Time for Moderates to grow a set of balls

[Mr.Nick]

In our 200 year history, we have relied on moderates of both parties to find the middle ground. That was how politics was done, come in with extreme positions and then have your moderates work out a deal

In America today, moderates cower in fear and meekly shrug..."What can I do?". Moderates fear that they will be driven from their party if they do not toe the extremist line. Compromise used to be a sign of intelligence and maturity...now it is a sign of weakness

There are no win-win situations anymore. Win-win means the other side also wins so it is looked at as defeat.

It is time for moderates of both parties to take back control of their parties. Our government no longer functions and every minor decision requires a filibuster proof majority.

Come on moderates......Grow a set of balls

I don't understand how one can be moderate...

So breaking the constitution is only OK some of the time?

That would make moderates, actually progressive.

In my book you either stand for a man/womans civil liberties or you don't, if you're in the middle you're fucking confused - that or don't know your rights or constitution.

 

[Political Junky]

"Moderate" means giving up half of what you believe in. What half are you willing to give up?

That is what compromise is

Only children expect to get their way all the time

“I want what I want when I want it.” — Eric Cantor’s High School Yearbook Quote

 

[Dot Com]

In our 200 year history, we have relied on moderates of both parties to find the middle ground. That was how politics was done, come in with extreme positions and then have your moderates work out a deal

In America today, moderates cower in fear and meekly shrug..."What can I do?". Moderates fear that they will be driven from their party if they do not toe the extremist line. Compromise used to be a sign of intelligence and maturity...now it is a sign of weakness

There are no win-win situations anymore. Win-win means the other side also wins so it is looked at as defeat.

It is time for moderates of both parties to take back control of their parties. Our government no longer functions and every minor decision requires a filibuster proof majority.

Come on moderates......Grow a set of balls

Thing is, the Repubs have few if any moderates left w/ the exception of a few patriots such as Lugar, whom the T-party wants gone.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/175448-excellent-moderate-republican.html

They say he spends too much time on foreign affairs The Repubs are being forced to become isolationists by their new fringe element in the house How did being isolationists work out for us last time?

 

[Middleoftheroad]

In our 200 year history, we have relied on moderates of both parties to find the middle ground. That was how politics was done, come in with extreme positions and then have your moderates work out a deal

In America today, moderates cower in fear and meekly shrug..."What can I do?". Moderates fear that they will be driven from their party if they do not toe the extremist line. Compromise used to be a sign of intelligence and maturity...now it is a sign of weakness

There are no win-win situations anymore. Win-win means the other side also wins so it is looked at as defeat.

It is time for moderates of both parties to take back control of their parties. Our government no longer functions and every minor decision requires a filibuster proof majority.

Come on moderates......Grow a set of balls

I don't understand how one can be moderate...

So breaking the constitution is only OK some of the time?

That would make moderates, actually progressive.

In my book you either stand for a man/womans civil liberties or you don't, if you're in the middle you're fucking confused - that or don't know your rights or constitution.

See this is where it gets confusing, because both sides claim they are following civil liberties, and both parties believe it. But the truth is that both parties are constantly breaking the constitution, but each side believes that only the other is.

 

[westwall]

There can be no moderation. The left has decided that they want something that is so extreme that even when "moderated" it will still destroy the country. I voted for Obama with the understanding that he would either be one of the very best presidents we've ever had or one of the very worst. With him it would be made plain where the country was going and quickly. McCain would have been more of the same towards inexorable collapse. This way my view was either the country would start to recover or it will get so bad that the country will actually wake up.

Obama has been one of the worst, if not the worst POTUS ever, and the country is waking up. That is a good thing. The libs hate the TEAPARTIERS but they have had a significant and dramatic impact on this countries politics and more to the point they are grass roots, not run from a back room in DC like all the other groups are.

 

[MaggieMae]

At times like this, when each side is itching for a train wreck, the moderates are badly outnumbered. And there are times like trying to make a compromise is worse than the smash. Cutting the baby in two is not the best solution. One side or the other will have to loose. The moderates will have to decide which bunch of zanies to jump on board with.

