What would it take for you to vote across party lines?

[Spider-Dan]

Debating who is middle and who isn't is silly to me. I think it's natural to "think" of oneself or line of thinking as the middle ground.

Again, see how many congressional Republicans self-identify as "moderate."

"Moderate" has become an epithet within the GOP; an accusation to hurl at your opponent during the primary.

More on topic in this post alone what I perceive as liberals several said they could never vote Republican and gave reasons why. None of which is the economy which polls would say is the most important issue today.

You didn't ask about specific topics.

I would not vote for a Republican for "the economy" because the vast majority of Republicans would act to recreate the conditions that (in my humble opinion) blew up our economy in the first place.  You yourself just touched on it when you talked of "bad mouth[ing] Reaganomics;" if bad mouthing Reaganomics is off of the table, what, exactly, do you expect a liberal to say about Republican economic policies?

To wit: what are the Republican ideas to fix the economy?

- tax cuts (heavily weighted towards corporations and the rich "job creators")
- less regulation
- eliminate unions

Why would I vote for a Republican based on "the economy" when their ideas to fix it are precisely the opposite of what I would like to see happen?

For instance ... I am pro life and you are pro choice. Well neither of us wants to kill babies so lets figure out how we can keep that from happening rather than pointing out the other is wrong.

Are you saying that we should work together to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare?  Because that's what the Democrats have been proposing for years.

You want condoms in school and I want to teach abstinence. Let's do both and see which seems to work better.

Already done.  Compared to comprehensive sex education, abstinence-only education has been an unmitigated failure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html
http://www.moappp.org/Documents/articles/2006/SantelliAbstinenceonlyEducationReviewPaper.pdf
http://pol285.blog.gustavus.edu/files/2009/08/AfY_Abstinence-Only_Effect.pdf
http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2807%2900426-0/abstract
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2005to2009/2006-failure-of-abstinence-only-education.html
etc.

A disturbing fact from the last link (emphasis added):

"Indeed, recent studies suggest that abstinence curricula put minors at greater health risk than they would have been had they not taken any sex education course at all."

If we can't even agree to at least decide what's important how will we ever quit fighting over differences and actually accomplish anything?

I'm not even sure what to do with this.

When one party actively (and prominently) opposes the concept of compromise (here is one example of many), how can you expect anything to be accomplished?

[Spider-Dan]

Economically speaking the parties are no different. Obama extended the bush tax cuts and bush added an unpaid prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Obama's health care plan is a republican plan, that's a boondoggle to the insurance industry.

To be fair, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts largely because the Republicans insisted on holding other items of action hostage (the New START treaty was a big one).

Obamneycare is essentially a Republican plan, but it's a pre-2008 Republican plan.  Now, the Republican idea of addressing healthcare consists entirely of tort reform and reducing government regulation (unless privatizing Medicare counts).

[AZ Fins Fan 55]

If Obama suddenly became a Republican I would cross party lines rather quickly!!!!! 

[Dave Gray]

The two parties are very different right now.  As Spider stated, the GOP platform is basically:

- social conservatism
- anti-science (I have kept trying to rephrase this to be more even-handed, but I don't know what else to call it -- global warming denial, anti-evolution)
- deregulation
- tax cuts
- increase in military spending

I do agree with some free-market ideas that Republicans have and there are aspects of deregulation I can get on board with.  I also am a moderate when it comes to certain social issues (guns), and am open to serious overhauls of Social Security and Medicare.

However, I generally am more opposed to all of the bullet-points above.  So, if I were going to "cross party lines", the GOP would have to pretty drastically change their platform.

I do have problems with the Democrats, but in those areas, the Republicans are the same (or farther from my position) -- Defense Spending, War on Drugs, etc.

[Phishfan]

I know several people who voted for Obama who are switching to Romney for this reason but they are basically Independents anyway ... but most of the Democrats I know are still pro -Obama even though they admit they do not see things getting better.  If a person admittingly thinks things will continue to get worse why would they not want to switch?  Bad mouth Reaganomics all you want but we haven't been in this bad of a shape since Reagan took office.

Here is the rub though CF. You are using a great talking point but that is about all it is. Factually, we have been worse. There was a point we were losing 750K jobs a month and people were in a panic. I dare say that no one is satisfied where we are but anyone who still says we are not better than four years ago either has a short memory or an agenda.

[Brian Fein]

no one is satisfied where we are but anyone who still says we are not better than four years ago either has a short memory or an agenda.

I don't get involved in political discussions, as a rule.  But I want to give credit to Phish for this profound statement.  Bravo.

[Dave Gray]

Yes, I'm better off.

But the question "are you better off 4 years ago" is a bad question.  These are huge economic swings caused by decades and decades or policy, the global economic climate, etc.  Simply judging policy by where you are in a limited window just isn't smart.

Honestly, I expect the economy will improve regardless of who is elected, just based on its cyclical nature.

[badger6]

^^^^ You and others may be better off as individuals (or fooled into naively believing you are better off), but the economy as a whole is not better. The country is deeper in debt and the government is doing absolutely nothing to fix it. They are treating the symptoms instead of the sickness, which is spending. Everyone will have to downgrade their standard of living and suffer to an extent to fix this problem and it will be painful. It will be much worse and much more painful if the same spending and economic policies are allowed to continue. You cannot grow the country out of debt. Consumer debt cannot drive the economy any longer if we are to fix this. Interest rates need to be increased. Currently they are kept artificially low. Yay, cheap loans to go in debt with and low rates of return on savings and investments, the banking double whammy at its finest. Social programs have to be scaled back away from this entitlement generation that has learned to leech off of the rest of society. So while you may think the economy is better, it actually is not. It's all been propped up and is an illusion. They can and will keep the printing presses at the treasury running 24/7 and that will be our undoing. The sooner and quicker this whole thing crashes the sooner and quicker it will turn around. It's gonna happen, whether you want to accept it or not is the real question.

[Dave Gray]

I agree that debt is out of control.

But it's not fair (or accurate) to blame Obama for a large increase, without recognizing that he's in line with previous presidents.  A considerable amount of the "Obama debt" is rollover from Bush's deals -- namely the wars and the tax cuts, TARP, etc.  Yes, Obama did the stimulus and deserves credit/blame for that decision.  I just don't think the GOP is offering solutions either.  The Republicans want to cut spending, but they will cause debt increases with their tax structure.  Tax cuts are spending, too.

Neither party is serious about dealing with the debt, which will require a combination of progressive tax structure, serious re-tooling of Medicare/Social Security, and a considerable cut in defense.

[badger6]

I agree that debt is out of control.

he's in line with previous presidents.

Change you can believe in, huh. Being "in line" with previous presidents is "change" or the "same" ?  Obama had his chance and he squandered it away. Time to move on as he is in way over his head and not an effective leader.

As far as the economy is concerned, straight from the horses mouth, "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
- Barack Obama

[CF DolFan]

Here is the rub though CF. You are using a great talking point but that is about all it is. Factually, we have been worse. There was a point we were losing 750K jobs a month and people were in a panic. I dare say that no one is satisfied where we are but anyone who still says we are not better than four years ago either has a short memory or an agenda.

4 years ago we weren't as bad off as 1980. That's a fact. If that's a fact I really don't know how 4 years ago you would consider anyone in a better shape? If you are considering the economy based on yourself then good for you. As for me and my co-workers we are at less than half of staff we had 4 years ago, haven't had a raise in over 5 years, and in fact, have had our salaries reduced. Do you have any idea how much prices have gone up in 5 years? Any idea how many of our former coworkers are still out of work or underemployed for over two years?

4 years ago (I just looked) we were permitting over 130 new "engineering" permits a year. In the past 365 days we have issued 40.

I'm curious ... where is your benchmark?

Oh yes ... my house is now worth almost 20% less now than I owe on it when it was previously at 75% LTV .

Just 96,000 American jobs were added in August in a bleak monthly jobs report as 368,000 left the workforce, bringing labour market participation down to its lowest level for 31 years and dealing a blow to President Barack Obama’s re-election chances.

The national unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 per cent, down from 8.2 per cent, but this was only because so many people gave up looking for work. If the participation rate had not dropped so precipitously, unemployment would have risen to 8.4 per cent.

Factory employment fell by the most in two years and temporary-help companies eliminated positions for the first time in five months. The 69.9 per cent labor force participation rate for men is at lowest level recorded since the US government began tracking it in 1948.

