We need some moderate republicans in Congress.

[Univee2]

LOL You just expressed a more moderate view of illegal immigrants than many, if not most, on the far right by proposing to allow illegals to become legal at a lower level without first going home! You, you, moderate, you! Shouldn't we send them all home as long as there are unemployed Mericans?

And for the record, Camp Washington Chili runs circles around Skyline and Gold Star.

Pay attention now. My views would be seen as nativist, racist hate-mongering as I wouldn't allow the vote. We know that's the idiotic left's ultimate end game. So, I'm on that "other" side of the wall. We're all within the twenty yards from the goal line out to our twenty-yard line. The sixty yards between the 20's is a barren, desolate wasteland. I'm just a little closer to the 20 than our compatriots.

And I've been to Camp Washington several times. Thought it was okay, but that's it. Skip Delicio's. Like licking a lump of coal with cheese on the other side. This is one carbon which I agree we need to eliminate .... Coal-fired pizza ... Blech, Blech, Blech.... Found Three Floyds Robert the Bruce at both Boca and A Tavala in Madeira. At Boca, had three and told the bartender I'd buy all they had. He laughed, but 10 minutes later the manager came by with a six-pack and said I could have it for $16. Sold, sold and sold. Not bad considering they sell it for $7 per bottle.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Moderates have no principle by definition they flow with the wind!

Good Lord, are you ridiculous!

A moderate is someone whose positions are either found generally between the right and left, or comprise a mixture of positions that are usually held by the right or left.

Are you saying that if someone is pro-gun and pro-choice, they must have no principle?

Or if someone honestly believes that we have a right to own guns, but also agrees with a handful of restrictions on the basis of safety, that means they have no principle?

You think principle means someone is a radical, and has to make all their positions match those of one party or the other?

 

[meridian]

Can't agree.... I think that a moderate is one that is willing to negotiate and come to some kind of agreement. Otherwise nothing ever gets done.

You are absolutely right. I wish there is a litmus test of something to test the candidate before the election.

 

[hoot1]

A moderate is a person who can explain all sides of a question accurately without putting an unflattering spin on any of the positions. In today's world most politicians when presenting the other person's position manage to spin it to make their own stand look better.

Compromise usually end up with ideas from all sides of an issue. At the end of the day, no one is completely satisfied. Nevertheless, the compromise solution is better than just leaving things stand without a solution.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We've recently entered an era where huge, HUGE decisions will be made. Our current fiscal path is unsustainable (yes, even with the near-term deficit having come down the past couple years) and policymaking in the coming 10 or 15 years will be forced to address it.

I think that the biggest reason ideologues (and, BTW, I don't use that term as a pejorative -- I proudly consider myself one) have been pushing for more ideological purity is a kind of preparation for this. I think most people realize that, at the end of the day, compromises are going to have to be made. But, clearly, people want the outcomes of those compromises to look more like their own vision than competing visions.

I was actually somewhat heartened by the outcome of the Bowles-Simpson commission. Not that I endorse their recommendations necessarily (though I think they made for a good starting point for the other side of the table of Paul Ryan's roadmap). What heartened me was that the recommendations won the approval of two sitting US Senators as ideologically diverse as Dick Durbin and Tom Coburn. Of course, those hopes were later dashed when it became apparent that President Obama, who (to his credit) formed the commission, had no intention of doing anything with their recommendations.

So, from where I'm sitting, I'd say that I'd like to see more moderate Democrats in Congress. But that's only because I want the results of these compromises-yet-to-come to look more like what I'd like to see and less like what the left would like to see. At least I'm man enough to admit that.

 

[Rockfish1]

Our current fiscal path is unsustainable (yes, even with the near-term deficit having come down the past couple years) and policymaking in the coming 10 or 15 years will be forced to address it.

This is so only because the predicted path of health care costs is unsustainable -- and those cost curves are coming down.

Those who are concerned about our fiscal future should be focused like a laser on health care reform. If we had per capita costs similar to those of other developed countries we'd have no fiscal risk at all.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

This is so only because the predicted path of health care costs is unsustainable -- and those cost curves are coming down.

