Would the moderates like to define themselves?

I ask this because I honestly don't know who here is a moderate, or what positions on POLICY they have, so I simply ask what their positions are on general issues, domestic and foriegn. Define yourselves, so that we liberal "radical leftists" and "damn commies" can stop misrepresenting you.

Basically make it a list of your positions on general issues.

Here's an example list of just the issues:

Education

Health Care

"Cultural" Issues(ex. gay marriage)

Trade Policy

Economic Regulation

Enviroment

Military Policy

etc.

Now, let's refrain from mentioning Iraq in this thread, I would like to avoid a flamewar.

yet I am left of moderate in my beliefs, but where my moderation comes in is that I am willing to compromise and get something rather than get my back up and get nothing. I think politics at the grassroots level has a lot to do with give and take, and finesse, and not alienating folks. In other words, finding commonality and going with that first.

Probably the biggest issue I will not compromise on is election reform. I want paper now and forever. If we don't have that, the rest is moot.

I know you can't answer for all moderates.

but I actually don't know what that means. I even asked once on here but nobody answered. I understand, for example, what group health insurance is. I know HMO. Single payer, I don't know.

Now, universal, I understand. I personally am fine with raising taxes and getting a good universal healthcare system IF we don't have the problems I hear about Canadian care with waiting times.

But explain SPHC and I'll tell you!

The Canadian problem of waiting times is exaggerated, greatly. Usually it regards having to see a specialist for a procedure that is not life threatening. But here in the States, I had to wait for 3 hours, in an empty emergency room, when injured at work. I fell on a metal plate and cut my eyebrow, bleeding profusely. That is unacceptable, and apparently, if I was in Canada, I would have been rushed in immediately. Also, seeing specialists here is no picnic either, my Grandmother, for example, had to wait six months to get knee replacement surgery, I can somewhat understand the wait, but she had insurance, no problem there, but the specialist wasn't availuable before that. And what the hell is it with dentists? I have to get an appointment six full months ahead of time, just to get my teeth cleaned, and a standard checkup.

I need major work and have finally reached a stage in which I will be able to pay for it, out-of-pocket. It will cost a lot of money.

was done here in California, it turns out that it would be CHEAPER for tax payers to have EVERYONE on medicare - simplifies, streamlines cuts costs on bureacracies and ultimately everyone one benefits, financially and with care.

for a long time all we have heard is how our system was the greatest health care system world in terms of quality. Then i wondered why very wealthy people went to places like Switzerland and Sweden if ours was the greatest.

We're still hearing that bullshit in the halls of congress and in the MSM punditrats, coupled with the Canadian straw man - it's amazing how easily we are brainwashed here in amerika.

Taxpayer funded universal care much like medicare or the current govt employee ins plans. There are several ideas out there - the most vocal person has been Ted Kennedy who wants to eventually expand Medicare.

Single-payer healthcare is like asking for all people to have well paying jobs all the time, or like asking for sunny weather every day. It's not going to fly at first. And not everyone needs it. The people who need serious help with healthcare should have it. Let's start there.

Medicare has an overhead cost of about 3%, Canada's system of about 4-5%, our private system about 30-40%. Which is more practical again?

This is for political reasons as well as practical reasons. But I'll admit that something has to be done, and I was raised in a family that was involved in medicine for many generations. I don't think that jumping into a single-payer situation is going to work.

Medicine has become such a business that I hardly recognize it anymore. I don't understand the terms of "primary care provider" as opposed to doctor, for instance.

My father was an old fashioned M.D. who did surgery and made house calls. He didn't ask for money from the people who could not afford to pay. Medicine is not like that now.

a single payer type system should be pursued as the best alternative to what we have now. The timeline for transitioning to such a system should not be too slow though, a reasonable timeframe, like 5 years or so should be more than enough.

I actually think that the US could come up with something better than anything tried before, but we have to go at it gradually and assess as we go along.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0112-37.htm

An essential part of our progressive vision is an America where no citizen of any age fears the cost of health care, and no employer refuses to create new jobs or cuts back on current jobs because of the high cost of providing health insurance.

