Where is the common ground?

from PolMach Forums
Its clear even from this message board that Republicans and Democrats are miles apart. Where do we come together, where is the common ground, where can we start the cooperation that we need to go forward. If anything the gap is larger now than it was even in 2000 or 1992.
politics
6,678 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
I'll bite - where do you think the common ground is?

Should it be in reforming Social Security, to strengthen it and make sure it's solvent for years to come? For my view, yes. It should be, but yet Harry Ried and friends argue that social security isn't broken, and doesn't need to be fixed. That the improvements that Bush wants to make are wrong and are designed to destroy Social Security as we know it.

Should it be in putting good judges on to the bench? Yup, put qualified judges on the bench. Don't demagogue them. Don't label them and color them as things they aren't because they were nominated by the other party. Let them have votes and if they are qualified and pass the vote, put them in place.

There are other places as well, and I hear about this great divide and lack of cooperation. I hear whining that Bush and the Republicans aren't reaching out to the Democrats, yet I don't see that many plans coming out of the Democrats, and I see prescious few like Zell Miller and Breaux and others that are willing to reach across and work with the Republicans and the President to pass laws that are in the best interest of the country.

Cooperation requires two willing partners, and though there are clearly places where the Republican side doesn't seem that anxious, there are other places they'd find a partner for change if they really wished to work together.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Social security needs to be fixed without causing those who have paid into the system without losing what they have put in. Congress and the government have robbed from the system long enough. There needs to be a guarentee that if the system is replaced that the money will still be there that has already been invested. Its clear that investment in the private sector will bring about more money, but if it means throwing that money out of the door it leaves some without a net. The system is supposedly secure until 2041 or so.

Let's not make judicial nominations a one sided issue. The choices that Clinton put forth met with similar resistance. Both are done for political agendas. Once the political agenda issue is out the door for both sides, then those judges should be qualified. But if the Republicans choose someone just because they are pro-life or the Dems pro-choice, then our selections are not the slam dunk we think them to be.

I would put to you that Zell Miller didn't reach out to the Republican party, he changed over to it. Denegrating the party he left is not what I would call reaching out to the other side. He is a traitor to the Democratic party.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
I would put to you that Zell Miller didn't reach out to the Republican party, he changed over to it. Denegrating the party he left is not what I would call reaching out to the other side. He is a traitor to the Democratic party.


Zell Miller - much like Ronald Reagan and many others before him - would point out that he didn't leave the Democratic party, they left him.

They marched in their own lock step using delay and stall tactics after they were given control of the senate following Jumpin' Jim Jeffords (real and declared) switch to independent status and tried everything they could to prevent any momentum for G. W. Bush. They delayed on judicial nominations, they held back making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and basically stalled for time hoping against hope that they could win a clear majority in the 2002 mid-terms. It backfired on them badly, and kept going badly when they saw themselves lose even more in 2004.

And btw, Zell Miller isn't the only one that has felt that the Democrats have left him. Look at the numbers seen here in this blog article and other places and ask yourself why were Blue Collar Union people supporting Pres. Bush? Why were security moms supporting him? Why does the military -- even with a very sad and unfortunate 1000+ losses in Iraq -- continue to support him? Why were more Hispanics supporting him? Why were all age groups except the 18-29 year olds supporting Pres. Bush? Why were the majority of people that make $50,000 a year or more supporting Pres. Bush (which is a fairly sizable amount of the working people in this country btw, and was a very sizable amount of the electorate this year).

Again, you and others on the liberal side look at the Democratic party and ask why no-one is smart enough to see that your way is the right way, without ever assuming that the people are smart enough to look and see that the emperor has no clothes.

Look back at yourselves and your party and really ask why people aren't buying the message. Perhaps because the message is totally wrong and is out of touch with mainstream U.S.A. Perhaps because people have found that Pres. Bush's promised "ownership society" can and does work, and will make life better for them and their families.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #2 By: Citizen whoman69 - 1/3/2005 1:34:44 PM
Social security needs to be fixed without causing those who have paid into the system without losing what they have put in.


I should follow up on this and say again: Pres. Bush has promised that any changes or reforms in Social Security will not change the delivery of the promise made to those in the system currently, or at least not those that are facing retirement in the reasonable future. It may impact upon younger workers, who will also benefit from being offered choices and opportunities to "own" their retirement funds (or portions of them), but anyone that is approximately 40 years of ago or older would likely see absolutely no changes to their retirement benefits, and unless they are making more $90k per year, they are likely to not see any changes to their contributions.

You seem to have bought into the Sen. Harry Reid style fear mongering that says that the system will be destroyed and all will be lost. That's simply not true. The system is broken now, with only a stack of worthless IOU's laying around to insure that contributors get paid. It can be fixed to make certain that there's a reasonable nest egg available for all to retire with, and even better, for those fortunate enough to participate in the program to leave behind to future generations (versus the current system where benefits expire with the death of the participants {with a few exceptions}).