Those who are concerned about our fiscal future should be focused like a laser on health care reform. If we had per capita costs similar to those of other developed countries we'd have no fiscal risk at all.

We could also stop spending a trillion dollars a year on a global military empire. We spend more than the next 13 biggest spenders combined. Maybe if we kept our noses out of other countries business this wouldn't be necessary.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

This is so only because the predicted path of health care costs is unsustainable -- and those cost curves are coming down.

Those who are concerned about our fiscal future should be focused like a laser on health care reform. If we had per capita costs similar to those of other developed countries we'd have no fiscal risk at all.

Yeah, that's only about the 1452nd time you've told us this. Personally, I think healthcare costs are a huge part of the fiscal shortfall -- but, by no means all of it.

But, whatever one thinks the causes of fiscal unsustainability are, and whatever one thinks the solutions are, the point is: we're entering an era when significant policy changes are going to be made. All I'm saying is that this is the primary impetus behind the ideological divergence.

Once those things are settled and behind us, I suspect we'll see more reversion to the mean.

 

[Rockfish1]

Yeah, that's only about the 1452nd time you've told us this. Personally, I think healthcare costs are a huge part of the fiscal shortfall -- but, by no means all of it.

But, whatever one thinks the causes of fiscal unsustainability are, and whatever one thinks the solutions are, the point is: we're entering an era when significant policy changes are going to be made. All I'm saying is that this is the primary impetus behind the ideological divergence.

Once those things are settled and behind us, I suspect we'll see more reversion to the mean.

I keep saying it because (1) it's true; and (2) ideologues like you gloss over this reality in broader attacks against government spending.

Discretionary spending isn't a fiscal problem. Nor is "welfare". Even Social Security would be easy to fix. There's nothing unsustainable about any of that -- as a matter of objectively ascertainable fact. The only thing that's unsustainable are our long term projected health care costs. But even on that front there's good news: Since 2006, CBO has revised its Medicare cost curves downward every year. The same is true of Obamacare. These realities aren't congenial to the claims of conservative ideologues, so they're often ignored. When I see that happening, I fill the gap with facts.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Ok, today's GOP is such a far reach from the GOP that I grew up and identified with. I'm a big Goldwater conservative fan sans the racism. I left the party in the 2nd term of Reagan when he was senile and sleeping in meetings.

However, this guy nailed the problem with the GOP before it was even an issue.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
― Barry M. Goldwater

The rest, as they say, is history. Here we are today with the Tea Party targeting and getting rid of any who oppose their dogma. That's really standing for individual choice isn't it... fascism is what they are practicing, the very same arena they are leading us to.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I keep saying it because (1) it's true; and (2) ideologues like you gloss over this reality in broader attacks against government spending.

Discretionary spending isn't a fiscal problem. Nor is "welfare". Even Social Security would be easy to fix. There's nothing unsustainable about any of that -- as a matter of objectively ascertainable fact. The only thing that's unsustainable are our long term projected health care costs. But even on that front there's good news: Since 2006, CBO has revised its Medicare cost curves downward every year. The same is true of Obamacare. These realities aren't congenial to the claims of conservative ideologues, so they're often ignored. When I see that happening, I fill the gap with facts.

A) If healthcare accounts for the totality of our fiscal problem, why does Social Security need to be "fixed"? These can't both be true.

B) If it's so "easy" to fix Social Security, why hasn't it been done? We've known about the coming shortfall for at least 20 years. Bill Clinton talked about trying to fix it. George W. Bush proposed fixes to it. And Barack Obama has floated the idea of reducing COLAs. That's 3 two-term presidents now who have either talked about or tried to address the program's shortfall.

If that's "easy", then how do we define "hard"?

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

You can easily find articles about "fixing" for SS, they have been pointing it out for years now.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You can easily find articles about "fixing" for SS, they have been pointing it out for years now.

Oh, I know there are plenty of suggestions about ways to close the SS funding gap. But....easy? Something that has only been talked about for decades?

I don't think it's at all easy -- not politically, anyway. If it were, it would've been done by now. And I'd bet pretty good money that the ultimate fix will be a mishmash of various things.

