m4cph1sto, corporations do not lower the cost of their products when they get a tax break.
And they only increase the cost of their products if the market will still buy them at that cost.
Supply and demand is what drives pricing.
And you are oversimplifying the word 'tax' in this situation. Labor may or may not be taxed at the same rate as profit.
A loss in the net profit does not "cost" the company anything. It might mean one less corporate jet, or smaller bonuses, but the cost of production has not changed.
You need to be specific about what taxes, because I certainly haven't heard Obama say "Oh, I'm going to increase payroll tax" or other things that would more directly drive up the cost of production.
However, being 'fair' (as in, 50% of income from someone who has more than they can possibly spend is way less painful than 50% from joe average who is barely making ends meet) isn't the only reason.
It is also much more stimulating to the economy to have people making less money able to spend most of it.
The super rich just do not spend as high a percent of their money. A lot of it goes into building more wealth, and is not necessarily stimulating or revenue producing for the economy as a whole.
Therefore, taxing profit and taxing rich folks at a higher rate, and taxing lower income people at a lower rate, is much better for the health of the economy as a whole.
Anyone who disagrees is stuck in 'trickle down' mode and should probably read a few more papers.
Sure, cutting X tax will increase Y revenue. If I cut someone's taxes by 10,000 dollars, and the neighborhoods revenue rises by 1 dollar, was that wise?
In terms of revenue put back into the economy, the link above shows that for every dollar you cut corporate tax, 30 cents goes back into the economy. Whereas, paying a government dollar out to someone in food stamps, puts 1.73 dollars back into the economy.
We have to tax. We might as well tax the areas that are proven to be LEAST stimulating to the economy when given a tax break.
in case you don't want to click the pdf, here's the list. don't have time to format it though:)
Policy Proposal One-year change in real GDP for a given policy change per dollar Tax Provisions Non-refundable rebate 1.02 Refundable rebate 1.26 Payroll tax holiday 1.29 Across the board tax cut 1.03 Accelerated depreciation 0.27 Extend alternative minimum tax patch 0.48 Make income tax cuts expiring in 2010 permanent 0.29 Make expiring dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent 0.37 Reduce corporate tax rates 0.30 Spending Provisions Extend unemployment compensation benefits 1.64 Temporary increase in food stamps 1.73 Revenue transfers to state governments 1.36 Increase infrastructure spending 1.59 Source: Mark Zandi, Moodyâ(TM)s Economy.com.
"Usually when the government lowers taxes they see an increase in tax revenue"
Please don't oversimplify something that is often used to give corporations fatter paychecks.
Sure, giving joe average a bit more money nearly directly pumps that money back into the economy.
Giving joe corporation a bit more money usually means joe corporation has a new jet or just more hoarded in the bank.
The level of 'stimulus' on various types of tax cuts is widely varied. Some are actually negative returns. Lower tax 1 dollar, get 10 cents back. Some are over. Lower tax 1 dollar, get 1.4 back.
It is pretty easy to find the breakdowns are the historic returns on differing tax/stimulus stuff.
Blanket statements like "any tax cut increases tax revenue" is wrong, and is used to justify all sorts of horrible economic policy.
Imagine if West Virginia and all the other coal states got together and imposed strict environmental laws in mass before coal mining took off full force.
Coal prices would be higher, but higher for everyone, encouraging alternate energies, the land would be less polluted, drinking water safer, and the natural beauty preserved.
What I hope Bolivia does, is say "Come back to us when the cost of Lithium is worth extracting given xyz strict regulations".
Tearing their country up for a (relatively) quick cash influx is not worth it in the long run.
A slow, steady, safer influx of cash would prevent the boom/bust that most aggressive resource mining seems to cause.
Batteries can be checked for quality quickly. Well, at least I know the lead acid ones can be.
"The battery's condition can be determined one of two ways: with a carbon pile "load test" (that applies a calibrated load to the battery) or electronically with a special tester that measures the battery's internal resistance. "
I assume that the lithium/other battery types can be measured quickly to make sure they aren't faltering.
In terms of 'who picks up the cost'. Well I think the fuel vendor should. Just like the swappable propane vendors now. Walk up, grab a tank, barbecue, run out some weeks/months later, get a new one.
A big 'fuel vendor' servicing multiple care companies' cars, could conceivable drive the cost of batteries down because of volume.