It can be funded very easily by raising the cap on portion of a workers salary that is taxed for social security, and that's what Lindsay Graham has touted as a potential solution. It's not been ruled out yet (that I know of), by Pres. Bush, and is the most likely answer for how we're going to fund these proposed changes without negatively impacting the system.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
I asked how we could find common ground and all you can tell me is that one side is wrong. I brought up the SSN point but made no comments about President Bush's program, only that if there is to be a privatization, we would need to ensure the funds already invested.

So I ask again, is there no common ground?
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #5 By: Citizen whoman69 - 1/4/2005 1:34:07 PM
I asked how we could find common ground and all you can tell me is that one side is wrong. I brought up the SSN point but made no comments about President Bush's program, only that if there is to be a privatization, we would need to ensure the funds already invested.

So I ask again, is there no common ground?


I don't think both sides are wrong, or one side is right, or the other is wrong. I don't think either side is perfect, or neither side is perfect. They are what they are.

I continue to hold that if the left wants to find common ground, such as on issues of things like Social Security, then they need to communicate that to President and to the people. If the President isn't listening, then bypass him, and go to the media. Tell them (the media) of their plans so the public can get excited about some of the points of those plans and demand that those points be included in the end solution.

Common ground is there if either side wants to work towards it.

I think the problem from the other side (the Republicans if I'm in your side of the equation, as I see things) is that the Democrats have not presented plans and proposals so the Republican side doesn't have any idea where they might even begin to start finding middle ground. Not to sound like I'm doing more Democratic bashing, but if the Democrats continue to pooh-pooh the Republican proposals, but don't produce any of their own, then how are things improved?

If the Democrats produce a plan that they know is DOA and is mainly composed of components that won't ever get support in the Republican side, then they're not seeking middle ground.


Personally, I'd love to see someone pull a Newt Gingrich type plan off and start really detailing a laundry list of things that WILL BE done. I would hope that Pres. Bush is the person to do that, and I hope he does it in the SOTU (State of the Union) address soon.

I'd like to see:

Much, much, much more investment in science and technology, especially centered around a serious return to space. Back to the Moon, then on to Mars with manned spaced flight. A serious replacement for the shuttles, or a new alternative that would bring down the costs of manned flight so we can seriously explore and reach out to new science.

This should be an area of common ground. It should be one of the biggest jobs creation programs in the history of this country. NASA's push to the moon certainly was. We educated thousands of engineers of various types, created whole new technologies that benefit us to this day. And yet, currently, we are using 1960's designed technology to do most of our space work. We must move on, and it should be something that is of great benefit to us in terms of jobs, scientific research, educational improvement and many other intangibles.


We need to work on improving Social Security. Again, it should be a common ground area if both sides want to work on it. Thus far, the Democrats have been Demagogues about it. Start looking at a serious solution that offers opportunity to all.


We need to work on improving health care access for all, while reducing costs for liability insurance for doctors and other health care workers. We need to limit liability costs for Pharmaceutical companies that create products that have negative side effects, but which were not hidden due to negligence or malice. Companies should be able to spend on new wonder drugs without wondering if they'll be sued into oblivion because the drug had some side effects they weren't aware of in advance. If they truly were negligent, if they didn't do due diligence and testing, if they rushed a product to market for profit and ignored results of testing, then they should be punished, but it should be punishment at the hands of the government, for the people. Not at the hands of fat cat liability lawyers that get rich while real victims get pittance payments.

Doctors who are incompetent should be put out of business, but again, at the hands of the government, for the people. Not at the hands of lawyers that sue them, settle out of court for whatever the maximum insurance payout is, and then seal the decision so that the doctor can keep making the same mistakes again and again. If the doctor makes a mistake, it should be public knowledge, or at least public to a review board, and after too many mistakes, doctors should lose their license, or at least go into a probationary program.

Again, lawyers shouldn't be benefiting from mistakes. They should make a reasonable fee for protecting the public, and the public should get fair compensation for wrongs done to them.


There are other places that should have some ground also, but again, it takes two people to communicate - both have to be ready to listen as well as speak.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
I'd say gay marriage. Why? Because both red and blue states have said NO! to gay marriage.


that would be true, but do the red states want the compromise to allow civil unions with equal strength in law?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd say gay marriage. Why? Because both red and blue states have said NO! to gay marriage.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #8 By: whoman69 - 1/4/2005 3:15:47 PM
I'd say gay marriage. Why? Because both red and blue states have said NO! to gay marriage.


that would be true, but do the red states want the compromise to allow civil unions with equal strength in law?


doubtful. But then who knows?