My other point is simply that, if we stipulate that SS needs to be (fiscally) fixed, that obviously belies Rock's oft-repeated claim that healthcare comprises all of our fiscal woes.

As I said, these can't both be true -- even if one argues that fixing Social Security's $12 trillion funding shortfall is "easy".

 

[Rockfish1]

A) If healthcare accounts for the totality of our fiscal problem, why does Social Security need to be "fixed"? These can't both be true.

B) If it's so "easy" to fix Social Security, why hasn't it been done? We've known about the coming shortfall for at least 20 years. Bill Clinton talked about trying to fix it. George W. Bush proposed fixes to it. And Barack Obama has floated the idea of reducing COLAs. That's 3 two-term presidents now who have either talked about or tried to address the program's shortfall.

If that's "easy", then how do we define "hard"?

If we do nothing, then at some point Social Security beneficiaries will see only about 80 percent of their expected benefits. A one-time fix would remedy that for as far into the future as the Social Security trustees claim they can predict -- if you examine my chart you'll see that the gap arises and then trends out in a flat line indefinitely -- and we know exactly how to close the gap. The specific tools we choose from among the alternatives will be determined by the political correlation of forces that exists when the need for action becomes sufficiently imperative that it happens. But if we chose to, we could sustainably raise revenue to cover 100 percent of the shortfall -- which is my preference. Contrary to the claims of conservative ideologues, there's nothing unsustainable about the basic model of Social Security. We can easily afford to fund it.

Medicare is different. As my chart shows, Medicare's costs are projected to continue rising forever, not coincidentally because health care costs are projected to continue rising indefinitely. At this point, we don't know exactly how to fix this. We do, of course, know generally how every other developed country has (successfully) gone about it, but health care reform is vastly more complicated than fixing Social Security, and it will involve much more money. We can't "fix" Social Security in the next, say, year, unlike Social Security, which we can fix any time we decide to.

At the same time, the straight line trends that make everyone freak out about unsustainable future debt irrationally assume that nothing will change -- and that health care costs will continue to grow at a constant rate right up until we all starve to death because health care costs account for 100 percent of our national income. That is obviously not going to happen. Which means that neither will we incur the vast future debts that cause ideologues to call for harsh spending cuts to social safety net spending.

Those who want to cut government spending for ideological reasons throw around inflated future debt projections without thought or analysis, because ultimately conservative ideologues don't really care about debt or deficits. They want tax cuts that would mostly benefit the wealthy, and they want spending cuts that would harm everyone else. The deficit is just a cudgel they bring out when there's a Democrat in the White House.

 

[Standard Issue]

Moderates have no principle by definition they flow with the wind!

You're a dumb ass. I decided not to compromise.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

If we do nothing, then at some point Social Security beneficiaries will see only about 80 percent of their expected benefits. A one-time fix would remedy that for as far into the future as the Social Security trustees claim they can predict -- if you examine my chart you'll see that the gap arises and then trends out in a flat line indefinitely -- and we know exactly how to close the gap. The specific tools we choose from among the alternatives will be determined by the political correlation of forces that exists when the need for action becomes sufficiently imperative that it happens. But if we chose to, we could sustainably raise revenue to cover 100 percent of the shortfall -- which is my preference. Contrary to the claims of conservative ideologues, there's nothing unsustainable about the basic model of Social Security. We can easily afford to fund it.

Medicare is different. As my chart shows, Medicare's costs are projected to continue rising forever, not coincidentally because health care costs are projected to continue rising indefinitely. At this point, we don't know exactly how to fix this. We do, of course, know generally how every other developed country has (successfully) gone about it, but health care reform is vastly more complicated than fixing Social Security, and it will involve much more money. We can't "fix" Social Security in the next, say, year, unlike Social Security, which we can fix any time we decide to.

At the same time, the straight line trends that make everyone freak out about unsustainable future debt irrationally assume that nothing will change -- and that health care costs will continue to grow at a constant rate right up until we all starve to death because health care costs account for 100 percent of our national income. That is obviously not going to happen. Which means that neither will we incur the vast future debts that cause ideologues to call for harsh spending cuts to social safety net spending.

