compromise?

I'm actually comfortable with your setup on this, except you left out two of my favorites, guns and grass. I think it's important because neither is really a crime in and of itself, in the sense of creating a victim or some tangible detriment to society, but they both get demonized for the cause of the populist two-party system.

This is an interesting idea... but you fail in your details. Your definition of liberal is horrible in that by this definition... there are no liberals.

There are very few people who want "Human rights for animals". All liberals want an public education system that works. The majority of liberals want a balanced budget (and the conservatives seem to do a worse job at getting one).

So you are setting up and argument with a mythical "liberal" who doesn't exist.

If you don't include real people, this is going to be a very boring discussion.

Which president of these four HAD a balanced budget?

Anyway... you are claiming to want "compromise" and then you are attacking what we believe? What is that about?

((I do challenge you to find one "liberal" here who doesn't believe in a balanced budget. I certainly do.))

Clinton had the only balanced budget I can recall, in my lifetime.

Compromise:

Generally speaking liberals want:

Universal healthcare

Higher taxes for the "rich"

To stop global warming

Human rights for animals, especially primates

To stop the war in Iraq and war in general

Less spending for the military

Public financing for political campaigns

More spending for public education

More spending for Social Security programs.

Generally speaking conservatives want:

Lower taxes

To uphold the sanctity of monogamous heterosexual marriage

To end abortion

Line item veto for the president on spending legislation

Balanced budget either with or without an amendment to the Constitution

A public education system that works

More spending for the military

Win the war in Iraq

Privatize Social Security.

Now, is there anything that the liberals would accept from the conservative list in exchange for getting something in the liberal list? What are you willing to trade?

So what did I take off? On the liberal side, "Animal Rights." That one was kind of silly.

On the conservative side, "Balanced Budget" moved to the bottom since when asked to place a balanced budget against taxes, taxes win every time.

I added immigration.

I broke out some stuff that is not necessarily conservative, but applies to the "religious right".

I also changed a few things that sounded like a political sound bite.

They haven't made progress on a Democratic priority since Nixon was in office.

engineer wrote:

So what did I take off? On the liberal side, "Animal Rights." That one was kind of silly.

Not really when you count the Greens as liberals and consider the issue of animal rights as part and parcel of the Left's opposition to hunting which is part and parcel of their support for gun control laws...

Quote:

On the conservative side, "Balanced Budget" moved to the bottom since when asked to place a balanced budget against taxes, taxes win every time.

I didn't put either list in any kind of order. Furthermore, lowering taxes leads to increased economic activity (all else being equal) and this in turn leads to greater government tax revenue which would balance the budget as long as spending is kept in check. Both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts spurred economic activity and increased tax revenue, but in both cases Congress spent the extra revenue and then some, thus the federal budget was unbalanced.

Quote:

I broke out some stuff that is not necessarily conservative, but applies to the "religious right".

What's the difference? What policy goals of the religious right, that are inspired by religion, aren't also goals of non-religious conservatives (such as respecting human life, upholding law and order, maintaining a functional society and living within your means)? If conservatism isn't rooted in religious faith what is it rooted in?

Quote:

I also changed a few things that sounded like a political sound bite.

Care to be specific?

Quote:

They haven't made progress on a Democratic priority since Nixon was in office.

Didn't Jimmy Carter create the federal Department of Education for the Democrats' union supporters? Hasn't the minimum wage gone up several times while Republicans were in the White House? Didn't Clinton create an extra income tax bracket for the rich? And how many conservatives support GW's Medicare Part D?

I don't consider the radical greens liberals, I consider them radical greens. This is not part of the liberal philosophy in the US that I'm aware.

I think we're discussing the impacts of tax decreases on another thread, but at some point the government cannot provide necessary services including regulation, infrastructure development, policing, etc and economic activity slows.

But to my point, the Republicans controlled all three branches of government and did not balance the budget.

They did cut taxes increasing the yearly deficit.

It's kind of hard to say that either party is dedicated to a balanced budget, and it hard to say that the Republicans would be willing to sacrifice for one.

There are a lot of differences. There are a good number of pro-choice people who would otherwise consider themselves conservative in the pro-military, pro-business, laissez faire model.

There are also a fair number of Republicans who don't really care what homosexuals do in there spare time.

To uphold the sanctity of monogamous heterosexual marriage
A public education system that works
Win the war in Iraq

Department of Education? Big win there.

The minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation (not that I'm a supporter there).

Clinton didn't come close to replacing what Reagan removed, so that's a net loss.

So, back to your question, what do you think each party would be willing to yield to the other?

What about PETA, which is opposed to using animals in medical research? Is PETA not a liberal organization?

What about Barak Obama, who according to the AP, has pledged support for animal rights? Is Obama not a liberal?

What about the liberal organization Cafepress, which says that animal rights is a liberal issue?

What is this point? If everyone paid taxes equally at the same rate, what would be the minimum rate needed?

