, in both word and spirit.  Brinkmanship may be the call of the day on a given issue, but each and every issue must be given due consideration, thought and decision applicable through the crucible of the critical thinking mind.

Sometimes we may need to be intractable, we may need to be inflexible, sometimes we may not move from our position.  However, the application of enlightened reason informs us when it is appropriate to operate in just such a manner, and when to know the opposition is opposing us in irrationality, and falling quickly into failure. We must know when is the right time, and what actions must be taken.

Will we stand on high and gloat when the President wins and the ideology shifts, even if it does not close the divide?  Will we do this?  The President has shown us the way.  He has ever held the moral high ground and carried himself in an honorable and exemplary fashion.  President Obama does not gloat, though he most certainly may be entitled.  Mayhap we out in the commons may do this, as we are human, but we must recognize it as an error, and reach down to pick those up who we fell in the canyons of fiery ideological debate and the formation of heated policy, for in this we must not forget that we are all Americans, by and by.

About D.S. Brown

Aspiring critical thinker, author, motivational speaker, prime motivator.


8 thoughts on “The President’s Case For No Negotiation

  1. Good article, One concern…compromise. You assert compromise on health care, taxes, stimulus and spending is good for the country under the ruse of compromise, its not compromise when both parties seek more power and spending to appease their constituents. I will argue these courses taken above have further diminished our countries ability to spur economic growth and in the end if your definition of compromise continues my kids will be paying over $1 trillion in interest by 2025, that my friend is not the definition of compromise by the Critical

    Posted by Sean Fitzgerald | January 28, 2013, 3:37 pm
    • Thank you, Sean. We have a fundamental disconnect on the role of government clearly. I don’t view any of these things as power grabs and spending to appease constituents. Appeasement implies capitulation. Legislation in these areas addressed great need, and I know someone personally who suffered from brain cancer, is a Christian Conservative, and benefitted from Obamacare. In fact, just jaunt on over to healthcare.gov and see what’s been happening with the law, unless of course you assert that the website is a lie. None of these policies diminished economic growth. In fact, in Europe, the land of extremes, they did a full 180 degree turn from their model to strict austerity and only served to compound their recession. Now, they will balance out, but at what cost? Here in America, we don’t have the same problem, and we will pay down the debt and close the deficit one way or another. My definition of compromise will not have your kid paying 1 trillion in interest. We call that an uninformed opinion my friend, which cannot by substantiated by facts. However, I do understand why one may feel this way. You have to attribute it to something. But if you must, put it where it belongs. There is no ruse. Spending is investment. Fat America is the direct cause of our health care crisis, and will be our largest expense. Taxes have to go up eventually on every one whether you like it or not. And stimulus was needed. When the private sector pulls out the public sector steps up. We have been in forever cycles of arguing this point and it is the very definition of insanity (to continue to argue the point in endless cycles instead of putting nose to grind stone as one and just doing the hard thing). Even the most intractable economist now agree that stimulus was necessary. The point is they shouldn’t have been arguing it in the first place. Same argument in the 80s, in the 70s, and in the 40’s and 30’s, etc. Just to be clear Sean, there is only one way to make sure your kids won’t have to worry about debt, and I’ve posted this before. There are 4 critical areas we must address: 1) Military Spending 2) Medicare 3) Fiscal Policy 4) Social Security. Addressing those 4 areas is the direct path to fiscal solvency. Look at this from multiple perspectives, which is the hallmark fo the true critical thinker, and consider it critically.

      Posted by D.S. Brown | January 30, 2013, 12:49 am
  2. Thanks Dean, as of now the average rate paid in interest is almost 3%. Keep that same rate of interest when Obama leaves office and the interest is over $600,000,000,000. But most economists argue the average rate paid will be more than 3%. I’m sorry if you don’t see this as a problem.

    I agree with you on fixing the four, but differ vastly on how. The ACA didn’t address cost, Washington mainly Democrats will never cut of means test Medicare, Social Security and Republicans will never cut defense , so again I say your definition of compromise is the root cause of all our problems in Government.

