• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Moderate Party

V

vash1012

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you are like the majority of Americans and don't think either party represents you, what would you like to see in a Moderate party?

I'd like to see a party that:

Is pragmatic and has willingness to compromise as a fundamental core of its platform
Focuses on addressing income inequality through education, healthcare, and expansion of the earned income tax credit rather than means tested welfare in as many cases as possible
Fights for a more progressive income tax system, but keeps corporate and business taxes competitive
Works to create a pro-business environment through regulation and taxation
Works within the Constitution, but is willing to take centrist positions when it makes sense because they are wide spread population wide issues and is very willing to not try to fix an issue with federal action (to defer to state and local governments) if it only affects small proportions of the population
Values energy independence AND actions to limit climate change
Has an idea of civil rights based on individuals and not groups
Values free trade
Accepts scientific consensus
Has a foreign policy promoting a strong bond with the rest of the West, accepts a reduction in American hegemony, and rejects Western universalism in favor of finding common interests with other civilizations rather than trying to westernize them
 
Last edited:
vash1012 said:
I've made it about half way through the platform, but its pretty much spot on so far. I'm not a fan of the name. They could use a 10th member that's a PR person I think and an 11th that knows more about web design.
Click to expand...
If they are already having problems with just that, you think you could imagine them in charge of a nation? Our nation?
 
If half of my beliefs are extreme left and the other half are extreme right, does that average me out to "moderate"? ;)
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
If they are already having problems with just that, you think you could imagine them in charge of a nation? Our nation?
Click to expand...

Democrats and Republicans have millions of dollars to hire web designers and PR teams. That does not necessarily make their ideas for governance better.
 
vash1012 said:
If you are like the majority of Americans and don't think either party represents you, what would you like to see in a Moderate party?

I'd like to see a party that:

Is pragmatic and has willingness to compromise as a fundamental core of its platform
Focuses on addressing income inequality through education, healthcare, and expansion of the earned income tax credit rather than means tested welfare in as many cases as possible
Fights for a more progressive income tax system, but keeps corporate and business taxes competitive
Works to create a pro-business environment through regulation and taxation
Works within the Constitution, but is willing to take centrist positions when it makes sense because they are wide spread population wide issues and is very willing to not try to fix an issue with federal action (to defer to state and local governments) if it only affects small proportions of the population
Values energy independence AND actions to limit climate change
Has an idea of civil rights based on individuals and not groups
Values free trade
Accepts scientific consensus
Has a foreign policy promoting a strong bond with the rest of the West, accepts a reduction in American hegemony, and rejects Western universalism in favor of finding common interests with other civilizations rather than trying to westernize them
Click to expand...

i agree with portions of that. if we are going to limit our choices to parties, i'd prefer to have as many to choose from as possible.
 
Compromise should not be a fundamental core of any platform. Compromise might work within a certain degree of separation, but at a certain point the divide is too great to make compromise a desirable path forward.
 
vash1012 said:
If you are like the majority of Americans and don't think either party represents you, what would you like to see in a Moderate party?

I'd like to see a party that:

Is pragmatic and has willingness to compromise as a fundamental core of its platform
Focuses on addressing income inequality through education, healthcare, and expansion of the earned income tax credit rather than means tested welfare in as many cases as possible
Fights for a more progressive income tax system, but keeps corporate and business taxes competitive
Works to create a pro-business environment through regulation and taxation
Works within the Constitution, but is willing to take centrist positions when it makes sense because they are wide spread population wide issues and is very willing to not try to fix an issue with federal action (to defer to state and local governments) if it only affects small proportions of the population
Values energy independence AND actions to limit climate change
Has an idea of civil rights based on individuals and not groups
Values free trade
Accepts scientific consensus
Has a foreign policy promoting a strong bond with the rest of the West, accepts a reduction in American hegemony, and rejects Western universalism in favor of finding common interests with other civilizations rather than trying to westernize them
Click to expand...