We are seeing a general trend of 10-20% increased use of online course tools each year. That doesn't necessarily mean that the classroom disappears though. Rather, certain topics can easily be taught using a variety of methods.
And I think that the 'listening to lectures on your iPod' is a bit misleading. Usually, online courses are either 100% online, taught using a system like Blackboard http://www.blackboard.com/ or the open source Moodle, or online courses can be a mixture of online and in the classroom (such as a chemistry course taught online, and the lab you come in 1 or 2 times per week for hands on).
There is also a fairly sizable amount of fully interactive video courses. Whereby, students come into a classroom, and the teacher teleconferences into the classroom. Full video, full audio, questions and answers, etc.. Each desk has a little microphone on it that students can use.
The reverse happens also. Online chat, online video that students can watch from home.
Each teacher is largely in charge of how they choose to mix and match the various tools.
So what we are seeing, isn't necessarily a move away from classrooms, rather, it is an increasing use of a variety of tools that allow more and more people to interact. Like your teacher lives in India, you take part of the course online from home in a rural county, and you drive in once per week for a video teleconf directed lab.
There is also a large push for business continuity. Especially around disaster planning. The more systems and outlets you have in the online world, the easier that task becomes. If a physical classroom catches fire, class is over. For a long time. If you can pick up where you left off online, money keeps coming in, and students keep learning.
I have also seen a large increase in message board/forum use. It adds a great layer to teaching and learning. Whereby, in addition to the regular lectures/labs or whatever, several 'slow' conversations can be going on inside a forum.
I keep seeing people say this, but I have yet to hear any convincing argument why they would stop the hardware aspect of Sun.
A) It was a money maker for Sun. It can be a money maker for Oracle. B) Oracle could release preconfigured 'ready to go' database, portal, web, or other type servers. C) Ultrasparc T2 chips are extremely low watt, high core and thread count chips, that are comparable on price with x86 for high performance in medium to large enterprise server setups.
Re:What about MySQL?
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm not thinking of table A joined to table B is slower than querying table A then table B.
Think of a hundred tables, some of which are related (by keys) and some of which are not. As in, say 20 of them contain preferences about a user's web site layout, 20 contain general layout preference information, 20 contain the top content according to all user ratings, and 20 contain seasonal news/promo items.
All of which is used to create a website layout for a customer.
One approach would be to have one stored procedure, that does 5 queries, one after another, one per set of 20 tables, and merge the results into one set that is used to build the web view.
A better approach would be to have your application execute the 5 queries simultaneously by kicking off 5 mini programs, and return the results to the application for merging.
One big stored procedure handling it versus the application taking some of the load and having the option to run things in parallel.
You divide the work up among the database server and the app server, as well as gaining the ability to run things simultaneously via multiple threads.
This is where having ultrasparcs with 8 cores each and 8 threads per core really shines.
Sun is phasing out sparc, but aggressively selling UltraSparc.
The cost vs performance is very impressive, and is winning people back from x86. At least in my environment (education).
The oracle database runs really well on the ultrasparcs. We just bought a 4 cpu T2 ultrasparc server, it has 8 cores per cpu for a total of 256 threads. With an edu discount, it cost ~60,000 if I recall correctly. There is nothing remotely as powerful in the x86 realm. http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T2/specs.xml
Rapid small transactions are surely larger than 10% of the queries executed daily. Especially in web-based services.
In my environment (online billing, online course registration, etc..) I've seen a progression in most of our vendor supplied code to scale for multiple threads/processes. A single login to one of our sites, for instance, generates ~20 small queries per person, per login, and the results are handled by a second layer of java that binds them together into a result set, that represents that user's data set.
Having a single large query, joined via sql instead of joined via application logic, is much harder to scale, and any programmer worth their salt would not place all their 'eggs' in the one 'basket' of a query. Breaking up the workload across multiple tiers (some on a database, some on java code, some queries from an ldap, etc..) makes sense.
Sun recognizes this and is adding large numbers of cores per cpu, and a large increase in the threads per core. Parallel execution in all applications will increase over time.
If you are truly addicted to coding, to the point that it is detrimental to your health, then you need counseling.