Those who want to cut government spending for ideological reasons throw around inflated future debt projections without thought or analysis, because ultimately conservative ideologues don't really care about debt or deficits. They want tax cuts that would mostly benefit the wealthy, and they want spending cuts that would harm everyone else. The deficit is just a cudgel they bring out when there's a Democrat in the White House.

That's an awful lot of verbiage simply to dodge my point.

I'm certainly not challenging the notion that healthcare makes up a large share of our fiscal shortfall, both current and future. But it certainly isn't all of it -- and, yes, Social Security makes up a whole lot of the rest of it.

That you think it's "easy" to solve compared to Medicare -- which, frankly, history shows that it is anything but -- is really neither here nor there. In other words, whether it's easy or hard to fix doesn't mean it's excluded from our whole fiscal picture.

Anyway, I think it's safe to look at Bowles-Simpson as a rough draft of what a bipartisan "grand bargain" might look like. At the very least, it offers guidance of what is and isn't on the table from the start of negotiations. I'm pretty sure it won't be limited to healthcare expenditures only -- but, obviously, they're going to have to be towards the top of the list.

 

[Ladoga]

Good Lord, are you ridiculous!

A moderate is someone whose positions are either found generally between the right and left, or comprise a mixture of positions that are usually held by the right or left.

Are you saying that if someone is pro-gun and pro-choice, they must have no principle?

Or if someone honestly believes that we have a right to own guns, but also agrees with a handful of restrictions on the basis of safety, that means they have no principle?

You think principle means someone is a radical, and has to make all their positions match those of one party or the other?

Been waiting for decades for some one to make a list of "moderate" positions, but since you mentioned that their positions are found in between the left and right, could you list some positions that are "moderate"? I have never seen such a list - not even of 2 or 3 positions - never.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Been waiting for decades for some one to make a list of "moderate" positions, but since you mentioned that their positions are found in between the left and right, could you list some positions that are "moderate"? I have never seen such a list - not even of 2 or 3 positions - never.

Why would there be a list of moderate positions? Moderate isn't a platform.

 

[Ladoga]

Why would there be a list of moderate positions? Moderate isn't a platform.

I asked you to post a list, not find one. You mentioned moderates hold positions in between the left and right. OK> But I've never seen such positions labeled as moderate more than 1 at a time. So, out of curiosity, I asked you to list some moderate positions on issues.

Can you do so? My question is based on the statement in your post.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

I asked you to post a list, not find one. You mentioned moderates hold positions in between the left and right. OK> But I've never seen such positions labeled as moderate more than 1 at a time. So, out of curiosity, I asked you to list some moderate positions on issues.

Can you do so? My question is based on the statement in your post.

When is this to occur? What circumstances would they profess their own beliefs on what those are? Normally groups set agendas. Such as a treaty negotiation, you may hold one set, your instructions may say you only have certain options... Campaign time would be about it and if they want to be elected, well... If you want to know moderates, look who the tea party drove out. You know Dick Lugar? A moderate republican, you want to try to tell us how he had no positions between right and left?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I asked you to post a list, not find one. You mentioned moderates hold positions in between the left and right. OK> But I've never seen such positions labeled as moderate more than 1 at a time. So, out of curiosity, I asked you to list some moderate positions on issues.

Can you do so? My question is based on the statement in your post.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought you misunderstood. To be clear, there are no positions that a moderate should be expected to hold. Instead, there are positions that are correctly considered moderate. Positions are moderate, not lists. People are moderates if they happen to hold a lot of moderate positions.

If I misunderstood, if what you're really asking for are simply examples of some moderate positions, I think I can do that:

Abortion in the first trimester only, or to save the life of the mother.
Every law-abiding citizen has a right to own guns, but they should have to go through a waiting period and background check for every purchase.
Taxes should be lower overall, but they should retain a somewhat progressive structure.
Forced prayer in school is wrong, but there's nothing wrong with "In God We Trust" on the money and "Under God" in the pledge.
Universal health care is good in theory, but all Americans should be on the hook for paying for it to at least some extent - nothing free.
Alternatively, universal health care is bad, but it's okay for the state to provide at least a little help for the less fortunate to purchase private insurance.
Marijuana should be decriminalized, but hard drugs should retain harsh punishments.
Alternatively, drugs should remain illegal, but we should focus on treatment more and punishment less.
The state should aggressively stamp out racial discrimination, but affirmative action goes too far. We should level the playing field, but we shouldn't hand out any sort of "compensatory" advantages. End prejudice, and everything will work itself out.

