Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a good chance that Obama will be re-elected. The best hope for the country is that the President and the Congress can both act like adults and come to some compromise on taxes and spending; since this is our most pressing issue.
What do the forum members feel is a REALISTIC compromise in this gridlocked debate?
I would agree to any tax increases if the revenue were used solely for deficit reduction....not more programs.
I would agree to across the board spending cuts without any one sector bearing the brunt of it.
Anyone else with some less than partisan{real agreement between both sides} solutions to tax/spending stalemates?
Harry reid has already announced the democratic party would not work with mr romney if he were elected. Just why would the republican party or it's supporters want to go against the wishes of it's constituents and do what the democratic party leadership was unwilling to do?
Harry reid has already announced the democratic party would not work with mr romney if he were elected. Just why would the republican party or it's supporters want to go against the wishes of it's constituents and do what the democratic party leadership was unwilling to do?
Reid has only shown how little he cares for a properly functioning government and was honest about his intentions to not compromise with any Republican, especially Romney. This is why his Congress hasn't functioned properly for nearly four years. EXP: they are required to set a budget by law, yet haven't in four years.
Harry reid has already announced the democratic party would not work with mr romney if he were elected. Just why would the republican party or it's supporters want to go against the wishes of it's constituents and do what the democratic party leadership was unwilling to do?
I dont have that answer, but gridlock sure hasn't done much except get us further in the hole. I guess if you are good with a mounting deficit......then gridlock it is. I'm not saying either side should give up everything but if they cant learn to compromise then whose side you are on won't mean much because we are all going down the tubes with a revenue/debt crisis that isn't sustainable.
I see a couple potentially good signs. First is Obama's reelection and survival of ObamaCare. I think that ObamaCare was the one thing that Obama personally was willing to go to the mat for in his first term. His Mom died of cancer in her 50s, so he knows what can happen. If the GOP will let that one be, I think that Obama may be willing to compromise on other economic issues. Another good sign is that the Grover Norquist dictatorship over the GOP is weakening. Newer GOP legislators are less likely to sign his pledge, and realizing that it is ethically wrong, which it definitely is. Assuming some flexibility on revenue vs. tax cuts, we can likely move in a fiscally conservative direction that lowers the deficit and does not undermine the economy.
The big issue is whether the GOP legislators can actually work for Americans instead of lobbying for billionaires and huge corporations. If we can gradually strengthen the middle class, raise revenues, and lower the deficit, the economy will recover, and the wealthiest in our society will be doing fine. All of them need to realize they are public servants, not shills for big money. When they do that, we will be able compromise and go forward.
I see a couple potentially good signs. First is Obama's reelection and survival of ObamaCare. I think that ObamaCare was the one thing that Obama personally was willing to go to the mat for in his first term. His Mom died of cancer in her 50s, so he knows what can happen. If the GOP will let that one be, I think that Obama may be willing to compromise on other economic issues. Another good sign is that the Grover Norquist dictatorship over the GOP is weakening. Newer GOP legislators are less likely to sign his pledge, and realizing that it is ethically wrong, which it definitely is. Assuming some flexibility on revenue vs. tax cuts, we can likely move in a fiscally conservative direction that lowers the deficit and does not undermine the economy.
The big issue is whether the GOP legislators can actually work for Americans instead of lobbying for billionaires and huge corporations. If we can gradually strengthen the middle class, raise revenues, and lower the deficit, the economy will recover, and the wealthiest in our society will be doing fine. All of them need to realize they are public servants, not shills for big money. When they do that, we will be able compromise and go forward.
I like your optimism and hope you are right. The alternative isn't going to be pretty for the economic future of this country.
There is a good chance that Obama will be re-elected. The best hope for the country is that the President and the Congress can both act like adults and come to some compromise on taxes and spending; since this is our most pressing issue.
What do the forum members feel is a REALISTIC compromise in this gridlocked debate?
I would agree to any tax increases if the revenue were used solely for deficit reduction....not more programs.
I would agree to across the board spending cuts without any one sector bearing the brunt of it.
Anyone else with some less than partisan{real agreement between both sides} solutions to tax/spending stalemates?
You can't make it where all sectors share the brunt of the cuts. Something like 90% of the federal budget goes to three programs. Medicare, Social Security, and Defense.