Just seems to me that if a party has a willingness to compromise as part of it's fundamental core platform, that it's core platform of other positions wouldn't survive very long before compromised away into nothingness or meaninglessness. And then what?
 
I'd rather see a "Constitution Party".

Do what the Constitution says to do and get rid of everything else.
 
eohrnberger said:
Just seems to me that if a party has a willingness to compromise as part of it's fundamental core platform, that it's core platform of other positions wouldn't survive very long before compromised away into nothingness or meaninglessness. And then what?
Click to expand...

Very good point. For example there ought to be damn few times one would want to compromise with the left.

Mycroft said:
I'd rather see a "Constitution Party".

Do what the Constitution says to do and get rid of everything else.
Click to expand...

Right. I agree.
 
vash1012 said:
If you are like the majority of Americans and don't think either party represents you, what would you like to see in a Moderate party?

I'd like to see a party that:

Is pragmatic and has willingness to compromise as a fundamental core of its platform
Focuses on addressing income inequality through education, healthcare, and expansion of the earned income tax credit rather than means tested welfare in as many cases as possible
Fights for a more progressive income tax system, but keeps corporate and business taxes competitive
Works to create a pro-business environment through regulation and taxation
Works within the Constitution, but is willing to take centrist positions when it makes sense because they are wide spread population wide issues and is very willing to not try to fix an issue with federal action (to defer to state and local governments) if it only affects small proportions of the population
Values energy independence AND actions to limit climate change
Has an idea of civil rights based on individuals and not groups
Values free trade
Accepts scientific consensus
Has a foreign policy promoting a strong bond with the rest of the West, accepts a reduction in American hegemony, and rejects Western universalism in favor of finding common interests with other civilizations rather than trying to westernize them
Click to expand...

Seems to be an almost exclusively Liberal platform.
 
Mycroft said:
I'd rather see a "Constitution Party".

Do what the Constitution says to do and get rid of everything else.
Click to expand...

Not sure that would work in its entirety, but a move in that direction would be welcome.
 
code1211 said:
Seems to be an almost exclusively Liberal platform.
Click to expand...

I think its more liberal than conservative probably because of my preference for a more progressive tax system, but that is a pragmatic response to our horrendously income inequality. If we didn't have that problem, I wouldn't support it.

I think an approach based on individual civil rights instead of fixing groups, free trade (which is traditionally more of a conservative platform), pro-business regulations and competitive business/corporations, a stronger identification with the West rather tha multiculturalism, deference to state and local governments on more matters and a greater use of block grants to the state rather than federal programs which I didn't say but its implied, and a rejection of means tested welfare are decidedly not platforms of Democrats.
 
Henrin said:
Compromise should not be a fundamental core of any platform. Compromise might work within a certain degree of separation, but at a certain point the divide is too great to make compromise a desirable path forward.
Click to expand...

A willingness to compromise is not the same thing as always compromising. I understand your point and perhaps I should clarify, but I think after 8 years of republicans refusing to work with Obama and Obama bypassing republicans so he didn't have to compromise, and now looking ahead to 4 more years with Democrats hinting strongly that are going to be the obstructionist group now, I will stick to my guns here and say a party that will not draw lines in the sand at every opportunity and is willing to work with other parties to develop bi(or i guess tri) partisan solutions is HIGHLY preferable to hard line ideologues.
 
eohrnberger said:
Just seems to me that if a party has a willingness to compromise as part of it's fundamental core platform, that it's core platform of other positions wouldn't survive very long before compromised away into nothingness or meaninglessness. And then what?
Click to expand...

I just responded to the other guy who said the same thing so you can read that if you like. I do not think what you say would come to pass. Our government tends to flip back and forth from one side to the other. With the way majorities work in Congress, having 3 parties who are not willing to compromise would result in a fundamental lock down of any legislation passing if there were significant enough proportions of all 3 in each house. I have no need for another hard liner party who effectively doesn't do anything if they can't get exactly what they want. We already have 2 of those. We need a party that is willing to accept the good ideas from both sides and work with them to create a better America. Anyone who thinks the Left or the Right have the monopoly on every good idea can stay voting for those parties, but I don't. I think the partisanization of our government is one of our most threatening problems right now and I personally will not vote for any person who hasn't shown a willingness to compromise with other parties. I am not an ideologue so there is no way an ideologue can represent me.
 