I would hazard a guess that you are not suffering from true addiction, but are making a conscious choice to continue thinking/dreaming about something that you really enjoy, without fully understanding the consequences. Well, without fully internalizing what those consequences mean.
If you force yourself (and it will feel like force at first) to do something completely NOT code related for 45 minutes before bed in combination with diet, exercise and other things (if needed), your mind will learn to slow down and shift gears into sleep mode.
You might consider trying something completely new, like Yoga. Something after work that is guided and meditative. Not to mention payed for:) If you pony up the dollars, you might have more motivation to go through with it.
If you still can't sleep, it is probably because you have lost the natural ability to 'turn off'.
I recently talked with a doctor, because I was having trouble winding down at the end of a long technical day. His suggestions:
1. Light: Making sure you both receive a good dose of early morning sun (either natural or those blue lights) and equally important, the low orange light of sunset at night. That is a cue for your body to turn off.
2. Having a ritual of sorts: 45min-1hour before bed, do 'something' that you'll associate with sleep. For example, get a cup of tea and read in the living room or outside. NOT in your bedroom. Do not associate your bedroom with your before bed actions (certain 'actions' excluded:))
3. Exercise: Even a small amount during the day, a walk around the office building at lunch, or 5 minutes of jumping jacks, anything helps. Just enough to work up a sweat usually works for me.
"And he said that nothing prevented a potential rival from following in its footsteps â" namely, by scanning books without explicit permission, waiting to be sued and working to secure a similar settlement. "
If the library association, or other large literary institutes wants (what they feel is) a more open version of the database, by all means, get to work scanning the millions of books.
It is not like the paper copies are going to be under lock and key at Google. Google is creating a vast digital copy of them. And providing that copy in various forms as a service that is paid for by advertising, licensing the copy to universities, and FREE to local libraries on one computer.
Just last year, we phased out the last of our HPUX servers and replaced them with Solaris.
HP sales of new servers might be down a bit (not sure) but their client base is still very large, and typically pays thousands of dollars in support per server, per year, running applications that probably won't change for years. Banks, payroll systems, etc.. stuff that tends to require support contracts and lasts decades.
I agree. I purchase tons of dvd's, and if one gets scratched, I have no qualms about downloading it. Or if I'm at a relatives house, downloading it for all of us to watch.
It just 'makes sense' from a user's standpoint. I'm depriving no one of anything, I paid them already, fair use should apply.
However, what the RIAA/MPAA sue over, isn't the individual downloading something (usually), its more about them uploading. You are acting as a distribution center for copyright material.
I can see a download easily as fair use. It is harder to justify the upload.
If a total stranger came up to me and said, "hey, could I make copies of your DVD's", that is not exactly fair use. I could kinda fib a bit and say "well, he's my friend and I loaned him my copies".. that might fly. But what if my entire neighborhood copied my DVD's? Certainly not fair use.
I really don't know what the answer is for copyright law, but from a user perspective, it sure seems like downloading something you own should be OK.
While I might find a conservative with a good point every so often, I agree with Colbert: Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Frankly, after the last 8 years, I'm fed up with the Republicans as a whole. To hell with Bi-partisanship.
Compromising to the extent that Republicans want would mean legislation and government actions so dilute in meaning and power as to basically have no effect whatsoever.
I whole heartedly want a massive "left push" to get this country back to some sane semblance of center.
Slashdot Mirror
m4cph1sto, corporations do not lower the cost of their products when they get a tax break.
And they only increase the cost of their products if the market will still buy them at that cost.
Supply and demand is what drives pricing.
And you are oversimplifying the word 'tax' in this situation. Labor may or may not be taxed at the same rate as profit.
A loss in the net profit does not "cost" the company anything. It might mean one less corporate jet, or smaller bonuses, but the cost of production has not changed.
You need to be specific about what taxes, because I certainly haven't heard Obama say "Oh, I'm going to increase payroll tax" or other things that would more directly drive up the cost of production.
Exactly.
However, being 'fair' (as in, 50% of income from someone who has more than they can possibly spend is way less painful than 50% from joe average who is barely making ends meet) isn't the only reason.
It is also much more stimulating to the economy to have people making less money able to spend most of it.
The super rich just do not spend as high a percent of their money. A lot of it goes into building more wealth, and is not necessarily stimulating or revenue producing for the economy as a whole.