My point is that a balanced budget is not incompatible with low taxes as you seem to think.

Since 1957 to the present day the Republicans have controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress very rarely. GW inherited a budget that was in balance and had been running a surplus. He submitted his first budget when the Senate was tied 50:50 between Democrats and Republicans so the Republicans didn't have the 60 votes needed to stop a Democrat filibuster. And even when the Republicans gained outright control over both Houses in the 2002 election they still didn't have enough votes to stop a Democrat filibuster.

GW's tax cuts were approved in 2001- when the federal budget had a surplus, i.e., the budget was balanced. Furthermore, Bush's tax cuts have not contributed to deficit spending. Spending more money than the government takes in has contributed to deficit spending.

Have the Democrats ever introduced a balanced budget constitutional amendment into Congress as the Republicans have done several times in recent history?

Quote:

There are a lot of differences. There are a good number of pro-choice people who would otherwise consider themselves conservative in the pro-military, pro-business, laissez faire model.

Care to give any names? Furthermore, if laissez faire pro-business means laissez faire pro-big business meaning opposition to government regulations designed to prevent monopolies and consumer fraud and unfair labor practices, then you are talking about libertarians, not conservatives. You must make the distinction between liberals, conservatives and libertarians for this conversation to have any meaning as far as I am concerned.

Quote:

There are also a fair number of Republicans who don't really care what homosexuals do in there spare time.

Meaning that such Republicans are libertarians, not conservatives.

Quote:

To uphold the sanctity of monogamous heterosexual marriage
A public education system that works
Win the war in Iraq

Care to explain how and why these are only political sound bites? I gather that you find it difficult to believe that these are serious, heartfelt issues for some people. Contrary to what you liberals believe these issues are not simply political issues for legitimate conservatives.

Quote:

Department of Education? Big win there.

So the libs have had some gains since Nixon, contrary to what you claimed earlier.

Quote:

Clinton didn't come close to replacing what Reagan removed, so that's a net loss.

What are you talking about? What did Reagan remove? Entitlement spending and education spending increased while Reagan was President.

Quote:

So, back to your question, what do you think each party would be willing to yield to the other?

I cannot speak for the Parties since I am not a member of either one. Personally I wouldn't compromise on any of the social issues, but I would be willing to consider some of the liberals' fiscal goals in exchange for getting some of the social goals. And I'd be willing to spend more on public schools in order to get a comprehensive overhaul of curriculum and teacher qualifications.

flaja wrote:

What about PETA, which is opposed to using animals in medical research? Is PETA not a liberal organization?

I don't consider them one, no

Did you actually read that link? Obama makes an off the cuff remark about his kids and a dog and you think he is leading the crusade for animal rights?

What about them? It looks like they are trying to sell bumper stickers to me.

On another thread, we came up with 28% for local, state and federal

I don't think they are inompatible, only that neither party has made an effort to implement it.

A balanced budget cannot be considered a conservative or liberal tenet if they never do anything but pay lip service to it.

When did the Democrats use a filibuster to force those poor, helpless Republicans to spend more?

Bush's second and third tax cuts were after the budget was in deficit. His desire to make his tax cuts permanent are in the face of extreme deficits. Since tax cutting has made the amount of money the government has so down, it has contributed to deficit spending.

A balanced budget amendment would criple this country by not allowing it to adjust spending during times of crisis (like war).

You want me to name my neighbors and business associates???

They don't call themselves libertarians, they call themselves lifelong republicans.

You want to call head case greens liberal but deny socially moderate Republicans?

No, it means that they are old style Republicans,

Nixon, Ford and Bush I are all examples of Republicans who did not feel the need to worry about homosexuals.

I believe they are heartfelt and if you looked how I reworded them, I did not dismiss them, only made the wording more descriptive (and perhaps accurate).

No, I don't consider the DOE progress from where I sit.

My comment was related to your statement that Clinton added a tax bracket.

I think refocusing the military on hot spots related to terrorism instead of Iraq is another.

I wonder of the right could get behind a "war tax" to be paid while the troops are in Iraq.

I thought this might be a worthwhile question, but I don't even think you read what I write back to you. You reserve the right to exclude anyone who doesn't follow your beliefs, including fiscal conservatives, from the "conservative" label, but reply with "You don't get out much, do you?" when I exclude radical groups from the "liberal" label.

You tout Clinton's adding a tax bracket as a fundamental liberal gain, but when I point out that he only took back a small portion of Reagan's cuts

You ask for conservatives, I give you Presidents, you dismiss them.

You say that the elected reps are not representatives of the conservatives at home and then immediately say that liberals must support thus and such because their elected officials did.

Not only that but the Republicans, anticipating the possible threat of the filibuster decided to load up on pork, so they are absolved of all harm.

But this one I just have to answer: Cafepress is a business selling political items among other things, not a liberal organization. If you go to their website, you can get yourself a "Huckabee Rocks" tee to wear in public and a "McCain 08" to wear around the house.