    Posted by Sean Fitzgerald | February 4, 2013, 5:49 pm
    • I do see it as a problem, but the way you address it is to pay down the debt. Fixing the four will do this. And the ACA in intent was designed to bend the cost curve. People keep missing this because they either haven’t read the legislation or they’re listenign to someone else’s interpretation. Additional measures have to be put in place in order to continue the changes needed to lower costs. The bending comes first with expanded coverage. De Facto universal coverage is a direct contributor to increased costs in premium coverage as well as hospital costs. This no longer becomes a critical factor if everyone has coverage. Second, exchanges introduce the concept of competition into the market. What I call the GEICO model will come into play, and just like car insurance you will have people coming up with innovative products at varying cost levels for coverage. All of this will be introduced across state lines and competition will start to drive down costs on producs. Second, what I call the WAL-Mart model will cause these companies to try to maintain and improve margins by capitalizing on volume and pushing costs up the production line, which means the suppliers will be driven to lower costs in order to capture market share and compete effectively. Consider it critically. My definition of compromise is not my definition of compromise. It is the definition of compromise and it is required if we are to move forward. Defense has already been cut under the Obama administration and it say it will continue. Means testing and other measures in the health crisis will be implemented because they must. This is the compromise, and it will either come now, or be forced later, just like the taxes.

      Posted by D.S. Brown | February 4, 2013, 6:06 pm
  3. Please remember CBO and almost every think tank state the debt will be above $20 trillion when Obama leaves office. Again I feel you don’t see this as a problem. But yes due to bloated and inefficient Government everyone will pay more in taxes. We will see 2-2.5% economic growth for the next decade which if you have any knowledge of economics we will not be able to pay our debt and keep obligations made. Again if rates go up and the average interest paid is 3-4% on debt then just how much is that interest payment on $20 trillion or more ?

    Posted by Sean Fitzgerald | February 4, 2013, 5:53 pm
    • Of course, I see this as a problem. You feel differently because you are considering my perspective through an ideological lense. We agree this is a problem and it must be addressed. The debt will not go up and be on the decline if we address the four critical areas. We already have a start. We have a long walk ahead, but I believe we will start to run. You may not, but that is your choice.

      Posted by D.S. Brown | February 4, 2013, 6:08 pm
  4. As long as Obama and any so called Liberal or Conservative is in the Oval Office serious cuts will never happen. Plus cutting projected increases in spending is not cutting spending. One reason a budget hasn’t been approved since this man took office is because as he proved with his first attempt he wanted to keep ALL spending in the budget and not use continuing resolutions for defense spending, thus making the defense levels of today permanent spending. That my friend is not a serious attempt to cut spending.

    I’m aware of whats in the new Health care law, for example; the “doc” fix is part of it and was scored by the CBO, it is one of the main cost controls within the law. What has been done about this Dean ? Right there the budget is in deficit by 23% per year. Once again it does absolutely nothing to curve costs.

    Yes Dean exchanges CAN introduce competition, however when the Government mandates what the coverage will be that’s not competition…period !!

    Lets address the exchanges, for the next decade the government will cover 90-100% of the costs to implement and operate them. After this period the Federal Government will decrease the amount they pay. Are you aware of the guidelines used for regulating aid in premium support? I am. Over half of the population in these exchanges will receive over half if not all their premiums paid by state and federal Government. How many States have a surplus within their budget ? .

    I understand you view this as a good start, I see it as a big step backwards.

    One more item, debt? What percentage of economic growth do need need to support our debt after Obama leaves office. I am not blaming him for the debt because he is just following a filed economic structure.

    Posted by Sean Fitzgerald | February 4, 2013, 6:39 pm
    • I don’t agree. I think we can think and act beyond ideology and beyond the titles liberal or conservative. We’ll just have to see who is correct over time. That statement that hewanted to keep all spending is another opinion. His actions in areas where he has been able to act have proven otherwise (see IT Dashboard). The government will do what it has done, both state and federal, and that is mandate certain requirements for coverage by regulation, no different than what is done now, except doing it systemically with more efficient oversight and applicability. No road is easy, they’re all rough, but this is competition, period!! We do not want to operate in an unregulated environment. We don’t now, and we don’t tomorrow.

      Yes, there will be healthcare subsidies. Yes, plenty of states lack a surplus. However, exactly who do you think pays for De Facto Universal coverage right now? That’s a cost that includes excessive testing in order to avoid litigation. Which is more expensive?

      Economic growth alone will not pay the debt unless we had an incredible burst of innovation that spurred global demand for US product. It’s possible, just highly unlikely. The path forward is fostering innovation and demand (directed investment), cutting excessive costs, and increased taxes. That’s my word on debt.

      And this is D.S. Brown, not Dean.

      Posted by D.S. Brown | February 4, 2013, 10:03 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to The American Complaint Department and receive notifications of new articles by email.

Follow us on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

The American Citizen's Daily

"It's our differences, and our freedom to voice them, that make us Americans."

Well played, sir...is now The Evolution of Reason!

"It's our differences, and our freedom to voice them, that make us Americans."

The Summerland Novel, Writings and Revelations

"It's our differences, and our freedom to voice them, that make us Americans."

%d bloggers like this: