Third Party Platform of Common Ground for Liberals/Conservatives(No Far Left/Right)

[dblack]

The Republican party is the party that is threatening to split and if it did the remnants would have the best shot at appealing to the blue dogs IMO.

The threat to entitlements is coming from the financial reality of entitlements not the political reality. Politicians would like to just ignore them but that is becoming increasingly difficult.

A third party in the US is unlikely no matter what but IMO the most likely scenario is the one I described.

The moderate Republicans are not willing to forfeit the GOP to the extreme right just yet. They will fight tooth and nail for control and that battle will take place this year. I fully expect the TP'ers to cost many moderates their seats by defeating them in the primaries however there will be a cost associated with this and it will be smaller representation overall in the House. Dividing the party will leave open opportunities for Independent and moderate Dems to take seats where the electorate is not happy about the gridlock and obstruction of the extreme right.

Given that scenario there is no reason to believe that blue dog Dems will join the GOP. Historically "party swappers" always move towards power rather than away from it. The power trend is towards the Dems according to the demographics.

The "threat to entitlements" stems primarily from the extreme right. They will need to prevail overwhelmingly in the elections this year in order to make that threat into reality. That means winning 6 Senate seats and losing none at all. Assuming they reach that goal they still won't be able to override a presidential veto because that would mean winning 16 seats without losing any. That is about as likely to happen as winning the Powerball lottery.

So your scenario is based upon an assumption that is unlikely to occur in my opinion. The most likely outcome is that the status quo remains essentially the same as it is now in 2015 give or take a couple of seats here and there. The problem the extreme right has is that it doesn't have any more "political weapons" that it can throw at entitlements. Shutting down the government and refusing to raise the debt ceiling are both discredited and they have cost the GOP dearly so they won't be able to use them again for at least another decade.

All that leaves is good old horse trading and with neophyte TP'ers up against seasoned Dems the outcomes are going to be superficial "victories" without any real substance.

There are a lot of moderate to right leaning voters in this country. The TP platform will continue to attack moderate Republicans in primaries in heavily Republican districts. This will open the door for right or moderate leaning Dems to attract the Republicans who are not as extreme as the TP.

Moderates and the middle class have been ignored by both parties to the detriment of the nation. It is just a matter of time before they start fighting back.

Entitlements are a financial problem. There is really no point in denying that.

The "libertarian" arm of the Republican party has plenty of money and power to remain in power.

The only real hope the nation has for a third party is a moderate party.

Authoritarian corporatists unite!

 

[Bombur]

There are a lot of moderate to right leaning voters in this country. The TP platform will continue to attack moderate Republicans in primaries in heavily Republican districts. This will open the door for right or moderate leaning Dems to attract the Republicans who are not as extreme as the TP.

Moderates and the middle class have been ignored by both parties to the detriment of the nation. It is just a matter of time before they start fighting back.

Entitlements are a financial problem. There is really no point in denying that.

The "libertarian" arm of the Republican party has plenty of money and power to remain in power.

The only real hope the nation has for a third party is a moderate party.

Authoritarian corporatists unite!

Each political angle has corporations who are interested in it's success. Libertarianism for example is largely funded by those who are in the oil industry who want the EPA to simply go away and fear the government reacting to MMGW.

Medical industries don't want us to reform entitlements if it would hurt their bottom line.

There is really nothing inherent in a moderate party that would necessitate the government partaking in corrupt supply side economics. If anything it would make more political sense to focus on directly helping the middle class.

 

[dblack]

There are a lot of moderate to right leaning voters in this country. The TP platform will continue to attack moderate Republicans in primaries in heavily Republican districts. This will open the door for right or moderate leaning Dems to attract the Republicans who are not as extreme as the TP.

Moderates and the middle class have been ignored by both parties to the detriment of the nation. It is just a matter of time before they start fighting back.

Entitlements are a financial problem. There is really no point in denying that.

The "libertarian" arm of the Republican party has plenty of money and power to remain in power.

The only real hope the nation has for a third party is a moderate party.

Authoritarian corporatists unite!

Each political angle has corporations who are interested in it's success. Libertarianism for example is largely funded by those who are in the oil industry who want the EPA to simply go away and fear the government reacting to MMGW.

Medical industries don't want us to reform entitlements if it would hurt their bottom line.

There is really nothing inherent in a moderate party that would necessitate the government partaking in corrupt supply side economics. If anything it would make more political sense to focus on directly helping the middle class.

Corporatism has less to do with incorporated business than with class based politics - like targeting the 'middle class' for help.

 

[bendog]

I think we have two schisms. First the TPM was a revolt against W abandoning fiscal, and for policy, conservatism. The dems have their own problem in that in red and swing states, the DLC economics of Slick will not work, because people believe they will not work for them.

The TPM is ideologically interesting. It's largely older white driven, yet the powers that be which fund it tend to push for less middle class entitlements ... for younger folks. There's a myth of Reagan. Tell these folks Reagan agreed to raise taxes to keep soc sec and medicare solvent, and you may get beaten by a granny with a cane. The TPM pretty much took over ideological control of the gop, but the gop can't win a natl election on that platform. McConnell may get picked off, but leaders of the senate tend towards that fate, regardless of party. Still, I'll be surprised if the chambers of commerce don't exercise their muscles to discipline the party.

Perhaps ironically, I think the dems may be in greater disarray. Obama has delighted me in disillusioning those who voted for "change" and "yes we can." No, he didn't. LOL How can a dem energize the base without losing the middle?

 

[g5000]

I would support a party that would do three things:

1. Reduce Defense spending to sane levels.

2. Raise the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age to 70, indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.

3. Ban tax expenditures. All of them.

 

[Bombur]

Authoritarian corporatists unite!

Each political angle has corporations who are interested in it's success. Libertarianism for example is largely funded by those who are in the oil industry who want the EPA to simply go away and fear the government reacting to MMGW.

Medical industries don't want us to reform entitlements if it would hurt their bottom line.

There is really nothing inherent in a moderate party that would necessitate the government partaking in corrupt supply side economics. If anything it would make more political sense to focus on directly helping the middle class.

Corporatism has less to do with incorporated business than with class based politics - like targeting the 'middle class' for help.

I am sorry but I don't see how the middle class having their political need represented equates to "Authoritarian Corporatism."

 

[dblack]

Each political angle has corporations who are interested in it's success. Libertarianism for example is largely funded by those who are in the oil industry who want the EPA to simply go away and fear the government reacting to MMGW.

Medical industries don't want us to reform entitlements if it would hurt their bottom line.

There is really nothing inherent in a moderate party that would necessitate the government partaking in corrupt supply side economics. If anything it would make more political sense to focus on directly helping the middle class.

Corporatism has less to do with incorporated business than with class based politics - like targeting the 'middle class' for help.

I am sorry but I don't see how the middle class having their political need represented equates to "Authoritarian Corporatism."

Because you don't understand what corporatism is. Read up on it. That link's a good start.

 

[Bombur]

Corporatism has less to do with incorporated business than with class based politics - like targeting the 'middle class' for help.

I am sorry but I don't see how the middle class having their political need represented equates to "Authoritarian Corporatism."

Because you don't understand what corporatism is. Read up on it. That link's a good start.

That is not an argument and your link doesn't even come close to proving that point.

If you have an argument state it clearly for everyone to see so that I can rip it apart.

 

[dblack]

I am sorry but I don't see how the middle class having their political need represented equates to "Authoritarian Corporatism."

Because you don't understand what corporatism is. Read up on it. That link's a good start.

That is not an argument and your link doesn't even come close to proving that point.

If you have an argument state it clearly for everyone to see so that I can rip it apart.

Whatever man. We can't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on the definition of the words we're using.

 

[Bombur]

Because you don't understand what corporatism is. Read up on it. That link's a good start.

That is not an argument and your link doesn't even come close to proving that point.

If you have an argument state it clearly for everyone to see so that I can rip it apart.

Whatever man. We can't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on the definition of the words we're using.

The only reason you are even using the term "authoritarian corporatism" is to try and equate unequal things. Namely Fascism and a political party that represents the middle class in the US.

Words are meant to facilitate understanding. What you are trying to do is use a broad definition so that you can take two unlike things and group them together under one label. Then using that one label to equate those two things.

You have nothing. That is why you have to resort to this meaningless BS.

 

[bendog]

Ok, I accept "corporatism" as being individuals (or corporations) affiliating with other similarly situated entities in a society to affect social/political outcomes to their general benefit.

Isn't that what the Founders did? And, what's the authoritarian aspect?

 

[dblack]

Ok, I accept "corporatism" as being individuals (or corporations) affiliating with other similarly situated entities in a society to affect social/political outcomes to their general benefit.

Isn't that what the Founders did? And, what's the authoritarian aspect?

I don't believe the founders intended corporatism. Corporatism contrasts with liberal democracy by rejecting equal, individual rights in favor of class-based rights. Under corporatism, government operates as a power broker, handing out perks and privileges to competing interest groups. The policies of the new corporatists are authoritarian because they tend to see government authority as the all-powerful, ultimate 'decider' in all of society's concerns, rejecting virtually all Constitutional limits on government power. To them, every problem we face as a society can, and should, be solved by government.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Define "living wage".

A living wage is one that enables someone to house, feed and clothe themselves (and loved ones) and pay their bills without the need for any form of government assistance.

In reality anytime a hardworking American who is putting in 8 hours a day needs some form of government assistance it means that taxpayers are subsidizing the corporation that is employing that person.

If everyone who worked could pay all of their bills from their earnings then there would be no need for government assistance and that would automatically reduce government spending. Not eliminate entirely because some unfortunate people are incapable of working through no fault of their own and they will still require assistance. But they are a very small subset.

It is the working poor who need housing assistance because they are paid too little to afford the rents in the general area where they work that should be paid a living wage by their employers as opposed to taxpayers subsidizing those corporations.

Alright. So everyone should be able to afford to house, clothe, and feed themselves and their loved ones. Now, what would you consider an acceptable standard for those basic provisions?

Standards vary according to localities. Rents, healthcare services and even food prices are not fixed nationwide. So there is no single acceptable standard. FYI government housing subsidies already make these allowances for different rates by locale.

 

[gallantwarrior]

A living wage is one that enables someone to house, feed and clothe themselves (and loved ones) and pay their bills without the need for any form of government assistance.

In reality anytime a hardworking American who is putting in 8 hours a day needs some form of government assistance it means that taxpayers are subsidizing the corporation that is employing that person.

If everyone who worked could pay all of their bills from their earnings then there would be no need for government assistance and that would automatically reduce government spending. Not eliminate entirely because some unfortunate people are incapable of working through no fault of their own and they will still require assistance. But they are a very small subset.

It is the working poor who need housing assistance because they are paid too little to afford the rents in the general area where they work that should be paid a living wage by their employers as opposed to taxpayers subsidizing those corporations.

Alright. So everyone should be able to afford to house, clothe, and feed themselves and their loved ones. Now, what would you consider an acceptable standard for those basic provisions?

Standards vary according to localities. Rents, healthcare services and even food prices are not fixed nationwide. So there is no single acceptable standard. FYI government housing subsidies already make these allowances for different rates by locale.

I don't think you understand. Standards, such as: how many square footage per person, separate bedrooms for each "loved one"? What other amenities should be considered? Air conditioning? A swimming pool in areas where swimming pools are fairly common? Attached garages? How many bays in the garage? What type of food? One restaurant meal per day, because they are working, after all. What clothing? Name brand labels, or Sally Ann specials?
Of course costs vary depending on locality, but we're not discussing costs, I'm interested in standards. What is the minimum standard for basic necessities. Oh, yeah, and what would be considered necessities?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Alright. So everyone should be able to afford to house, clothe, and feed themselves and their loved ones. Now, what would you consider an acceptable standard for those basic provisions?

Standards vary according to localities. Rents, healthcare services and even food prices are not fixed nationwide. So there is no single acceptable standard. FYI government housing subsidies already make these allowances for different rates by locale.

I don't think you understand. Standards, such as: how many square footage per person, separate bedrooms for each "loved one"? What other amenities should be considered? Air conditioning? A swimming pool in areas where swimming pools are fairly common? Attached garages? How many bays in the garage? What type of food? One restaurant meal per day, because they are working, after all. What clothing? Name brand labels, or Sally Ann specials?
Of course costs vary depending on locality, but we're not discussing costs, I'm interested in standards. What is the minimum standard for basic necessities. Oh, yeah, and what would be considered necessities?

because I don't have the facts and figures. However there are government tables for earnings that qualify for housing subsidies. Presumably they take into account cost of living expenses in an area when determining what level of subsidy to provide and what square footage of housing to allocate. Apparently it can be found under Section 8.

Fair Market Rents | HUD USER

GoSection8.com - Section 8 Rental Housing & Apartments Listing Service for Landlords & Tenants

So a living wage would be one that exceeded Section 8 subsidies for a given locality. What you would get for that locality might also have different square footage because an apartment in NY city rents for considerably more than the same apartment out in the midwest.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So basically, since we live together, work together, enjoy having fun and living life, watch/listen to the same movie/music types, believe in freedom, etc. Is it possible that conservatives(Not Far Right) and liberals(Not Leftists) could come together, as Americans in tough times do, to form a Platform that both could stand for and believe in?? Now of course there are things that we can't totally agree with, but if we stay with the Constitutional Rights, then I believe common ground could be reached..

For instance, you may not believe that having Guns are a good thing and believe they should be banned for all use..
Well too bad, it is already a protected right to Americans and can't be infringed.. So a simple issue like that shouldn't affect your decision of being in agreement with a new platform..

OR

For instance, you may believe that Abortion is bad and should be banned..
Well, it is here to stay and there is nothing you can do about it. We shouldn't have our beliefs forced upon another person, even though we may believe that our Religion is more important. We are all sinners at the end of the day and live with our choices in life.

Now the way we could Agree to this as Conservatives and Liberals on a common ground basis:

Take Government out of Abortion, no Federal Funding to have an Abortion.. Create a sense of personal responsibility.


So Americans, I ask you, is it possible? Would you be willing to compromise together on things to End Gridlock in Washington?

I mean really guys and gals, we really should start looking at things and understand that these 2 Parties really aren't doing anything good for us. The constant bickering back and forth, getting nothing done in Washington, singling out certain groups for political gain, only caring about the next election rather than the citizens of the country.. You can't tell a difference between some of them almost, as if they were elected just because they had an R or a D by their name on the ballot.

American Libertarians who put principles against people, who believe people should serve principles and not teh other way around deserve to be mocked and shunned

 

[gallantwarrior]

Standards vary according to localities. Rents, healthcare services and even food prices are not fixed nationwide. So there is no single acceptable standard. FYI government housing subsidies already make these allowances for different rates by locale.

I don't think you understand. Standards, such as: how many square footage per person, separate bedrooms for each "loved one"? What other amenities should be considered? Air conditioning? A swimming pool in areas where swimming pools are fairly common? Attached garages? How many bays in the garage? What type of food? One restaurant meal per day, because they are working, after all. What clothing? Name brand labels, or Sally Ann specials?
Of course costs vary depending on locality, but we're not discussing costs, I'm interested in standards. What is the minimum standard for basic necessities. Oh, yeah, and what would be considered necessities?

because I don't have the facts and figures. However there are government tables for earnings that qualify for housing subsidies. Presumably they take into account cost of living expenses in an area when determining what level of subsidy to provide and what square footage of housing to allocate. Apparently it can be found under Section 8.

Fair Market Rents | HUD USER

GoSection8.com - Section 8 Rental Housing & Apartments Listing Service for Landlords & Tenants

So a living wage would be one that exceeded Section 8 subsidies for a given locality. What you would get for that locality might also have different square footage because an apartment in NY city rents for considerably more than the same apartment out in the midwest.

OK, let me make a few suggestions to start:
An individual just entering the workforce, no special skills or only rudimentary training provided by the employer, sufficient to perform the work required, with two or less family members (including the employee): $1531.50/month salary plus an offset for food of $357.55/month (if employer does not provide meals). Employer mandated to provide housing to employee (and employee's "loved one"), of no less than 90 SF per individual, excluding bath and kitchen.
Of course, monthly pay and other compensation would increase as the employee increased in value to the employer. Likewise, the minimum space per individual would increase.

 

[Bombur]

Ok, I accept "corporatism" as being individuals (or corporations) affiliating with other similarly situated entities in a society to affect social/political outcomes to their general benefit.

Isn't that what the Founders did? And, what's the authoritarian aspect?

I don't believe the founders intended corporatism. Corporatism contrasts with liberal democracy by rejecting equal, individual rights in favor of class-based rights. Under corporatism, government operates as a power broker, handing out perks and privileges to competing interest groups. The policies of the new corporatists are authoritarian because they tend to see government authority as the all-powerful, ultimate 'decider' in all of society's concerns, rejecting virtually all Constitutional limits on government power. To them, every problem we face as a society can, and should, be solved by government.

They literally only let land owners vote and didn't even consider everyone people.

By your understanding we have always had an authoritarian corporatism.

In democracy representatives will always represent people and their interests. Pointing out that an entire class of people has not been represented as much as others isn't an attempt to be authoritarian.

Your understanding of history and reality is poor.

 

[bendog]

Ok, I accept "corporatism" as being individuals (or corporations) affiliating with other similarly situated entities in a society to affect social/political outcomes to their general benefit.

Isn't that what the Founders did? And, what's the authoritarian aspect?

I don't believe the founders intended corporatism. Corporatism contrasts with liberal democracy by rejecting equal, individual rights in favor of class-based rights. Under corporatism, government operates as a power broker, handing out perks and privileges to competing interest groups. The policies of the new corporatists are authoritarian because they tend to see government authority as the all-powerful, ultimate 'decider' in all of society's concerns, rejecting virtually all Constitutional limits on government power. To them, every problem we face as a society can, and should, be solved by government.

I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I was interrupted. I see what you're getting at, and I agree that it does cut across race and economic class. It is epidemic to society. However, I may not totally agree. For example, social security and medicare apply to all, so I don't see class based rights. Pell Grants are limited by family income. The theory being that access to higher education is necessary, and those families above the cut off can finance it without the grant. So, there I also don't see class based rights.

The distinction I see is that the Founders' core belief was an opportunity for all (well white landowning men) to better themselves. We no longer can just move west, kick some native americans off land, and set up farming. Society adapts. The rub comes when governmental assistance desiged to give someone an opportunity that otherwise wouldn't occur becomes the goal in an of itself, e.g. getting a kid labeled disabled so you get govt largesse, or corporate tax breaks for agriculture or jets.