Those three, or one of those three, will have to face the brunt of the cuts. There is no if about that, it has to happen.
I agree, tax increases should go to deficit reduction, no new government programs or spending. We should institute a government spending freeze, with national security exceptions of course, for the next 4 years. 0 new spending.
And the odds of some kind of compromise to balance the budget, or at least reduce the deficit is there to be had because of the "fiscal cliff" and triggers with drastic cuts coming if nothing is done. As well as the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts.
Now, I know Republicans are going to slam me for this, but its very likely that Democrats will still control the Senate, or a 41 seat advantage after this election. Very likely. If Romney wins, why would they suddenly turn and let him do what the Republican Senate members blocked the President from doing the last 4 years? I really think that the only way things will change is if Obama wins, the Republicans know he can't run for reelection in 4 years, they might finally realize they have to work with him.
I see a couple potentially good signs. First is Obama's reelection and survival of ObamaCare. I think that ObamaCare was the one thing that Obama personally was willing to go to the mat for in his first term. His Mom died of cancer in her 50s, so he knows what can happen. If the GOP will let that one be, I think that Obama may be willing to compromise on other economic issues. Another good sign is that the Grover Norquist dictatorship over the GOP is weakening. Newer GOP legislators are less likely to sign his pledge, and realizing that it is ethically wrong, which it definitely is. Assuming some flexibility on revenue vs. tax cuts, we can likely move in a fiscally conservative direction that lowers the deficit and does not undermine the economy.
The big issue is whether the GOP legislators can actually work for Americans instead of lobbying for billionaires and huge corporations. If we can gradually strengthen the middle class, raise revenues, and lower the deficit, the economy will recover, and the wealthiest in our society will be doing fine. All of them need to realize they are public servants, not shills for big money. When they do that, we will be able compromise and go forward.
Both parties work for the big corporations and the wealthy. It's all about campaign money now. Until we get the money out of the campaigns, we will never have government of the people again.
Harry reid has already announced the democratic party would not work with mr romney if he were elected. Just why would the republican party or it's supporters want to go against the wishes of it's constituents and do what the democratic party leadership was unwilling to do?
Lets be fair, on Obamas inauguration day, Cantor, McConnell, Boehner and others met, and vowed to not let ANY of Obamas proposals pass. McConnell stated that his number one priority was to get rid of Obama. Now suddenly Republicans are 'shocked' at what Reid said.
Now, I think Reid will work with Romney if elected. What Reid said was,""Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable," . If severely conservative Mitt tries to govern, yes, I think Dems will block him at every turn, if Moderate Mitt governs, I think he can have a wildly successful presidency. There are enough moderate dems, and enough Republicans that are quite frankly sick of their party's nutjobs, to get something done. If Romney comes to the table with that ridiculous notion that EVERYTHING IS NOT ON THE TABLE, then no he will not get anything done. Every economist, Simpson-Bowles, MANY CEOs have said that revenue has to be on the table. He will not get a budget passed that simply guts all social programs, and increases military spending, its just that simple.
Lets be fair, on Obamas inauguration day, Cantor, McConnell, Boehner and others met, and vowed to not let ANY of Obamas proposals pass. McConnell stated that his number one priority was to get rid of Obama. Now suddenly Republicans are 'shocked' at what Reid said.
Now, I think Reid will work with Romney if elected. What Reid said was,""Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable," . If severely conservative Mitt tries to govern, yes, I think Dems will block him at every turn, if Moderate Mitt governs, I think he can have a wildly successful presidency. There are enough moderate dems, and enough Republicans that are quite frankly sick of their party's nutjobs, to get something done. If Romney comes to the table with that ridiculous notion that EVERYTHING IS NOT ON THE TABLE, then no he will not get anything done. Every economist, Simpson-Bowles, MANY CEOs have said that revenue has to be on the table. He will not get a budget passed that simply guts all social programs, and increases military spending, its just that simple.
I agree with all of this, EXCEPT that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have signed Grover Norquist's pledge. And they have made it clear that they work for the 1%. By signing that pledge, he killed Moderate Mitt and became Conservative Wackjob Mitt. Like when Obi Wan Kenobi explained how Darth Vader "killed" Anakin Skywalker and went over to the dark side.
My number one goal is to get everyone who has signed Grover Norquist's "pledge" out of our government. They have proven they are not fit to serve.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