Mycroft said:
I'd rather see a "Constitution Party".

Do what the Constitution says to do and get rid of everything else.
Click to expand...

The name's already taken, but I don't think they are really what you are looking for. Maybe, if you think being anti-abortion, isolationist, and anti-gay marriage is in the Constitution..but I suppose you have to take a side of everything these days so its unavoidable.

Seven Principles | The Constitution Party
 
vash1012 said:
The name's already taken, but I don't think they are really what you are looking for. Maybe, if you think being anti-abortion, isolationist, and anti-gay marriage is in the Constitution..but I suppose you have to take a side of everything these days so its unavoidable.

Seven Principles | The Constitution Party
Click to expand...

No, that Party isn't really what I was thinking of, though they do have SOME positions I can agree with. The "anti" stuff you mentioned is not part of my thinking but the States Rights stuff I can get behind.

The thing about that "anti" stuff is that those guys would use the federal government to advance THAT part of their agenda. In my mind, that makes them no better than Republicans and Democrats who do the same.
 
vash1012 said:
I think its more liberal than conservative probably because of my preference for a more progressive tax system, but that is a pragmatic response to our horrendously income inequality. If we didn't have that problem, I wouldn't support it.

I think an approach based on individual civil rights instead of fixing groups, free trade (which is traditionally more of a conservative platform), pro-business regulations and competitive business/corporations, a stronger identification with the West rather tha multiculturalism, deference to state and local governments on more matters and a greater use of block grants to the state rather than federal programs which I didn't say but its implied, and a rejection of means tested welfare are decidedly not platforms of Democrats.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you saw "The Matrix" or remember it, but at one point, within the matrix in the movie there are people trying to bend the spoon with their mind and one of the characters noted that "There is no spoon".

ANY government interference is a step toward Liberalism. Income inequality is the result of no ceiling on earnings. The very high earners earn a bunch more than the bottom of the pile. The only way to equalize earnings this is to limit the top end incomes. the simple truth of the matter is that when the wealth creators create wealth, we all benefit. Limiting their potential to earn limits the society's upside for the rest of us.

Regarding civil rights, that fight is over. The seekers of their rights have won.

Free trade is not a Conservative policy in its current iteration. It is the deceptive label of the drive toward globalism.

"Pro-Business" and "regulations" are not routinely used in the sentence.

I'm not sure what the West and Multiculturalism have to do with anything.

State and local government should do all that does not require the Feds. Block Grants and all other carrot on the stick kind of arrangements are only a way for the Feds to dominate the states.

Rejection of means testing? Is there means testing?
 
vash1012 said:
Democrats and Republicans have millions of dollars to hire web designers and PR teams. That does not necessarily make their ideas for governance better.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.

No debate there from me... vice versa, it also does not mean that that cannot afford higher quality are any better at proper policy implementation, i.e, good governing.

We saw, cringed at, the botched public sector roll out of O bomb a Care debacle...so website design is but a mere solitary indicator of certain, required in this age, capacities and abilities to follow through appropriately. The technologies, hardware, software, news providers, different social medias used as by painting from a pallet, a smidgen of blogging here, a smatter of FaceBook there, a longer slash of youtube speech direct or a terse comment on twitter... individuals in party must be able to master that better than the other guys to get their message out properly now.

And that shows that they can run a campaign... does not presume actual leadership on the main topics besides the generally generic as a product to be differentiated, branded, by each of the individual campaign staffs. But the basic positions on issues are out there, branded, and hopefully anybody to be elected has the right rope lines in place to the folks then to be then tasked to actually guide the ship of state from its new moorings.

