Democrats: Help me find common ground.

[Saul Good]

The people have spoken. Obama gets four more years. Congress remains split. It's compromise or gridlock, but is compromise possible? Everyone talks about bipartisanship, but they usually mean unconditional surrender by the other side.

It's pretty well known around here that I am a conservative. Liberals out there, let's pretend we're in congress. Pick an issue that you would like to address, and let's see if we can really agree to meet somewhere in the middle.

Tax rates, abortion, drug legalization...whatcha got?

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Saul Too

And Puerto Rico becoming a state is of "overwhelming importance" according to the Democrat platform. So what?

That's not a social issue, nor does it affect the lives of millions of women and families.

Government should not be allowed to tell women what they can and can't have done to their bodies.

[Bewbies]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Which is exactly why the Right lost.

There is far more to life these days than just the economy. Social issues prevail, especially in the population centers, which Obama happened to win.

I don't disagree with this at all. A campaign of Not Obama isn't good enough.

I'm interested to see if it was message, messenger or what the exact ins and outs were on this. But that will have to wait I'm going to take a few weeks off from all news/media. Focus on more portably shit, like watching the Chiefs suck.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

You keep saying "sign a bill". That's not what the electorate hears. They hear rhetoric that scares them to believe if Republicans can find someway to get such a bill to such a President, he will sign it. You can talk about the reality of that scenario all you want, but the masses don't sit down an discuss why it won't happen, they get upset when someone initmates they would like to see it happen, would welcome it, would sign it if it comes to them. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

So you’re talking about perception not necessarily any real action. I don’t disagree.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Is your point that Romney didn’t bring it up, that the moderator at a debate did?

No, my point is that the Republicans should attempt to drop this as a political position. I don't care how real or imagined the threat is, women believe conservatives will support conservative Presidents to pick conservative justices and elect legislators to make their abortion ban dreams come true.

If you want to close the women voting gap so that their focus IS on economic issues, they need to distance themselves from these social issues in a political sense, make it a non-issue.

[Graystoke]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The only problem with that is it's a core belief of their party and constituents.

If the Republicans were to stop pandering to the Religious Right, who would make up their core? The party would likely cease to exist because the millions upon millions who believe in those issues would likely find another party.

The Religious Right is a dying breed, evident by this election alone. USA Citizens have faith, no doubt, but it is apparent that the GOP can't continue to go to the Religious well anymore. What worked for Ronnie and GW Bush does not fly in todays politics.

The GOP better get their shit together.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

No, my point is that the Republicans should attempt to drop this as a political position. I don't care how real or imagined the threat is, women believe conservatives will support conservative Presidents to pick conservative justices and elect legislators to make their abortion ban dreams come true.

If you want to close the women voting gap so that their focus IS on economic issues, they need to distance themselves from these social issues in a political sense, make it a non-issue.

So we're back to demanding absolute surrender?

[Shaid]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I went from $25K to $125K in a span of about 15 years.

My tax burden went up in almost direct proportion as I went from $25K to $80K and then bam, a spike.

There's definitely an invisible barrier around $100K.

You can sim it for yourself - somebody posted a site around here the other day.

I used the sim, it's on politify.com. The difference was between Romney and Obama's tax plan. Romney was stating a uniform reduction of taxes but limiting deductions that working class families usually use. Romney's plan hurts families making $100k or less more. It appears to be better for you once you get above the $100k mark ($120k in my case with my kids, etc.) and is extremely good for you the more you make. A millionaire gets like a $100k tax deduction under Romney and people only making $50k (median household income) are far better off under Obama.

The way I see it, if working class Americans have more money in their pocket, they are more likely to buy a new car, etc. and continue growing the economy. If they have less money, and the richest have more, where's the growth? The rich can afford to hire more people but there's no point to because the demand doesn't exist.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by Saul Too

So we're back to demanding absolute surrender?

I'm not telling you to do anything, you can fight it til the elections returns come home and keep pretending you just don't understand why women don't like you all you want.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Shaid

I used the sim, it's on politify.com. The difference was between Romney and Obama's tax plan. Romney was stating a uniform reduction of taxes but limiting deductions that working class families usually use. Romney's plan hurts families making $100k or less more. It appears to be better for you once you get above the $100k mark ($120k in my case with my kids, etc.) and is extremely good for you the more you make. A millionaire gets like a $100k tax deduction under Romney and people only making $50k (median household income) are far better off under Obama.

The way I see it, if working class Americans have more money in their pocket, they are more likely to buy a new car, etc. and continue growing the economy. If they have less money, and the richest have more, where's the growth? The rich can afford to hire more people but there's no point to because the demand doesn't exist.

That's why I prefer combining consumption-based revenue (ie. sales tax) with payday-type taxes over a straight income tax.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The only problem with that is it's a core belief of their party and constituents.

If the Republicans were to stop pandering to the Religious Right, who would make up their core? The party would likely cease to exist because the millions upon millions who believe in those issues would likely find another party.

They're going to cease to exist anyway.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by KCFaninSEA

I see where some compromise can be had if people are willing to go there. The first is that everybody must pay their fair share of taxes, % wise. If that happens I would be very willing to limit military spending and cut the amounts of $$ going over seas. I would also want to impose fees associated with an employer closing a company that is in the US and wanting to ship that work/business overseas just so they can make more profits and escape our tax laws. Couple that with additional caps on welfare for those who could work but are choosing not to. These types of benefits are to help those capable of working ( single mothers who keep pumping out kids like an M16 on full auto)get back on their feet (not unlike unemployment IMO), not to be used as a charity. You take care of that welfare issue and people will be forced to get off their asses. I would also like people to look at finding a way to reward Americans who BUY AMERICAN MADE products! Think of the impact in tax revenue and job creation if we were buying American made products. Earlier this year I went to buy a new TV. Stopped by the store to ask some questions and asked the guy to point me to the American made TV. He said, "there aren't any". It was quite alarming that I couldn't buy American in America.

I think you're a couple of decades late if you're looking for an American-made TV. You might be able to find one in an antique shop.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Because it's in the 2012 Republican Platform PDF.

More proof that the Republican Party is anti-science.

There's nothing anti-science about that position. That's like saying that opposition to German eugenics experiments is anti-science. That said, you place entirely too much emphasis on a party platform. In vitrio fertilization is not and was not in any jeopardy, although there would probably be push back against government funding (as well there should be).

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by patteeu

There's nothing anti-science about that position. That's like saying that opposition to German eugenics experiments is anti-science. That said, you place entirely too much emphasis on a party platform. In vitrio fertilization is not and was not in any jeopardy, although there would probably be push back against government funding (as well there should be).

No, I do not place too much emphasis on party platform.

Paul Ryan's beliefs were clear, as were several others in the Republican party. Until those beliefs are erased from their platform, they'll never get my vote.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They're going to cease to exist anyway.

On a national scale, I agree.

But on the Congressional level, especially those in the Midwest and less populated, the Republicans will remain entrenched.

Hence, gridlock.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

On a national scale, I agree.

But on the Congressional level, especially those in the Midwest and less populated, the Republicans will remain entrenched.

Hence, gridlock.

Guess we are all dumb ****ing hicks in the Midwest compared to ****ing California.