Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
The reason we are seeing no compromise between Republicans and Democrats as this budget battle rolls along, is because they have fundamentally different ideas of what Government should do.
Democrats have long had the idea that Government should "help" people with various things, ranging from paying for retirement, thru paying for health care, thru paying when you are unemployed, and so forth. One of the problems with this approach, is that there is no clear boundary where government should stop - ANY normal human activity is eligible for government "help". Of course, that "help" never comes cheap. And when people see they can get this "help" for no apparent charge, they tend to reach for more and more of it as they try to balance the family budget, pay for Junior's college or Sally's new cell phone etc. Why turn it down if it's available?
Conservatives, OTOH, believe that government "help" like this, is wrong. Everybody likes help, but having government provide it independent of the recipients' having to pay for it as they get it, creates a feeling that they are somehow "entitled" to it (they even call it that!), and diminishes the value of people being self-sufficient. People who used to be proud of pulling their own weight, now scoff at those who do, and even begin to resent those who complain.
It also puts government in a position of forcing people to pay for things they don't get, to provide "help" to those who get it without paying what it's worth.
The original purpose of government, was to protect our rights - says so in the Declaration of Independence, the document that first spelled out the American ideal. And it also says that if government abuses our rights instead of protecting them, it's our duty to change it or get rid of it.
A basic problem, is that when government forces some of us to pay for things we don't get, government IS abusing (violating) our rights. The fact that it is "helping" others, does not change this basic fact. This is why charity has ALWAYS been a volunteer effort - government abusing our rights, even if it helps others, is immoral, period.
So how does that lead to our present problems? Simple: There can be NO compromise between those who want government to take from Peter to pay Paul, and those who believe that such a thing is fundamentally immoral. Compromising by taking only a little from Peter to pay Paul, is just as immoral.
Comedian Will Rogers is said to have met a well-to-do lady at a party, and in the course of a discussion, he said, "Look, I'll give you an example. Would you sleep with me for ten million dollars?" She was taken aback, but replied, "Well, that's an awful lot of money, and I'd be set for life. So yes, I guess I would." He then asked, "Would you sleep with me for ten dollars?" She snapped back, "Of course not! What do you think I am?" He replied, "We've already established what you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."
There can be no compromise between people who think robbing Peter to pay Paul is a good thing, and people who think it's immoral. And discussing how much the amount should be, isn't a compromise at all.
Republicans have always been the ones who yielded, and agreed to rob Peter and pay Paul if the price was low enough... only to see when the next year comes, the price inevitably went higher. And higher. Now we finally have a group of conservatives who say, not only that the price is too high, but that the basic act is fundamentally wrong.
And Democrats (and liberals in the Republican party), with no experience at compromisinng their beliefs, are completely incapable of starting now.
Hence the impasse we see today.
The present "crisis" was triggered simply by the price getting too high. But the country's response, which became major in November 2010, was to elect conservatives who agreed with them that the basic act itself, was wrong, and that we needed to change course, not just lower the price.
Will these conservatives eventually yield, lie back, and enjoy it as Republicans always have in the past? Or will we finally get off the disastrous course we have been on for the last few generations, and actually start fixing what's broken instead of simply lowering its price?
Democrats have long had the idea that Government should "help" people with various things, ranging from paying for retirement, thru paying for health care, thru paying when you are unemployed, and so forth. One of the problems with this approach, is that there is no clear boundary where government should stop - ANY normal human activity is eligible for government "help". Of course, that "help" never comes cheap. And when people see they can get this "help" for no apparent charge, they tend to reach for more and more of it as they try to balance the family budget, pay for Junior's college or Sally's new cell phone etc. Why turn it down if it's available?
Conservatives, OTOH, believe that government "help" like this, is wrong. Everybody likes help, but having government provide it independent of the recipients' having to pay for it as they get it, creates a feeling that they are somehow "entitled" to it (they even call it that!), and diminishes the value of people being self-sufficient. People who used to be proud of pulling their own weight, now scoff at those who do, and even begin to resent those who complain.
It also puts government in a position of forcing people to pay for things they don't get, to provide "help" to those who get it without paying what it's worth.
The original purpose of government, was to protect our rights - says so in the Declaration of Independence, the document that first spelled out the American ideal. And it also says that if government abuses our rights instead of protecting them, it's our duty to change it or get rid of it.
A basic problem, is that when government forces some of us to pay for things we don't get, government IS abusing (violating) our rights. The fact that it is "helping" others, does not change this basic fact. This is why charity has ALWAYS been a volunteer effort - government abusing our rights, even if it helps others, is immoral, period.
So how does that lead to our present problems? Simple: There can be NO compromise between those who want government to take from Peter to pay Paul, and those who believe that such a thing is fundamentally immoral. Compromising by taking only a little from Peter to pay Paul, is just as immoral.
Comedian Will Rogers is said to have met a well-to-do lady at a party, and in the course of a discussion, he said, "Look, I'll give you an example. Would you sleep with me for ten million dollars?" She was taken aback, but replied, "Well, that's an awful lot of money, and I'd be set for life. So yes, I guess I would." He then asked, "Would you sleep with me for ten dollars?" She snapped back, "Of course not! What do you think I am?" He replied, "We've already established what you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."
There can be no compromise between people who think robbing Peter to pay Paul is a good thing, and people who think it's immoral. And discussing how much the amount should be, isn't a compromise at all.
Republicans have always been the ones who yielded, and agreed to rob Peter and pay Paul if the price was low enough... only to see when the next year comes, the price inevitably went higher. And higher. Now we finally have a group of conservatives who say, not only that the price is too high, but that the basic act is fundamentally wrong.
And Democrats (and liberals in the Republican party), with no experience at compromisinng their beliefs, are completely incapable of starting now.
Hence the impasse we see today.
The present "crisis" was triggered simply by the price getting too high. But the country's response, which became major in November 2010, was to elect conservatives who agreed with them that the basic act itself, was wrong, and that we needed to change course, not just lower the price.
Will these conservatives eventually yield, lie back, and enjoy it as Republicans always have in the past? Or will we finally get off the disastrous course we have been on for the last few generations, and actually start fixing what's broken instead of simply lowering its price?
