Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Follies who wrote (115012)	10/8/2011 9:09:05 PM
From: Paul V.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224757

Follies, Will you compromise and say that both sides are to blame or will you refuse and let all hell break loose? It totally depends on the settlement point. During hard bargaining from my experience I have found pain or perceived pain is what drives both of the parties to settle, not rationale. If you look at Wars, Baseball strikes, and other labor disputes, and even divorces the fear of pain or loss appears to be the catalyst for what drives the parties to settle. We see such settlement during the past baseball strike which the owners lost profits and the player felt the pain of not having a salary and benefits. In Wars perceive annihilation or pain drives the settlement to the point that a settlement occurs. IMO, if there is equal power then a compromise finally comes to pass. I perceive that this will occur if the Republicans and Democrat's hang tough within the Committee of twelve. If not, then the House and Senate will have to pass up or down with a majority of any settlement at the Federal level. If they can not agree with passage, then there will be a 50/50 cuts between the military and funds which are discretionary. The committee of twelve is hopefully were the settlement will be reached and then ratified by Congress.