Therefore, taxing profit and taxing rich folks at a higher rate, and taxing lower income people at a lower rate, is much better for the health of the economy as a whole.
Anyone who disagrees is stuck in 'trickle down' mode and should probably read a few more papers.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40104_20090227.pdf
Sure, cutting X tax will increase Y revenue.
If I cut someone's taxes by 10,000 dollars, and the neighborhoods revenue rises by 1 dollar, was that wise?
In terms of revenue put back into the economy, the link above shows that for every dollar you cut corporate tax, 30 cents goes back into the economy. Whereas, paying a government dollar out to someone in food stamps, puts 1.73 dollars back into the economy.
We have to tax. We might as well tax the areas that are proven to be LEAST stimulating to the economy when given a tax break.
in case you don't want to click the pdf, here's the list. don't have time to format it though:)
Policy Proposal One-year change in real GDP for a given policy change per dollar
Tax Provisions
Non-refundable rebate 1.02
Refundable rebate 1.26
Payroll tax holiday 1.29
Across the board tax cut 1.03
Accelerated depreciation 0.27
Extend alternative minimum tax patch 0.48
Make income tax cuts expiring in 2010 permanent 0.29
Make expiring dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent 0.37
Reduce corporate tax rates 0.30
Spending Provisions
Extend unemployment compensation benefits 1.64
Temporary increase in food stamps 1.73
Revenue transfers to state governments 1.36
Increase infrastructure spending 1.59
Source: Mark Zandi, Moodyâ(TM)s Economy.com.
"Usually when the government lowers taxes they see an increase in tax revenue"
Please don't oversimplify something that is often used to give corporations fatter paychecks.
Sure, giving joe average a bit more money nearly directly pumps that money back into the economy.
Giving joe corporation a bit more money usually means joe corporation has a new jet or just more hoarded in the bank.
The level of 'stimulus' on various types of tax cuts is widely varied. Some are actually negative returns. Lower tax 1 dollar, get 10 cents back. Some are over. Lower tax 1 dollar, get 1.4 back.
It is pretty easy to find the breakdowns are the historic returns on differing tax/stimulus stuff.
Blanket statements like "any tax cut increases tax revenue" is wrong, and is used to justify all sorts of horrible economic policy.
There are different types of taxes though. Most corporate taxes are levied as a tax on profits.
Profits rarely trickle down to the average joe.
Yup. I had H&R do my taxes this year. Cost about 160 bucks. And.... they did them incorrectly. I owed some extra to the state/county.
Imagine if West Virginia and all the other coal states got together and imposed strict environmental laws in mass before coal mining took off full force.
Coal prices would be higher, but higher for everyone, encouraging alternate energies, the land would be less polluted, drinking water safer, and the natural beauty preserved.
What I hope Bolivia does, is say "Come back to us when the cost of Lithium is worth extracting given xyz strict regulations".
Tearing their country up for a (relatively) quick cash influx is not worth it in the long run.
A slow, steady, safer influx of cash would prevent the boom/bust that most aggressive resource mining seems to cause.
Batteries can be checked for quality quickly. Well, at least I know the lead acid ones can be.
"The battery's condition can be determined one of two ways: with a carbon pile "load test" (that applies a calibrated load to the battery) or electronically with a special tester that measures the battery's internal resistance. "
I assume that the lithium/other battery types can be measured quickly to make sure they aren't faltering.
In terms of 'who picks up the cost'. Well I think the fuel vendor should. Just like the swappable propane vendors now. Walk up, grab a tank, barbecue, run out some weeks/months later, get a new one.
A big 'fuel vendor' servicing multiple care companies' cars, could conceivable drive the cost of batteries down because of volume.
I'm not sure where you are seeing T2 performing poorly against Power?
http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/3962-UltraSPARC-T2-vs.-Power6-today-Siebel-CRM.html
Do you have a reference? Here is oracle's report: http://www.oracle.com/apps_benchmark/doc/Sun_Siebel8_10000_PSPP_On_Solaris.pdf
Every article I can find shows that T2's are clearly ahead in terms of price vs performance.
I work for a large community college network.
We are seeing a general trend of 10-20% increased use of online course tools each year. That doesn't necessarily mean that the classroom disappears though. Rather, certain topics can easily be taught using a variety of methods.