The answer is Medicare, whose 40th birthday we will celebrate in July. I propose that as a 40th birthday gift to the American people, we expand Medicare over the next decade to cover every citizen - from birth to the end of life.

It's no secret that America is still dearly in love with Medicare. Administrative costs are low. Patients' satisfaction is high. Unlike with many private insurers, they can still choose their doctor and their hospital.

Band-aids, not bombs.
How hard is that?

now that I know what it is, I suggest (as someone mentioned in a thread a few days ago) that we study the systems that work and do what they do. I'm glad to hear the Canadian system isn't that bad. I do know my cousin (the one who fusses about waiting) had a heart attack, flatlined, was brought back, had quadruple bypass surgery in Ottowa and is now riding his bike again. So it can't be TOO bad. I do remember hearing a disturbing statistic about mammograms in Canada and a resulting difference in early detection and breast cancer deaths. I wonder if anyone knows whether that was skewed data put out there to scare women or was it true? Sorry I don't have a link.

Education: our system sucks. It is way underfunded. we train people to kill much better than we teach them to read - and that is before they enlist in the military. Our leave no kid's behind program is a horrific unfunded mandate which creates artificial bullshit, disguised as a standard. Smaller classes, better teacher salaries, and instead of soccermomming the kids' time into 18 hour days, give them time to play, learn, digest and progress. MANY MANY problems.

Health Care: There is only one answer for a mature, secure and productive society. Universal health care. Nothing less.

"Cultural" Issues(ex. gay marriage): Who cares? People are people. Why should anyone stick their nose into other people's business? People MUSt be allowed to live their own lives, so long as there is no personal damage or injury to another.

Trade Policy: Ahhhh. tough. In the colonies, the the commerce clause required the states to drop all state regs creating bars, tariffs and more against other states. It worked fine. (although those battles continued into the 1980s, and still continue on wine/liquor mail sales.) Has society or the economic situation changed? Of course. Is planning a good thing? What, like the ssoviet 5 yr plans? (bad joke) I can still see advantages from trade, but I can see the horrible damage. On the other hand, the pony express went out of business the minute that iron horse took over.


Economic Regulation: Sorry. I am too stupid to understand. If this means corporate tax policy, capital gains and corporate regulation, sure we need it if it means tax policies on individuals, sure we need to pay it. If it means controlling economics with non-economic regs, like the USSR tried to do, ehhhhhhh. no.

Enviroment: only insane people kill themselves. WE must be insane.

Military Policy: unfortunately, we have war. We therefore need to protect ourselves. Invading Iraq is the antithesis of protecting our country or our democracy, way of life, etc.

I'm a Centrist Democrat.

On Education...I support MORE funding for the public school system. I'm against school vouchers. I'm against forced prayer in schools. I'm against No Child Left Behind.

On Healthcare...I think that everyone should have access to the healthcare that they need and it SHOULD be a human right.

On Cultural Issues...I support the rights of gay people to get married. I'm pro-Choice, nobody has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body...I also support Partial Birth abortion...I also support 100% Stem Cell research.

Trade Policy...I believe we need to have our existing relationship with China...I support NAFTA (so does Al Gore btw)

Economic Regulation...this is a huge subject, could you pick out a few sections that you'd like us to define on?

Environment...Global warming exists, we should do something about it.

Military Policy...we should not have wars of choices...I'm against Iraq and Afghanistan...but I supported what we did to Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia...we need to deal in some way with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but not necessarily in a military way.

expanded list:

Privatization of Utilities(water, gas, electric)

Deregulation

Tax policy for corporations and citizens

SEC: too much regulation or too little?

That type of thing.

Privatization of Utilities(water, gas, electric): The energy companies are clearly out of control. Price gauging is happening, and they always blame it on the latest disaster instead of taking responsibility for it. Here in New Mexico, water is being handled responsibly.

Deregulation: There shouldn't be regulation on most companies or entities, but at this point, the media realm is an exception. The Fairness Doctrine was our friend!

