On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote: (‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)
News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock!
As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.
This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.
You're kinda missing the point. The Republicans need a "soul transplant" because their current "soul" is foul and corrupted.
The left and the right are not equally valid viewpoints on all issues. Many social conservatives would like nothing better than to strip homosexuals of the right to get married, or otherwise prevent them from gaining that right. They would like to put the Bible and other religious texts in classrooms. Hell, conservatives in Texas have tried to sanitize history books so that they fit more in tune with conservative ideology.
These are not acceptable. That's the part of the Republican "soul" they need to leave.
Remember: when it comes to compromise, Democrats are far more willing to do so than Republicans. Just look at healthcare: Republicans effectively forced the single-payer option off the table. They forced a lot of changes to the bill. Was there compromise? No; they basically sabotaged it to the point where it's questionable whether it's better than we had before.
And even then, it only barely passed.
Democrats have been giving ground to obstinate Republicans for years now. It's time we held firm on some things and make them compromise with us by giving up something they want.
I was referring to economic policies, rather than social stances. And you're missing my point. Liberals insist that Republicans are super-far right that need to be reined in to the center, when instead I see most of them as moderates who are being pulled further left.
The fact that the healthcare bill passed in the first place was quite the compromise. I see that as a very liberal piece of legislature, and Reps were forcing it to the center.
Unfortunately, many of the changes to the ACA that formed the backbone of that "compromise" are disliked by both Republicans and Democrats and are demonstrably inefficient. And it bears worth mentioning that a discussion of where compromise ought to take place, at least if Obama's signals mean anything so far, needs to include a rather substantive appropriation of Obama's re-election campaign platform. The order of operations in post-election policy back and forth is considerably more important than it is during other times; the results of the election suggest that the public wants Republicans to make the first concessions, not the other way around, and the dialogue ought to be carried out in such a manner.
Fine. But supposing they have (say they agree to drastic military spending cuts, as I mentioned before, for the sake of argument, because I realize it's unlikely), I still ask what Democrats and liberals would be willing to sacrifice in order to meet a compromise with Republicans.
How about starting there. The issue has always been revenue increases by raising taxes, which republicans (used to) flat out oppose. A deal shouldn't be too far off now that the majority of americans favor increasing taxes on the rich, forcing republicans out of their 'no higher taxes, ever' position.
On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote: (‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)
News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock!
As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.
This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.
You're kinda missing the point. The Republicans need a "soul transplant" because their current "soul" is foul and corrupted.
The left and the right are not equally valid viewpoints on all issues. Many social conservatives would like nothing better than to strip homosexuals of the right to get married, or otherwise prevent them from gaining that right. They would like to put the Bible and other religious texts in classrooms. Hell, conservatives in Texas have tried to sanitize history books so that they fit more in tune with conservative ideology.
These are not acceptable. That's the part of the Republican "soul" they need to leave.
Remember: when it comes to compromise, Democrats are far more willing to do so than Republicans. Just look at healthcare: Republicans effectively forced the single-payer option off the table. They forced a lot of changes to the bill. Was there compromise? No; they basically sabotaged it to the point where it's questionable whether it's better than we had before.
And even then, it only barely passed.
Democrats have been giving ground to obstinate Republicans for years now. It's time we held firm on some things and make them compromise with us by giving up something they want.
I was referring to economic policies, rather than social stances. And you're missing my point. Liberals insist that Republicans are super-far right that need to be reined in to the center, when instead I see most of them as moderates who are being pulled further left.
The fact that the healthcare bill passed in the first place was quite the compromise. I see that as a very liberal piece of legislature, and Reps were forcing it to the center.
Unfortunately, many of the changes to the ACA that formed the backbone of that "compromise" are disliked by both Republicans and Democrats and are demonstrably inefficient. And it bears worth mentioning that a discussion of where compromise ought to take place, at least if Obama's signals mean anything so far, needs to include a rather substantive appropriation of Obama's re-election campaign platform. The order of operations in post-election policy back and forth is considerably more important than it is during other times; the results of the election suggest that the public wants Republicans to make the first concessions, not the other way around, and the dialogue ought to be carried out in such a manner.
Fine. But supposing they have (say they agree to drastic military spending cuts, as I mentioned before, for the sake of argument, because I realize it's unlikely), I still ask what Democrats and liberals would be willing to sacrifice in order to meet a compromise with Republicans.
I honestly do not think the onus is on Democrats to provide Republicans with some preordained morsel of compromise; if this election taught the US anything, it is that the ideological framework of the Republican Party is in desperate need of some repair work, especially when it comes to building consensus amongst conservatives. With people like Grover Norquist at the helm and the mantra of lower taxes in mind, the Republicans lost. So if its not taxes that are a winning consensus builder for Republicans, than what is? Certainly not the Southern/Southwestern hawkish anti-immigration bit nor Bible Belt social conservatism. I guess my point is that Democrats can't really pilot the Republican boat for them, especially not when the Republicans can't decide who the captain is.