And I think that the 'listening to lectures on your iPod' is a bit misleading. Usually, online courses are either 100% online, taught using a system like Blackboard http://www.blackboard.com/ or the open source Moodle, or online courses can be a mixture of online and in the classroom (such as a chemistry course taught online, and the lab you come in 1 or 2 times per week for hands on).
There is also a fairly sizable amount of fully interactive video courses. Whereby, students come into a classroom, and the teacher teleconferences into the classroom. Full video, full audio, questions and answers, etc.. Each desk has a little microphone on it that students can use.
The reverse happens also. Online chat, online video that students can watch from home.
Each teacher is largely in charge of how they choose to mix and match the various tools.
So what we are seeing, isn't necessarily a move away from classrooms, rather, it is an increasing use of a variety of tools that allow more and more people to interact. Like your teacher lives in India, you take part of the course online from home in a rural county, and you drive in once per week for a video teleconf directed lab.
There is also a large push for business continuity. Especially around disaster planning. The more systems and outlets you have in the online world, the easier that task becomes. If a physical classroom catches fire, class is over. For a long time. If you can pick up where you left off online, money keeps coming in, and students keep learning.
I have also seen a large increase in message board/forum use. It adds a great layer to teaching and learning. Whereby, in addition to the regular lectures/labs or whatever, several 'slow' conversations can be going on inside a forum.
"Oracle will pull the plug on selling servers"
Why?
I keep seeing people say this, but I have yet to hear any convincing argument why they would stop the hardware aspect of Sun.
A) It was a money maker for Sun. It can be a money maker for Oracle.
B) Oracle could release preconfigured 'ready to go' database, portal, web, or other type servers.
C) Ultrasparc T2 chips are extremely low watt, high core and thread count chips, that are comparable on price with x86 for high performance in medium to large enterprise server setups.
I'm not thinking of table A joined to table B is slower than querying table A then table B.
Think of a hundred tables, some of which are related (by keys) and some of which are not. As in, say 20 of them contain preferences about a user's web site layout, 20 contain general layout preference information, 20 contain the top content according to all user ratings, and 20 contain seasonal news/promo items.
All of which is used to create a website layout for a customer.
One approach would be to have one stored procedure, that does 5 queries, one after another, one per set of 20 tables, and merge the results into one set that is used to build the web view.
A better approach would be to have your application execute the 5 queries simultaneously by kicking off 5 mini programs, and return the results to the application for merging.
One big stored procedure handling it versus the application taking some of the load and having the option to run things in parallel.
You divide the work up among the database server and the app server, as well as gaining the ability to run things simultaneously via multiple threads.
This is where having ultrasparcs with 8 cores each and 8 threads per core really shines.
Sun is phasing out sparc, but aggressively selling UltraSparc.
The cost vs performance is very impressive, and is winning people back from x86. At least in my environment (education).
The oracle database runs really well on the ultrasparcs. We just bought a 4 cpu T2 ultrasparc server, it has 8 cores per cpu for a total of 256 threads. With an edu discount, it cost ~60,000 if I recall correctly. There is nothing remotely as powerful in the x86 realm.
http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T2/specs.xml
Rapid small transactions are surely larger than 10% of the queries executed daily. Especially in web-based services.
In my environment (online billing, online course registration, etc..) I've seen a progression in most of our vendor supplied code to scale for multiple threads/processes. A single login to one of our sites, for instance, generates ~20 small queries per person, per login, and the results are handled by a second layer of java that binds them together into a result set, that represents that user's data set.
Having a single large query, joined via sql instead of joined via application logic, is much harder to scale, and any programmer worth their salt would not place all their 'eggs' in the one 'basket' of a query. Breaking up the workload across multiple tiers (some on a database, some on java code, some queries from an ldap, etc..) makes sense.
Sun recognizes this and is adding large numbers of cores per cpu, and a large increase in the threads per core. Parallel execution in all applications will increase over time.
It is too bad we can't rewind history and release the game again, all conditions being equal, but this time, strong DRM in place.
I would guess we'd see less than 18,000 legit copies connecting, and some number less than 100,000 pirated copies connecting.
Net loss for the company most likely.
If you are truly addicted to coding, to the point that it is detrimental to your health, then you need counseling.
