What’s Meant When Liberals Say “Compromise”

| January 6 2013
Burt Prelutsky

Barack Obama and his stooges are forever complaining that Republicans are obstructionists, unwilling to compromise and meet them halfway.  What’s so irksome about these nitwits is that when they say compromise, what they really mean is unconditional surrender.

During the campaign, Obama played to the rabble that constitutes his base by promising to stick it to millionaires and billionaires.  As soon as he eked through to victory, he made it clear that he regarded those making as little as $200,000 as fat cats.  And because his biggest fans make a lot less than that, they were fine with his usual blend of hocus and pocus.  But, then, the truth is that his disciples are so unprincipled that so long as they make $49,999.99-a-year, they would be happy to see taxes raised on everyone making more than $50,000.  For left-wingers, for whom envy is a way of life, it’s never enough to soak the rich; they want to soak the richer.

Obama claims he cut a trillion dollars in spending by pretending that money that was never going to be spent fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is not going to be spent fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, voila, that constitutes a trillion dollar saving.

Now I don’t want anyone to get the idea that I’m campaigning to replace Timothy Geithner, but, frankly, I’m surprised that Obama doesn’t simply state that he has decided to spend $100 trillion building a railroad to the moon.  Then, when he holds a press conference to announce the cancelation of the project, he can claim that he not only wiped out our $16 trillion national debt, but that we now have $84 trillion of found money in our rainy day account.

Speaking of the economy, have you noticed that every time the unemployment rate falls, it’s because so many people have removed themselves from the work force?  Ever wonder where they went?  With the space program shut down, we know it wasn’t to another planet.  They went on welfare.  After all, what else would explain the huge upsurge in folks collecting food stamps and disability insurance?  What’s more, Obama couldn’t be happier.  On the one hand, it makes it appear that more people are working and, on the other, it places an additional burden on taxpayers, hastening the day when the entire nation will go the way of Greece, Spain and California.

When people gripe about politicians, they generally have the swine in Washington in mind.  But, often, you can find them in your own backyard.  Here in Los Angeles, the County Board of Supervisors decided to keep paying County Assessor John Noguez his $197,000-a-year salary even though he’s in jail for accepting bribes.  Some Angelinos are mystified by this seemingly bizarre decision.  But it seems fairly obvious to me that his colleagues are merely trying to set a precedent for the day they wind up joining him in the hoosegow.

For those of you who might be considering whether to see “Zero Dark Thirty,” the movie about the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, be warned that it not only runs — you should excuse the entirely inappropriate verb — over two-and-a-half hours; but that the final half hour, which is devoted to the actual event, is shot almost entirely in total darkness.  And the few minutes that don’t turn the movie into a very boring radio show are shot through the green lenses of night-vision goggles.

At times, I find myself envying the bliss of liberals.  Because they lack principles, they never have to worry about ignoring them in pursuit of winning elections or collecting welfare at the expense of the productive.

Because they’re never called upon to think for themselves, they never have to think twice when parroting left-wing talking points when it comes to guns.  It never occurs to them that instead of trying to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning weapons with which to defend themselves and their families, they should, one, be trying to institutionalize the crazies and, two, pass legislation that would automatically add 10 or 15 years to the sentence of any criminal using a gun in the commission of a crime.

Instead, the ACLU fights tooth and nail to prevent ticking time bombs from being taken off the streets for their own safety and the safety of others; and most liberals are far more offended by guns in the hands of their neighbors than by those distributed to Mexican gangsters by Eric Holder and his goons at the Department of Justice.

Finally, it occurs to me that if felons were smart, they’d form a union.  Then Democrats would never dare arrest them and put them on trial.  Instead, they’d let the National Labor Relations Board arbitrate between them and their victims, with the NLRB ultimately, and predictably, ruling in favor of the union members.

2 comments
Guest
Guest

I find myself a bit confused by this article. Though the headline implies a rather tight focus, you cover cliff negotiations, guns, welfare, the ACLU, felons, and - for good measure - a brief review of a film that has nothing to do with compromise.

 

The "nitwits" on the left may be off-base on a great many things. Unfortunately, you are wrong in asserting that the final deal was not a compromise in their eyes. It may not have been as much of a compromise as you would have found satisfying, but a $400,000 threshold is not the same as $200,000. Nor is a 40% estate tax a 45% estate tax (the original number desired by democrats). You can say you don't like the deal or that democrats didn't cooperate enough, but you can't factually say there was no compromise.

 

Additionally, you are drastically simplifying the reality of welfare in America. Since I work in community development, perhaps I can clear some things up. Generally speaking, any sort of public assistance comes with strings attached; with welfare, it is often employment or an effort to find something therein (in addition to income thresholds that you would find completely unlivable were you made to live at or below them). There is also a lifetime cap on the welfare assistance that any one family can receive. Additionally, those in poverty and on public assistance are not homogenous as you seem to assume. There are many republicans on public assistance, including welfare.

 

The problem with the conservative ideology is not that it's wrong, but that it's only right for those people like you. Unfortunately, many republicans haven't left their bubble of privilege long enough (if at all) to understand the reality of living outside of it. Those who have made something out of nothing tend to believe similar opportunities exist for everyone in poverty; unfortunately, the reality is that life in poverty is a game of chance, much more so than a life of security. I guarantee you there are people you believe to be unproductive who work much harder than you do for significantly less money.