Edit: And in regards to entitlement reform, I didn't include that because Democrats tend to agree on entitlement reform anyways
On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote: (‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)
News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock!
As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.
This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.
You're kinda missing the point. The Republicans need a "soul transplant" because their current "soul" is foul and corrupted.
The left and the right are not equally valid viewpoints on all issues. Many social conservatives would like nothing better than to strip homosexuals of the right to get married, or otherwise prevent them from gaining that right. They would like to put the Bible and other religious texts in classrooms. Hell, conservatives in Texas have tried to sanitize history books so that they fit more in tune with conservative ideology.
These are not acceptable. That's the part of the Republican "soul" they need to leave.
Remember: when it comes to compromise, Democrats are far more willing to do so than Republicans. Just look at healthcare: Republicans effectively forced the single-payer option off the table. They forced a lot of changes to the bill. Was there compromise? No; they basically sabotaged it to the point where it's questionable whether it's better than we had before.
And even then, it only barely passed.
Democrats have been giving ground to obstinate Republicans for years now. It's time we held firm on some things and make them compromise with us by giving up something they want.
I was referring to economic policies, rather than social stances. And you're missing my point. Liberals insist that Republicans are super-far right that need to be reined in to the center, when instead I see most of them as moderates who are being pulled further left.
The fact that the healthcare bill passed in the first place was quite the compromise. I see that as a very liberal piece of legislature, and Reps were forcing it to the center.
Unfortunately, many of the changes to the ACA that formed the backbone of that "compromise" are disliked by both Republicans and Democrats and are demonstrably inefficient. And it bears worth mentioning that a discussion of where compromise ought to take place, at least if Obama's signals mean anything so far, needs to include a rather substantive appropriation of Obama's re-election campaign platform. The order of operations in post-election policy back and forth is considerably more important than it is during other times; the results of the election suggest that the public wants Republicans to make the first concessions, not the other way around, and the dialogue ought to be carried out in such a manner.
Fine. But supposing they have (say they agree to drastic military spending cuts, as I mentioned before, for the sake of argument, because I realize it's unlikely), I still ask what Democrats and liberals would be willing to sacrifice in order to meet a compromise with Republicans.
How about starting there. The issue has always been revenue increases by raising taxes, which republicans (used to) flat out oppose. A deal shouldn't be too far off now that the majority of americans favor increasing taxes on the rich, forcing republicans out of their 'no higher taxes, ever' position.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Gonna make a lot of seniors mad over it, since they've paid into the system for decades, but if you ask me, the programs shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. If we can ween ourselves off Social Security and the like, this might be the only way to do it. Will be intriguing to see how long Obama and the Dems can keep cutting into the programs to appease Reps. That sounds fair in my mind, given the Dem-heavy climate in Washington, to trade large military cuts with sizable SS and Medicare cuts.
Would it be possible, do you think, to convince Democrats to abandon wind and solar energy initiatives, and instead open up the U.S. for more drilling and constructing new power plants? For the price of, say, a notable tax increase on the top income earners?
On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote: (‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)
News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock!
As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.
This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.
You're kinda missing the point. The Republicans need a "soul transplant" because their current "soul" is foul and corrupted.
The left and the right are not equally valid viewpoints on all issues. Many social conservatives would like nothing better than to strip homosexuals of the right to get married, or otherwise prevent them from gaining that right. They would like to put the Bible and other religious texts in classrooms. Hell, conservatives in Texas have tried to sanitize history books so that they fit more in tune with conservative ideology.
These are not acceptable. That's the part of the Republican "soul" they need to leave.
Remember: when it comes to compromise, Democrats are far more willing to do so than Republicans. Just look at healthcare: Republicans effectively forced the single-payer option off the table. They forced a lot of changes to the bill. Was there compromise? No; they basically sabotaged it to the point where it's questionable whether it's better than we had before.
And even then, it only barely passed.
Democrats have been giving ground to obstinate Republicans for years now. It's time we held firm on some things and make them compromise with us by giving up something they want.
I was referring to economic policies, rather than social stances. And you're missing my point. Liberals insist that Republicans are super-far right that need to be reined in to the center, when instead I see most of them as moderates who are being pulled further left.
The fact that the healthcare bill passed in the first place was quite the compromise. I see that as a very liberal piece of legislature, and Reps were forcing it to the center.
Unfortunately, many of the changes to the ACA that formed the backbone of that "compromise" are disliked by both Republicans and Democrats and are demonstrably inefficient. And it bears worth mentioning that a discussion of where compromise ought to take place, at least if Obama's signals mean anything so far, needs to include a rather substantive appropriation of Obama's re-election campaign platform. The order of operations in post-election policy back and forth is considerably more important than it is during other times; the results of the election suggest that the public wants Republicans to make the first concessions, not the other way around, and the dialogue ought to be carried out in such a manner.