It doesn't mean cutting the baby in two at all. It means policy should be made by reasoned decisions during negotiations over what needs to be given up in order to keep part of what you want, not half. That's how negotiations are conduced in any given situation, from ending wars to who takes the last piece of cake. Right now, neither party will budge and the piece of cake is going stale.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Moderates don't ahve balls. That's why they're moderates. Moderates never did anything worthwhile in this country.
And we sure don't need them now. There is no way to moderate the deficit. We either fix the problem or we don't.

and both sides are so stuck in their stupid ideologies that neither can see the truth if it smacks them in the face.

It isn't ideology that if you raise taxes not only will you not cut the deficit, in fact the deficit will grow. That is the lesson of history that Obama and the Dums seem to forget. Nor is it ideology that the welfare state is bankrupting us, nor is is ideology that Obama's deficits dwarf Federal budgets of 20 years ago. Nor is it ideology that the fed gov is filled with overlapping duplicative programs that are proven failures. All of that is fact.
What is ideology is that raising taxes on the rich is done in the interest of "fairness", as

So i guess what your saying is that when Clinton cut taxes on the low and middle classes and raised taxes on the top bracket, that this must have been bad for the economy, NO WAY it could have led to 7 straight years of growth and 3 consecutive years of budget surplus.

 

[oldsalt]

That is what compromise is

Only children expect to get their way all the time

So what do you think the Democrats and the President should compromise on?

Well to a point I see democrats and the president already starting to compromise, but I don't see it from the other side. Spending is out of control, and they do seem to be willing to fix part of this at least. But they are getting nothing from republicans at all. But honestly I would like to see them add a year to SS retirement age, and a year to when you are able to recieve medicare, as these two things would go a LONG way to balancing the budget for years.

NOsays the con.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Where have they compromised? Obama agreed to 140B-170B a year in cuts (depending on whose side you listen to) he asked for 20-30B a year in cutting tax loopholes. So let me get this straight, the part that has the most power asks for 20 and is willing to give 140 and the other side says they aren't willing to give anything.

When we are running a one year deficit of $1.6T, offering $140B - $170B in cuts is a flat out insult. I agree the Republicans need to be more flexible, but when Obama and the Democratic Party are making the kind of offers you cite above, it's evidence that they are not taking this issue at all seriously, so why would anyone compromise.

 

[MaggieMae]

In our 200 year history, we have relied on moderates of both parties to find the middle ground. That was how politics was done, come in with extreme positions and then have your moderates work out a deal

In America today, moderates cower in fear and meekly shrug..."What can I do?". Moderates fear that they will be driven from their party if they do not toe the extremist line. Compromise used to be a sign of intelligence and maturity...now it is a sign of weakness

There are no win-win situations anymore. Win-win means the other side also wins so it is looked at as defeat.

It is time for moderates of both parties to take back control of their parties. Our government no longer functions and every minor decision requires a filibuster proof majority.

Come on moderates......Grow a set of balls

actually this isn't the case at all. The truth is both sides are so stubborn these days that they refuse to listen to moderates. We still speak, but no one is listening

I blame that on the media, which always wants to put the faces in front of the camera who make the most noise. On one of the Sunday programs this morning, Dick Durbin made the comment that [paraphrasing] "Remove Republicans and Democrats from grandstanding and out of camera range, and there's a lot [we] agree on." But they'll wait until the midnight hour to admit it--all to demonstrate political clout, period.

 

[Dot Com]

At times like this, when each side is itching for a train wreck, the moderates are badly outnumbered. And there are times like trying to make a compromise is worse than the smash. Cutting the baby in two is not the best solution. One side or the other will have to loose. The moderates will have to decide which bunch of zanies to jump on board with.

It doesn't mean cutting the baby in two at all. It means policy should be made by reasoned decisions during negotiations over what needs to be given up in order to keep part of what you want, not half. That's how negotiations are conduced in any given situation, from ending wars to who takes the last piece of cake. Right now, neither party will budge and the piece of cake is going stale.

Thats right. There's a reason while governing is termed "the art of compromise". Don't expect the Rabbi to be able to comprehend this though. He's of the mindset, as are MANY other conservatives, that "we have to destroy the village to save it"

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Better to see the country collapse than reach a compromise...

A collapse is inevitable if we continue to spend more than what we are taking in. It's just a matter of how soon it happens.

 

[oldsalt]

There can be no moderation. The left has decided that they want something that is so extreme that even when "moderated" it will still destroy the country. I voted for Obama with the understanding that he would either be one of the very best presidents we've ever had or one of the very worst. With him it would be made plain where the country was going and quickly. McCain would have been more of the same towards inexorable collapse. This way my view was either the country would start to recover or it will get so bad that the country will actually wake up.