 

Liberal ideology doesn't work for everyone either. I do believe, however, that those making over $450,000 can easily contribute more of their salary without ending up anywhere near the desperation and suffering that comes with living at welfare-eligible income levels. Before you rail on about personal responsibility, let me direct you to the previous paragraphs where I explain that welfare is not given freely to anyone who wants it, not even to those in poverty.

 

I agree with you on guns and unions, but unfortunately I can't comment on your stint as a film critic because I haven't seen Ms. Bigelow's film. Your problem on welfare is not that you're wrong. It's that you seem to be ignorant. Unfortunately, there's a lot of this from the right on this topic. Utilizing common tropes and stereotypes as you did above, one is able to dehumanize the poor and call for cuts to programs that benefit many hard-working people with a great deal of potential.

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

This reply comes from Burt Prelutsky:

 

I find myself a bit confused by this article. Though the headline implies a rather tight focus, you cover cliff negotiations, guns, welfare, the ACLU, felons, and - for good measure - a brief review of a film that has nothing to do with compromise.

 

****(I try to cover a lot of topics in every article.  Therefore titling a piece is rather difficult.  But at least part of the piece dealt with compromise.)  

 

 

The "nitwits" on the left may be off-base on a great many things. Unfortunately, you are wrong in asserting that the final deal was not a compromise in their eyes. It may not have been as much of a compromise as you would have found satisfying, but a $400,000 threshold is not the same as $200,000. Nor is a 40% estate tax a 45% estate tax (the original number desired by democrats). You can say you don't like the deal or that democrats didn't cooperate enough, but you can't factually say there was no compromise.

 

****(If one side is totally against raising taxes and the other side changes its numbers, that's not my idea of a compromise.  It would have been like saying that one side opposed, say, the invasion of Iraq and the other side opposed, so a compromise would have been an invasion of Ireland.)  

 

 

Additionally, you are drastically simplifying the reality of welfare in America. Since I work in community development, perhaps I can clear some things up. Generally speaking, any sort of public assistance comes with strings attached; with welfare, it is often employment or an effort to find something therein (in addition to income thresholds that you would find completely unlivable were you made to live at or below them). There is also a lifetime cap on the welfare assistance that any one family can receive. Additionally, those in poverty and on public assistance are not homogenous as you seem to assume. There are many republicans on public assistance, including welfare.

 

****(Of course everyone on welfare is not identical to everyone else.  But when dealing with millions of people, one has to generalize in order to make a point.  What is this lifetime cap you speak of?  If there were one, we wouldn't see families collecting welfare generation after generation.  Obama even decided to strike Clinton's work programs from welfare.)  

 

 

The problem with the conservative ideology is not that it's wrong, but that it's only right for those people like you. Unfortunately, many republicans haven't left their bubble of privilege long enough (if at all) to understand the reality of living outside of it. Those who have made something out of nothing tend to believe similar opportunities exist for everyone in poverty; unfortunately, the reality is that life in poverty is a game of chance, much more so than a life of security. I guarantee you there are people you believe to be unproductive who work much harder than you do for significantly less money.

 

****(The only thing wrong with conservative ideology is that people like you and those who are, say, the third or fourth generation of those on welfare don't accept it.  How does someone who works much harder than you assume I do wind up on welfare.  Even a minimum wage job would gross someone roughly $300-a-week, $1300-a-month, $15,600-a-year.  And there are precious few jobs that only pay minimum wage.  On top of that, if people get a high school diploma, stay away from drugs and refrain from having kids until they get married and can afford to raise them, they are pretty much guaranteed a welfare-free life.  It doesn't seem to be too much to ask of anyone.)  

 

 

Liberal ideology doesn't work for everyone either. I do believe, however, that those making over $450,000 can easily contribute more of their salary without ending up anywhere near the desperation and suffering that comes with living at welfare-eligible income levels. Before you rail on about personal responsibility, let me direct you to the previous paragraphs where I explain that welfare is not given freely to anyone who wants it, not even to those in poverty.

 

****(People making more than $400,000-a-year are already paying "more than their fair share because, as you may have noticed, we have a progressive income tax.  I would say that those making less than, say, $30,000-a-year should pay their fair share so that they would have a stake in the game.  The idea that people who pay nothing, and yet get to vote for those who get to decide what everyone else has to pay is immoral.)  

 

 

I agree with you on guns and unions, but unfortunately I can't comment on your stint as a film critic because I haven't seen Ms. Bigelow's film. Your problem on welfare is not that you're wrong. It's that you seem to be ignorant. Unfortunately, there's a lot of this from the right on this topic. Utilizing common tropes and stereotypes as you did above, one is able to dehumanize the poor and call for cuts to programs that benefit many hard-working people with a great deal of potential.

 

****(How is it that we have lived in a welfare state for decades now, have funded Head Start, promoted Affirmative Action, and put more and more people on food stamps, and people like yourself can continue to make a living off "community development."  It occurs to me that is a job formerly held by Mr. Obama.  I think we'd all be hard-pressed to see his positive accomplishments in Chicago, where the poverty rate is the same or higher than it was in those days and the crime and murder rates are even higher.  Aside from providing people like you with a living, what good has Obama's redistribution of wealth done for America?  We have an actual 11% rate of unemployment, a $16.4 trillion debt, a lower credit rating, a depleted military and, thanks to all the Monopoly money he's printed, inflation.  You could be right that one of us may very well be ignorant, but I'll let others decide who that someone is.  Regards, Burt Prelutsky)