You know, it seems to me that its the bureaucracy that is often the 900 pound gorilla in the room that folks rarely talk about. Seems no particularly good answer as to how to herd these fat, inscrutable, stubborn be bopping thru our lives cats that are our continuously cumulative minders for the monolith of Federal and State governments.
 
vash1012 said:
If you are like the majority of Americans and don't think either party represents you, what would you like to see in a Moderate party?

I'd like to see a party that:

Is pragmatic and has willingness to compromise as a fundamental core of its platform
Focuses on addressing income inequality through education, healthcare, and expansion of the earned income tax credit rather than means tested welfare in as many cases as possible
Fights for a more progressive income tax system, but keeps corporate and business taxes competitive
Works to create a pro-business environment through regulation and taxation
Works within the Constitution, but is willing to take centrist positions when it makes sense because they are wide spread population wide issues and is very willing to not try to fix an issue with federal action (to defer to state and local governments) if it only affects small proportions of the population
Values energy independence AND actions to limit climate change
Has an idea of civil rights based on individuals and not groups
Values free trade
Accepts scientific consensus
Has a foreign policy promoting a strong bond with the rest of the West, accepts a reduction in American hegemony, and rejects Western universalism in favor of finding common interests with other civilizations rather than trying to westernize them
Click to expand...

I despise the concept of political parties but my ideal one certainly wouldn't be moderate.
 
vash1012 said:
If you are like the majority of Americans and don't think either party represents you, what would you like to see in a Moderate party?

I'd like to see a party that:

Is pragmatic and has willingness to compromise as a fundamental core of its platform
Focuses on addressing income inequality through education, healthcare, and expansion of the earned income tax credit rather than means tested welfare in as many cases as possible
Fights for a more progressive income tax system, but keeps corporate and business taxes competitive
Works to create a pro-business environment through regulation and taxation
Works within the Constitution, but is willing to take centrist positions when it makes sense because they are wide spread population wide issues and is very willing to not try to fix an issue with federal action (to defer to state and local governments) if it only affects small proportions of the population
Values energy independence AND actions to limit climate change
Has an idea of civil rights based on individuals and not groups
Values free trade
Accepts scientific consensus
Has a foreign policy promoting a strong bond with the rest of the West, accepts a reduction in American hegemony, and rejects Western universalism in favor of finding common interests with other civilizations rather than trying to westernize them
Click to expand...

We already have a moderate party. It's called the democrats.
 
vash1012 said:
I think its more liberal than conservative probably because of my preference for a more progressive tax system, but that is a pragmatic response to our horrendously income inequality. If we didn't have that problem, I wouldn't support it.

I think an approach based on individual civil rights instead of fixing groups, free trade (which is traditionally more of a conservative platform), pro-business regulations and competitive business/corporations, a stronger identification with the West rather tha multiculturalism, deference to state and local governments on more matters and a greater use of block grants to the state rather than federal programs which I didn't say but its implied, and a rejection of means tested welfare are decidedly not platforms of Democrats.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, do you think that income inequality is created by the top earners earning more or the bottom earners earning less?

After that, The Federal Tax system is not the problem with our debt. The Congress spends too much. In 2016, if the Congress and the president had been able to restrain spending to levels of 2014, the revenue/outlay equation would have ALMOST balanced:

$3,525.2
raised in 2016
vs $3,506.1
spent in 2014.
These numbers are Trillions.

In real life, it wasn't that close. Actual outlays in 2016 were about 3999.5 trillion. This was an increase in spending year over year of just under half a trillion dollars comparing 2014 to 2016.

Compare that to your household budget spending and income...

To the other economic points, what we need is a revved up economy. We need more people working and paying taxes, more companies hiring and paying taxes, more products being purchased generating tax revenue and more restraint on the part of our politicans in spending our taxes stupidly.

In the olden days, the 1970's, a great opportunity looked exactly like hard work. That is what Trump is promising the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom