Political Compromise

Post Reply New Topic

i am making a compromise

#Allow and promote wide spread gun-ownership while increasing wide spread gun control policies

#Allow Gays to marry but give it a new name. And allow Civil Unions in all 50 states.

#Allow illegal immigrants citizenship, and pass the dream act while closing off the border

#Raise taxes on everyone except for the bottom 20%, raise them way way more for the uber wealthy, raise them just way more for the wealthy, and then raise them more for lower wealthy(500k to 1 mil), but cut spending dramatically and pay down the deficit.

#Federal ammendment to make Abortion legal in all 50 states but stop federal funding of it.

#Cut off Foreign Aid to Israel to Israel, and foreign aid to every other nation as well. (until we've cut the deficit in half)

#Stop Aimless Sprawl but curtail Liberal Smart Growth Policies... by, for example, Smart Sprawl

#Make it easier to fire crappy, union-protected teachers but reward outstanding instructors, especially in maths and sciences with six figure salaries.

#Federally Invest in "Green Technology" research and development to the tune of 10's of billions but lift the oil moratorium and keep our oil companies tax rates low.

#Allow more of the highway trust fund to be used to subsidize current public transportation and increasing services and options to the public, while also building more and more and more roadway, bridges, and highways.

The task here is not to agree with me or even call what I've listed a compromise, but to make your own compromise list that throws a bone to the opposition that'll somewhat make everyone happy. I'd just like to see an effort made and see what people consider compromise. I'm sure there's a moderate pragmatist in all of us, and that's what I'm looking for.

so you are a democrat now?

no because they can't make the compromise either and you'll run into the following:

Asking the democrat to raise taxes on the middle class is to ask the democrat to conjure up what the middle class have been seasoned to vilify them as: Tax Raisers.

They can't support wide spread gun ownership

Closing the border to a colored ethnicity is racist

Cutting spending is draconian

Cutting federal aid of abortion is sexist

Teachers should get payed the highest in society, those who care about merit and/or results just hate unions and the seriousness of their opinions dismissed on those grounds...

Restrict Exxon and Chevron access to the Gulf because they are under regulated and tax the life out of them

no more roads, it destroys wildlife, supports foreign regimes, increases co2 emissions, and we're trying to move people out of the automobile and into the bus/train. Whiners should shut up, we are entitled to the DMV fees and our portion of the trust fund.

It's not helpful that there is no compromise, which is fine, but at least acknowledge that you are not a compromiser, nor are you a moderate, but one who holds fringe opinions. Which is fine... so long as it is admitted.

Compromise is for Obama and the likes.

Only the strawman democrats you invented.
You will find -if you take a break from your hobby of stuffing old-clothes with straw-
most democrats will compromise on anything and actually have compromised on the exact
list you have made. Obama will compromise on anything just ask him nice.
It turns out the "left" and the Right in america are not mirror Image uncompromising Warriors
But that democrats half believe in what the Republican program.
What is the Republican version of the blue Dog called?
. . . .
Oh nothing because there is no such thing.

I think their word is "Traitor!"

If "green" technology is viable, the market will take care of it. The Federal government did not subsidize home computers, desk tops, lap tops, ipods and the like. They were viable technologies and did not need government subsidies. On top of that, any area which the government subsidizes will attract scams and swindles like honey attracts flies. Government subsidies are poison. Tax breaks to innovative industries, but NO, NOT ANY subsidies.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 06 Oct 2011, 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i'm speaking about the party, 85% will not make a compromise on the list above without compromising the support of the ideologues who they're elected by. The same would be true if the GOP ruled both chambers as the Democrats did in 2008, and there were more Scott Brown's and Olympia Snowe's, Joseph Liebermans, and Max Bucacas's. There is virtually no difference between those 4, and they can run in either party and it won't have any inflection on the party's overall blueprint. They are moderates. The Democratic and Republican Party is not.

The elections of 06 and 08 trimmed the GOP thin only to strong ideologues, and the same is true if the Democrats lost that many seats... the moderates will lose in primaries and the candidates that get elected will be hyper partisan and ideologically pure. Think Harry Ried(2010) or Sherrod Brown.

And okay, Obama has compromised on half of one item on that list.... Just half of one... Jakob... I'd love to see you name the item on my list that has been compromised for the betterment of the nation.

If "green" technology is viable, the market will take care of it. The Federal government did not subsidize home computers, desk tops, lap tops, ipods and the like. They were viable technologies and did not need government subsidies. On top of that, any area which the government subsidizes will attract scams and swindles like honey attracts flies. Government subsidies are poison. Tax breaks to innovative industries, but NO, NOT ANY subsidies.

ruveyn[/quote]

but there is capital in computers, and virtually none outside the subsidies that the DOE provides for. I'm not talking about investing in solar companies for them to make solar panals as Obama and moronic advocates of a green economy are suggesting... I'm suggesting we bring together universities and corporation's R&D departments and fund a sustained and focused effort to develop alternative energy that can provide safe, reliable, base-load power to effectively replace coal, shale, and fossil fuel. Energy that is clean, renewable, recyclable, and doesn't leaves only a clean footprint.

A private/public 50 Billion dollar research fund can accomplish this. Let realistic alternatives exist first, and then the markets can take over.