Tax policy for corporations and citizens: I'm seriously beginning to wonder about a flat tax.

SEC: too much regulation or too little? Far too little. It amazes me what banks and some stock companies get away with, even after you have elected to entrust your money to them/with them.

I'm against privatization of utilities, every time something gets privatized it always ends up costing jobs and the utility bills always become more expensive.

Actually, I think that lower income citizens should get all of their utilities for free...water, gas, electric, these are LIFE necessities and lower income people shouldn't have to chose between buying enough food and having to cut back on their use of water or heat.

I think the deregulation has now gone too far, it's become a free-for-all. I do support some deregulation but there should be set rules and a watchdog organization to keep an eye on what's going on.

I think we need to stop the huge tax cuts for the top 1%, those people could afford to pay MORE in taxation. We need a fair taxation policy for the middle class, we also need more tax credits for college tuition and for day care for the under fives.

I think we do need to have tax incentives for corporations because we need to keep them from moving their companies to Asia, relocating does happen. I would support giving corporations a larger tax incentive in return for a stop to outsourcing jobs.

The SEC I think still has too much regulation, if I were in charge, then I'd appoint Eliot Spitzer as head of the SEC.

I hope this all helps you to understand what a proper Centrist Democrat is...when you put it all together with my previous answers :)

First, if a company wants to outsource, why not penalize them if they do?

On the SEC, if you decrease regulations, wouldn't that increase the amount of Enrons and Worldcoms in the country?

eventually you'll come around on NAFTA... the injustice it has to our workers will eventually make itself clear to you... it's just a matter of time ;)


and the privitazation of utilities, just like every other public service, it needs to be publically controlled and regulated -

can you spell ENRON??

you have the stuff to see it eventually, you're almost there... ;)

then you'll be a hard core "fringe" Leftist! :wow: :toast:

:thumbsup:

Remember, most people in this country, when presented with just the policies that "hard core leftists", at least on the economic side, side with those "damn commies" more often than not. But remember, they aren't leftists or liberals, Gods forgive them if they ever are, they are good and proper "moderates". ;)

They're afraid to make a commitment

uh, oh no, how do i fix this...? "quite a manly, Brawny towel man of a moderate... drinks coffee straight black, no sugar - and when out to prove something adds liquid smoke and bitters to the cup. mucho machissimo!"

(psst! is it working...:yoiks: )

free life sustaining utilities, for the poor!? madness! dislike of over-privatization?! whaa?! regulation, of any sort? heresy! the ivory tower folk of the chicago biz school clutch the pearls in horror.

all i need now is "i dream of swimming with dolphins when i go to bed happy" and the circle is complete. i can light cigarettes from 20 paces off with the conflagrating beacon being sent off here.

However, you claim to both support NAFTA, as it currently exists, I presume, and enviromental protections. Choose one or the other, you can't have both. If you want to know why, look here(PDF WARNING):

http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACF186.PDF

now, curious about nafta, just want a sense of why. do you support it on the theoretical sense of increasing trade and regional rapport? or do you support it as it currently stands in practice -- everything is peachy and complaints are overblown?

ahh, for the love of all things little red book, just say it: "i'm a heartily left leaning liberal." now, shed the security blanket and say it...:7 otherwise give me something definitely in disagreement with liberality. sudden cravings to enter people's homes without search warrants? miranda rights petty annoyance? habeas corpus just an obstacle on the war on terror? appreciation of random searches and seizures at public places? just a little blurring of church and state, y'know, 'cause it's not gonna hurt anyone and it's our 'culture'? seriously, what'cha got? bring it! :D

necessarily mean having a lack of conviction.