According to James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute, the unemployment rate would be 11.2 per cent if the labour force participation rate had remained what it was when Obama took office in January 2009. The U.S. Labour Department also said that 41,000 fewer jobs were created in June and July than previously reported.

President Barack Obama was made aware of the figures before he took the stage to deliver his prime-time address at the Democratic convention on Thursday night, which could account for his sometimes grim demeanour as he spoke.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199815/Obamas-DNC-2012-speech-Bleak-unemployment-numbers-morning-Obama-tells-DNC-problems-solved.html#ixzz26C0qnw1s

[Phishfan]

I can't really speak to 1980 with any real authority as I was alive but the economy was not on my radar. About the only thing I can remember economy wise from the 70's & 80's is gas lines. My benchmark is the fact that the stock market is more stable than 4 years ago, we are not losing as many jobs a month as we were four years ago, and while your home might be at the lowest level now it took its steepest dip approximately four years ago. Like I said, no one should be happy with where we are but I don't see people in a panic like they were four years ago. Everything was dropping like flies four years ago. Growth has been slow but it is still growth rather then the bottom falling out of everything.

Things like this don't happen or get solved overnight and you cannot look at one office of people as a representation of signs of improvement.

[Dave Gray]

Change you can believe in, huh. Being "in line" with previous presidents is "change" or the "same" ?  Obama had his chance and he squandered it away. Time to move on as he is in way over his head and not an effective leader.

I think there's been some big changes in certain areas, but not in others.  Obama did make a pretty sizable change to health care.  And he ended a war that had lingered for a long time.  And he did the stimulus and did some stuff with student loans.  If that's not enough for you, fine -- but getting health care passed is a gigantic accomplishment.

The way that Washington handles debt seems no different under Obama than Bush.  But it won't under Romney or anyone else either until the parties are serious about addressing the cause of the debt and not simplifying it to one thing, like "spending".  It's bigger than that and will take considerable sacrifices as a country to both pay taxes on the high end, as well as to cut or restructure entitlements.  It will also require a shift in THINKING (not just policy) towards war, and possibly look into new forms of revenue.

As far as the economy is concerned, straight from the horses mouth, "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
- Barack Obama

I understand that was campaign talk and that's fine -- don't vote for him if that's something that you're concerned about.  It's worse than we thought and Obama didn't have bipartisan support to deal with it in a meaningful way.  The president doesn't "fix" the economy, anyway.  It's an oversimplified statement.

[badger6]

I think there's been some big changes in certain areas, but not in others.  Obama did make a pretty sizable change to health care.  And he ended a war that had lingered for a long time.  And he did the stimulus and did some stuff with student loans.  If that's not enough for you, fine -- but getting health care passed is a gigantic accomplishment.

The way that Washington handles debt seems no different under Obama than Bush.  But it won't under Romney or anyone else either until the parties are serious about addressing the cause of the debt and not simplifying it to one thing, like "spending".  It's bigger than that and will take considerable sacrifices as a country to both pay taxes on the high end, as well as to cut or restructure entitlements.  It will also require a shift in THINKING (not just policy) towards war, and possibly look into new forms of revenue.

I understand that was campaign talk and that's fine -- don't vote for him if that's something that you're concerned about.  It's worse than we thought and Obama didn't have bipartisan support to deal with it in a meaningful way.  The president doesn't "fix" the economy, anyway.  It's an oversimplified statement.

The only accomplishment to Obamacare was getting and keeping it passed and ramming it down the throat of the US citizens. In the long term, long after everyone has forgotten or tried to forget about our current Idiot in office, people are going to realize how bad an idea Obamacare was. Covering birth control on medical insurance ? Really, I mean effin' really. How in the hell is the ability to get pregnant a medical condition ? What next to waste money on ? Wigs and platform shoes for bald midgets ? Crack pipes for crackheads ? Rainbows and butterflies for sad people ? What a fucking joke this country is becoming. Just like the Dolphins have become the joke of the NFL. The USA is becoming the joke of the world. We might as well elect Ross and Ireland. They might not do any better but I sure as hell doubt that they could do any worse than the current clown administration. History won't be kind to Obama, count on it !!!!

[Buddhagirl]

The ability to get pregnant is not a medical condition? Do go on.