The alternative is to let the democrats tax our auto manufacturers into irralavency with CAFE, and Carbon Taxes on all of industry, most of that money will then just go into subsidizing windmill and solar panel production in a market that cannot sustain itself, or put it into something worse like high-speed rail.

Well Churchy that would have me accept that your list would help the country.
Not really willing to make that compromise.
Turns out this is a center-right country it is a struggle between strident right-wing ideologues and Moderates.
Maybe the Moderates have already compromised too much?
The fact you think that Harry Reid is Ideologically pure shows your construct is a house of folly.



But please jump in with a crazy I mean the 2010 Harry Reid (like he has made some leap to the left)

What do you mean by "promote"? What do you mean by "gun control policies?"
I think you will find many second amendment proponents who will view this as no compromise at all.

I am generally happy with our approach on this side of the border--a system of Firearms Acquisition Certificates with classifications that permit the purchase and possession of various classes of firearms. Subject such a system to mandatory training and periodic requalification; impose disqualifications on certain classes of individuals (i.e. those convicted of firearms offenses) but otherwise allow for unrestricted possession.



The Supreme Court long ago decided that "separate but equal" is not good law. This is no compromise--it is the continuation of making lesbian and gay people second class citizens.

I suggest: no legal recognition of marrige. Allow every religious denomination to celebrate it as they see fit (including same sex and polygamous marriage for those deonominations that provide for it), but require every married couple to register a civil union before any legal recognition or benefit flows from it.



What does, "closing off the border," mean? Does this actually do anything to deal with the labour shortage that exists for underpaid manual workers in agriculture, construction and food service? When you regularlize all of that undocument labour, will you still be able to afford to buy a basket of strawberries at the supermarket?

I suggest: create a visa classification for unskilled migrant labourers. Allow US employers to petition to employ a certain number of these workers without being required to present a named petition, and allow workers to obtain these visas on a numerically capped basis. Once in the country, the visa holders can renew with a petition from an employer that petitions to keep them on a named basis. Allow for transition to permanent residence based on a period of continued residence with ongoing employment. (Say, two years of continuous residence and employment within the country).



Where do you propose to cut spending? Since almost all government spending winds up in the economy through direct transfers, wages and benefits or puchases of goods and services, what's going to take up the slack? Government spending accounts for about 20% of your GDP--10% of your GDP is currently funded through deficit financing. Cut that in one fell swoop and you are way beyond recession, you are into full-fledge depression.

I suggest: Align corporate taxes with individual taxes, tax 50% of all capital gains as income, eliminate all tax exemptions and replace them with tax credits for a limited scope of spending (charitable giving, tuition, uninsured medical/dental care, etc), introduce a federal value added tax.



So wealthy women can have control of their bodies, but poor women who have to rely on government funded health care are out of luck? It's either legal or it isn't. And if it's legal, then all women have access to it, regardless of ability to pay.

This is one where I think you will find that there is almost no compromise possible.



So what about all those US employers who sell goods and services to aid recipients? What about your country's influence in those countries--you're content to allow China free rein? Foreign aid is a tool in the foreign policy kit, and should not be disposed of uncritically. You might call it bribery, but that's how the world works.

Again, I don't see a lot of possible compromise.



I'm not sure that this is a compromise--it seems to be more of an astute policy approach.



English isn't as important as math and sciences?

I'm with you on this. Schools should be palaces, and teachers earnings should be comparable with other professions. But with professional earnings comes professional responsibilty.



I tend to view tax policy as the worst way to exercise influence over the economy.

Investment in alternative energy is just plain smart economics, but I see no public policy justification to extend tax favouritism petroleum producers.



Tricky. I'm generally not in favour of spending money earmarked for capital on program spending (like subsidies). But spending road money on transit hubs (Park 'n' Rides), bus lanes and mass transit systems I'm good with.

A federal tax credit for public transportation spending might provide some help. Giving cities the capacity to impose vehicle levies or congention charges--anything that incentivizes the use of public transit, and incentivizes keeping that additional revenue in the hands of public transit providers so that they can increase services.



Thanks for the starting kick at this.

So that's compromising between left wing and radical far left wing?

Here are probably some compromises that both parties can agree on:
1. Job training for the unemployed.
2. Taxcuts for middle/lower class
3. Tax deductions for small businesses

I am on board.
Lets add stopping corporate bailouts.
(I would couple this with stronger anti-trust but since we are compromising here I won't mention it.)
Also a less interventionist foreign policy.

You are as you vote currently.

John McCain following his loss to Bush was the 39th most conservative republican in the Senate.

He is now tied for most conservative voter in the senate, voting 90% more conservative then the rest of all of the senate.

The same is true of Reid who was the 25th most liberal senator (so a centrist in his party), and only 22nd most liberal in 2009, before tieing 7 other liberals in the senate for most liberal senator, voting 90% more liberal then the entire senate.

It doesn't matter that McCain or Reid were once centrist in their party or even moderates in the senate, they have both trended towards fringe thinking and all that matters is how you vote now.

It is fine if you think the Democrats moderates, but please make a "moderate" compromise list or are you too scared to have you opinions critiqued?

Problem with your argument.

Tax cuts for lower class, got news for you they don't pay Federal Income Taxes, it would be a handout.

Possible problem with your argument:
How do you define what a small business is?