Education: Strong on public education, with an emphasis on control at a local level; believe that educators from middle school on up should have degrees in the subjects they are teaching and should be *paid accordingly*, especially if they have one or more graduate degrees

Health Care: the time has come for some kind of national health insurance. Single payer might not be the best way to wade into it, because that will be opposed by many and it may not be achievable at first (In New Mexico, we at least have some affordable clinics--these work fairly well)

"Cultural" Issues(ex. gay marriage): I am almost libertarian about stuff like this. I see no problem with gay marriage, but I value strongly the separation of church and state. I'd like to see civil unions possible across the board for gays and lesbians, with all of the civil rights that het civil unions afford. If people want to be blessed in some kind of religious institution above and beyond that, let them. The "religious right" has been one of the worst things that has happened to our country. The greed of the politicians, especially Reagan/Bush, has enabled the religious right to muck things up and to blur the lines between government and religion. This is tragic, not only for government, but especially for religion. It is also tragic for the sciences and for education in general.

Trade Policy: Responsible trade! Other countries should have the privilege of trading with us, and so they should have certain standards in terms of working conditions and environment.

Economic Regulation: Define more specifically, please? One thing that must be mentioned here is media; our media are in complete chaos. Capitalism is not a dirty word, if that's what you mean. I love the true entrepreneurs like the start of Celestial Seasonings and Ben and Jerry's, and I love ranchers and farmers. The mega corporations get away with some awful things, though, and there should be some safeguards in that regard.

Environment: Strong on environment, favor local control, but not in the way the current administration uses the term. The Endangered Species Act of the 70's was one of the best things that ever happened, and it happened during the Nixon administration. It has been under assault recently. The fact that the * administration summarily tossed the Kyoto Treaty into the toilet without even working with other countries really sickened me.

Military Policy: For a strong military, but not one that tramples other countries in some kind of quest for empire or some kind of geopolitical dream or even "spreading democracy"

No flames about the Iraq War: I am and have been against it since it was obvious * was going to go there. It was my first (and not my last) protest

Hey...you forgot to mention firearms; we have a right to bear arms, but the extent to which we do should be decided on a state-to-state basis.

Education - Support increased funding for public education. Support programs such as HeadStart. Do not support vouchers. Use the money on public education and increased pay for teachers.

Health Care - Support a voucher system similar to what Rahm Emanuel proposed on Meet The Press. Id possibly support a single-payer sytem. With our current defecits a universal program is not realistic.

"Cultural" Issues(ex. gay marriage) - Gov't should not be involved in marriage. Civil Unions for everyone. Straight, Gay, Bi, whatever. Pro-choice. No to partial birth abortion. Yes to parental notification.

Trade Policy - Support fair trade, not free trade. Trade that does not exploit the American worker. Trade with labor and enviornmental protections.

Economic Regulation - Not exactly sure what you mean by 'regulation'?

Enviroment - Enviornmental regulation is a good thing just as long as it does not hurt the American worker.

Military Policy - I would have supported an interventionist foreign policy in World War II. I supported the Iraq War at first, but Ive come to realize the intelligence was cherry picked. Its time to start planning a withdrawl and transfer of power. The Iraqis must take over sooner or later.


Sorry about the Iraq thing. I had to.

You know that, don't you?

I dont support abortion after the first trimester. Now whether the gov't should regulate the procedure, well, thats a whole different ball of wax.

that are done, also known as D&X procedure is done due to medical neccessity. Hence, no government regulation needed.

There needs to be a provision for mothers health.

Though that could be covered by the mother's health provision, the only problem I have is that it adds an additional unnecessary legal barrier in what should just be a medical decision. No laws or regulations needed.

BTW: My grammar is atrocious tonight, don't know why. Hope I make sense.

this discussion.

If you don't "support" something arbitrarily called "partial birth abortion," then you don't, but it doesn't have anything to do with anything related to government, nor should it.

The fact is that anything like this procedure is very rare, and it has to do with the life of the mother and the condition of the baby ready to be born. Usually, the baby ready to be born is...an anamoly, to put it mildly, and one that poses a risk to the life/health of the mother. Don't let this rare surgical procedure (abhorrent as it is) inform your politics, man, because it is something chiefly between a mother-to-be, her husband, and her God. If the federal government gets involved with this, look out!

Can you imagine what would happen?