This really isn't difficult. I could keep going all night. I'm sure you could come up with some, too. Is this some sort of strange test of yours?

 

[twenty02]

Been waiting for decades for some one to make a list of "moderate" positions, but since you mentioned that their positions are found in between the left and right, could you list some positions that are "moderate"? I have never seen such a list - not even of 2 or 3 positions - never.

Easy...a moderate position on SS reform would include raising the retirement age, changing the cost of living adjustments, and increasing taxes in some manner. There have been endless studies done, by bipartisan commissions. It's not that we don't know what to do, just the political will for both sides to give up something.

 

[Ladoga]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought you misunderstood. To be clear, there are no positions that a moderate should be expected to hold. Instead, there are positions that are correctly considered moderate. Positions are moderate, not lists. People are moderates if they happen to hold a lot of moderate positions.

If I misunderstood, if what you're really asking for are simply examples of some moderate positions, I think I can do that:

Abortion in the first trimester only, or to save the life of the mother.
Every law-abiding citizen has a right to own guns, but they should have to go through a waiting period and background check for every purchase.
Taxes should be lower overall, but they should retain a somewhat progressive structure.
Forced prayer in school is wrong, but there's nothing wrong with "In God We Trust" on the money and "Under God" in the pledge.
Universal health care is good in theory, but all Americans should be on the hook for paying for it to at least some extent - nothing free.
Alternatively, universal health care is bad, but it's okay for the state to provide at least a little help for the less fortunate to purchase private insurance.
Marijuana should be decriminalized, but hard drugs should retain harsh punishments.
Alternatively, drugs should remain illegal, but we should focus on treatment more and punishment less.
The state should aggressively stamp out racial discrimination, but affirmative action goes too far. We should level the playing field, but we shouldn't hand out any sort of "compensatory" advantages. End prejudice, and everything will work itself out.

This really isn't difficult. I could keep going all night. I'm sure you could come up with some, too. Is this some sort of strange test of yours?

Thanks very much. That list of moderate positions or views is exactly what I was asking for. Many of those positions are current law and if I may disagree just a tiny bit, a few of them - if you announced them in a public forum or debate as a candidate would get you attacked from the left. A couple would get criticism from the right. I guess maybe that's the definition - if you anger folks on left and right with your position, you're a moderate - on that position anyway.

Thanks for the list. I expect if we took the time we'd find hundreds of such positions. I do think your abortion position would have the left after your hide.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought you misunderstood. To be clear, there are no positions that a moderate should be expected to hold. Instead, there are positions that are correctly considered moderate. Positions are moderate, not lists. People are moderates if they happen to hold a lot of moderate positions.

If I misunderstood, if what you're really asking for are simply examples of some moderate positions, I think I can do that:

Abortion in the first trimester only, or to save the life of the mother.
Every law-abiding citizen has a right to own guns, but they should have to go through a waiting period and background check for every purchase.
Taxes should be lower overall, but they should retain a somewhat progressive structure.
Forced prayer in school is wrong, but there's nothing wrong with "In God We Trust" on the money and "Under God" in the pledge.
Universal health care is good in theory, but all Americans should be on the hook for paying for it to at least some extent - nothing free.
Alternatively, universal health care is bad, but it's okay for the state to provide at least a little help for the less fortunate to purchase private insurance.
Marijuana should be decriminalized, but hard drugs should retain harsh punishments.
Alternatively, drugs should remain illegal, but we should focus on treatment more and punishment less.
The state should aggressively stamp out racial discrimination, but affirmative action goes too far. We should level the playing field, but we shouldn't hand out any sort of "compensatory" advantages. End prejudice, and everything will work itself out.

This really isn't difficult. I could keep going all night. I'm sure you could come up with some, too. Is this some sort of strange test of yours?

I agree with almost every one of those positions, yet I'm considered a right winger by some of the lefties here.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Your responses paint you as such.