I would hazard a guess that you are not suffering from true addiction, but are making a conscious choice to continue thinking/dreaming about something that you really enjoy, without fully understanding the consequences. Well, without fully internalizing what those consequences mean.
If you force yourself (and it will feel like force at first) to do something completely NOT code related for 45 minutes before bed in combination with diet, exercise and other things (if needed), your mind will learn to slow down and shift gears into sleep mode.
You might consider trying something completely new, like Yoga. Something after work that is guided and meditative. Not to mention payed for:) If you pony up the dollars, you might have more motivation to go through with it.
If you still can't sleep, it is probably because you have lost the natural ability to 'turn off'.
I recently talked with a doctor, because I was having trouble winding down at the end of a long technical day. His suggestions:
1. Light: Making sure you both receive a good dose of early morning sun (either natural or those blue lights) and equally important, the low orange light of sunset at night. That is a cue for your body to turn off.
2. Having a ritual of sorts: 45min-1hour before bed, do 'something' that you'll associate with sleep. For example, get a cup of tea and read in the living room or outside. NOT in your bedroom. Do not associate your bedroom with your before bed actions (certain 'actions' excluded:))
3. Exercise: Even a small amount during the day, a walk around the office building at lunch, or 5 minutes of jumping jacks, anything helps. Just enough to work up a sweat usually works for me.
"It's a phyrric victory"
They used a flamethrower to take out competitors? ;)
pyÂric (prk, prk)
adj.
Of, relating to, or resulting from burning.
A Pyrrhic victory (IPA: /ËpÉrÉk/) is a victory with devastating cost to the victor.
This is a non-issue.
"And he said that nothing prevented a potential rival from following in its footsteps â" namely, by scanning books without explicit permission, waiting to be sued and working to secure a similar settlement. "
If the library association, or other large literary institutes wants (what they feel is) a more open version of the database, by all means, get to work scanning the millions of books.
It is not like the paper copies are going to be under lock and key at Google. Google is creating a vast digital copy of them. And providing that copy in various forms as a service that is paid for by advertising, licensing the copy to universities, and FREE to local libraries on one computer.
Odd, I have the exact opposite experience. WMP wouldn't play my dvds, nor many avi files I download.
VLC hasn't refused to open any media file, including wmv files so far. This is on windows xp.
Just last year, we phased out the last of our HPUX servers and replaced them with Solaris.
HP sales of new servers might be down a bit (not sure) but their client base is still very large, and typically pays thousands of dollars in support per server, per year, running applications that probably won't change for years. Banks, payroll systems, etc.. stuff that tends to require support contracts and lasts decades.
"I wonder if this means the sparc processor is done and Solaris will be migrated to the IBM's RISC"
I would bet it will be the other way around. Ultrasparc chips kick some serious arse compared to risc.
I agree. I purchase tons of dvd's, and if one gets scratched, I have no qualms about downloading it. Or if I'm at a relatives house, downloading it for all of us to watch.
It just 'makes sense' from a user's standpoint. I'm depriving no one of anything, I paid them already, fair use should apply.
However, what the RIAA/MPAA sue over, isn't the individual downloading something (usually), its more about them uploading. You are acting as a distribution center for copyright material.
I can see a download easily as fair use. It is harder to justify the upload.
If a total stranger came up to me and said, "hey, could I make copies of your DVD's", that is not exactly fair use. I could kinda fib a bit and say "well, he's my friend and I loaned him my copies".. that might fly. But what if my entire neighborhood copied my DVD's? Certainly not fair use.
I really don't know what the answer is for copyright law, but from a user perspective, it sure seems like downloading something you own should be OK.
Cortesoft, you have to admit though, Free Speech suffers some of the same grey boundary problems that the right to arms does.
All civil liberties are balanced by society's fear of their extreme use.
From bad to good in the categories of Free Speech and right to arms.
nuke>bomb>grenade>machine gun>handgun>rifle
hate speech>obscenity>shout-fire-theater>distasteful rhetoric>politics>arts
While I might find a conservative with a good point every so often, I agree with Colbert: Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Frankly, after the last 8 years, I'm fed up with the Republicans as a whole. To hell with Bi-partisanship.
Compromising to the extent that Republicans want would mean legislation and government actions so dilute in meaning and power as to basically have no effect whatsoever.
I whole heartedly want a massive "left push" to get this country back to some sane semblance of center.