Education - County-level School Districts, so there's less disparity. Keep Feds out of K-12, have states equalize funding among districts if necessary. No more teaching to standardized tests. No Right Wing indoctrination. Religious clubs, Sacred Music, anything either extra-curricular or Artistic can reference religious beliefs, but no prayers in school.

Health Care - Dual System. A basic level guaranteed to all and, if people want to pay for it, a better system for the more affluent.

Cultural issues - Cultural Issues have no place in politics for me. Gay Marriage is not a Cultural Issue to me, but a Civil Rights Issue. If a religion wants to say they will not sanction same-sex marriage, they have every right to do so. The Government, however, has to afford equal protection to all. If people don't like what's on TV, turn it off. If they don't like Howard Stern, change the channel.

Trade Policy - We live in a small world. Trade among nations will keep those nations from killing each other off. I do not believe in protectionism. We were once in mortal fear of Japan, now, it's China, next, it will be Russia, who knows?

Economic Regulation - Progressive Taxation, severe penalties, including death, for corporate criminals. Something to get us away from this NBA Player - Winner Take All society we're living in.

Environment - You have to prove that you will do no harm for new projects. The laws that cleaned up the messes of the 1950s and 1960s need to be bolstered.....

Military Policy - The Military is NOT an arm of Corporate America. The rest flows from there.

What is the difference between a "basic" and "better" system?

Less waiting time. Kind of like the difference between an HMO and traditional insurance.

Education: We grossly underfund education. Cut defense by $100 billion and put it into education.

Health Care: It is a basic human right to have good health. I support a government program for regular doctor's visits, dental checkups, etc... and free catastrophic coverage so that major surgeries don't wipe people out. I don't support federal funding of abortion except when the mother's life is endangered or the pregnancy has been forced.

Cultural Issues: Civil unions for all. Government has no business being in marriage. Civil unions can be any combination of man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman. Guns, I support gun rights. Drug policy, I support the legalization of certain drugs, but hardcore drugs are ruinous to people's lives and those who can't fight their cravings must be protected from themselves. I've seen drugs destroy lives and it is not pleasant. Absolutely, unequivocally opposed to the death penalty.

Trade Policy: Fair trade aimed at making Latin America our partner in the world rather than China that is opposed to our strategic alliances in Asia. I support massive investment in Latin America, partly to make up for how much we have interfered in their affairs over the years.

Economic Regulation: Regulation is essential to correcting the problems of market failures. Any intellectually honest economist will tell you that the free-market does fail and fails often. The government should act to protect labor, environmental, and other freedoms and laws vigorously.

Environment: We as human beings are entitled to clean air, clean water, and clean food.

Military Policy: I don't trust the military and never have. I support sharp reductions in the size of the military. Our focus should be on working through non-violent means. I support keeping R&D up to snuff, but would curb the excesses there since the defense budget is bloated for corporate welfare reasons more than anything else. I opposed the Iraq War, supported the action in Afghanistan, though I think it is time to leave there, and think that Vietnam was one of the biggest mistakes this country has ever made. I would ban recruiters on high school campuses and also from recruiting in private workplaces. This is a volunteer army. If people don't enlist on their own free will, then compensation should be lifted to the point it will. We don't pay our soldiers enough anyway.

I would put you much further left than you would yourself.

I also categorically reject the utopian and Marxist views of the world and that puts me at odds with many DUers who seem the believe those view points. I also generally support law enforcement since I think it is unhealthy for society to loathe law enforcement given how vital it is to our society. I do not consider it to be truly oppressive, though I watch out for that. I also completely reject most conspiracy theories. If the right-wing is so powerful that they can effortlessly pull of such massive and sometimes physically impossible conspiracies, I say, "Why resist if they are that powerful?".

Wrong place to post if you wish for that.

To me a moderate is a person who doesn't go all left or all right on any issues. A moderate can be mostly conservative or mostly liberal, but not all one way or the other. Too broadly defined to come up with a definite stance on every issue like that. Sorry. It's just how I look at moderate. And I know plenty of people I would consider to be moderate. They are usually socially liberal, but go conservative on monetary issues.