Obama has been one of the worst, if not the worst POTUS ever, and the country is waking up. That is a good thing. The libs hate the TEAPARTIERS but they have had a significant and dramatic impact on this countries politics and more to the point they are grass roots, not run from a back room in DC like all the other groups are.

Actually, I think the country woke up to the baggercons after the mid-term. They campaigned on jobs, and immediately started in on their own form of take control of our lives big gov't, tossing women and the middle class workers over the cliff. fuckin' bunch of CON artists.

 

[shintao]

In our 200 year history, we have relied on moderates of both parties to find the middle ground. That was how politics was done, come in with extreme positions and then have your moderates work out a deal

In America today, moderates cower in fear and meekly shrug..."What can I do?". Moderates fear that they will be driven from their party if they do not toe the extremist line. Compromise used to be a sign of intelligence and maturity...now it is a sign of weakness

There are no win-win situations anymore. Win-win means the other side also wins so it is looked at as defeat.

It is time for moderates of both parties to take back control of their parties. Our government no longer functions and every minor decision requires a filibuster proof majority.

Come on moderates......Grow a set of balls

I don't understand how one can be moderate...

So breaking the constitution is only OK some of the time?

That would make moderates, actually progressive.

In my book you either stand for a man/womans civil liberties or you don't, if you're in the middle you're fucking confused - that or don't know your rights or constitution.

A moderate must be someone who can lean various ways that are not towards the radical ends of values of anyone party.

I consider myself a liberal, yet personally oppose abortion, and radically support the 2nd Amendment to bare arms. My biggest issue isthe Constitution weighed for the benefit of all American humanity. ie. including the poor, disabled, etc. I am anti-corporate even though liberals seem to support their goals.

But I can see a moderate supporting torture for a cause, wars, or not wars, right to chose, tax cuts, etc.

 

[Political Junky]

Better to see the country collapse than reach a compromise...

A collapse is inevitable if we continue to spend more than what we are taking in. It's just a matter of how soon it happens.

Exactly, we need more revenue.

 

[whitehall]

A lot of the so-called political "moderates" are liberals who are afraid to use the "L" word. They are radical lefties who are afraid to call themselves what they are.

 

[Contumacious]

"Moderate" means giving up half of what you believe in. What half are you willing to give up?

That is what compromise is

Only children expect to get their way all the time

Yeah man.

Freedom is a bad thing.

We need to be partially enslaved.

.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Where have they compromised? Obama agreed to 140B-170B a year in cuts (depending on whose side you listen to) he asked for 20-30B a year in cutting tax loopholes. So let me get this straight, the part that has the most power asks for 20 and is willing to give 140 and the other side says they aren't willing to give anything.

When we are running a one year deficit of $1.6T, offering $140B - $170B in cuts is a flat out insult. I agree the Republicans need to be more flexible, but when Obama and the Democratic Party are making the kind of offers you cite above, it's evidence that they are not taking this issue at all seriously, so why would anyone compromise.

We need to look at the WHOLE picture here. Why we have such a huge deficit. Spending is at around 25% of GDP, federal tax reciepts are at around 14% of GDP. Spending has been histroically around 18-21% and I don't think they have ever had a balanced budget with spending at 20% or more. So I think we can agree on that spending should be at the 18-19% range with tax reciepts at the 19-20% range (so as we always have a balanced budget or surplus).

 

[westwall]

"Moderate" means giving up half of what you believe in. What half are you willing to give up?

That is what compromise is

Only children expect to get their way all the time

Yeah man.

Freedom is a bad thing.

We need to be partially enslaved.

.

Collectivists want it all, your money, your land, your mind, and eventually your life.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Moderate" means giving up half of what you believe in. What half are you willing to give up?

That is what compromise is

Only children expect to get their way all the time

So what do you think the Democrats and the President should compromise on?

Why did you leave out Republicans?

A perfect example of a major compromise was last December's agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts for another two years, after a year of Obama saying he wouldn't agree to that. BUT, what he got in return for acquiescing was:

An extension of unemployment benefits for another 13 months.

The estate tax temporarily raised to 35% with a $5 million exemption.

A 2% cut in the payroll tax for all workers.

See? Piece of cake.