Fine. But supposing they have (say they agree to drastic military spending cuts, as I mentioned before, for the sake of argument, because I realize it's unlikely), I still ask what Democrats and liberals would be willing to sacrifice in order to meet a compromise with Republicans.
How about starting there. The issue has always been revenue increases by raising taxes, which republicans (used to) flat out oppose. A deal shouldn't be too far off now that the majority of americans favor increasing taxes on the rich, forcing republicans out of their 'no higher taxes, ever' position.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Gonna make a lot of seniors mad over it, since they've paid into the system for decades, but if you ask me, the programs shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. If we can ween ourselves off Social Security and the like, this might be the only way to do it. Will be intriguing to see how long Obama and the Dems can keep cutting into the programs to appease Reps. That sounds fair in my mind, given the Dem-heavy climate in Washington, to trade large military cuts with sizable SS and Medicare cuts.
With responses like that you won't get anywhere.
The democratic position is, and will be, that the rich need to be taxed at rates higher than they currently are, and to use that money to keep paying for reformed entitlement programs. Weening people off isn't the goal, creating sustainable entitlement programs is. For any cuts to entitlements, the democrats will demand additional revenue, not additional cuts elsewhere.
Edit: And in regards to entitlement reform, I didn't include that because Democrats tend to agree on entitlement reform anyways
Off course everyone agrees on entitlement reform. Old people dont go to the streets protesting, nor will they go on strike. They have been working for 45 years and already paid their contribution to society and some more. There is nothing more to get from them,so now they are useless eaters. They will silently accept it, they standing with 1 foot in the grave already annyway.
This is what political advisors tell to the democratic and republican leaders, though you will never hear this motivation in public off course. It is outrageous how people are threated,The current population dont care off course. They dont look further ahead then 1 week 1 year at best ,and their own retirement isnt due for another 20-50 years. I realy do hope that one day elderly people will unite politically. And i do see this day coming, even in the usa. They are a huge demographic group to wich none of the current parties reaches out.
On November 15 2012 07:45 Rassy wrote: Edit: And in regards to entitlement reform, I didn't include that because Democrats tend to agree on entitlement reform anyways
Off course everyone agrees on entitlement reform. Old people dont go to the streets protesting, nor will they go on strike. They have been working for 45 years and already paid their contribution to society and some more. There is nothing more to get from them,so now they are useless eaters. They will silently accept it, they standing with 1 foot in the grave already annyway.
This is what political advisors tell to the democratic and republican leaders, though you will never hear this motivation in public off course. It is outrageous how people are threated,The current population dont care off course. They dont look further ahead then 1 week 1 year at best ,and their own retirement isnt due for another 20-50 years. I realy do hope that one day elderly people will unite politically. And i do see this day coming, even in the usa. They are a huge demographic group to wich none of the current parties reaches out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARP And when I said Democrats agree, I mean they have come up with an acceptable brand of reform that centers around optimization as opposed to flat out cuts in order to reduce costs.
On November 15 2012 05:04 oneofthem wrote: reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.
on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs.
Reduce medical cost? In what way, or through what method(s)?
The public system is vastly more efficient, both in terms of actually spending healthcare money on the provision of care and through superior allocation of resources. For example preventative care is a fantastic investment but the only party who can really invest in it is one guaranteed to pick up the tab for the emergency room care anyway, ie the state. There's no real debate about whether or not a public system would reduce healthcare costs compared to the current system, even the right wingers concede that what you currently have is a monstrosity, they just argue that it goes fully private > fully public > current mess. Every country in the world with socialised healthcare provides far more care per $ spent than the US, there's no question that the current US system is inefficient.
So it's my understanding that we don't have a 100% private or 100% public system, but a mix of both? And the recommendation is to make it fully public? See, in my mind, (comparing to the tax system here, bear with me please) that sounds like implementing a flat tax to solve the issues with our current tax system. It ain't perfect, and it's not ideal from my point of view, but it would remove a lot of the mess that is there currently, make it more streamlined at least.
*sigh* I still don't like it, but that's better than nothing.... -.-'
I made this post about nationalised healthcare three years ago and I still largely agree with it.
On August 17 2009 19:23 KwarK wrote: I believe a key advantage of nationalised healthcare over a private system is that public health challenges can be met with a co-ordinated, universal approach in a public system. From pandemics to obesity, public can invest in the good health of the people which pay for themselves and more in lower healthcare costs. For example, we can get nicotene gum subsidised on the NHS as well as other help to stop smoking. While this does cost tax money whereas in a private system the cost of dealing with their lung cancer would fall firmly on the smokers (in his insurance premiums) it still costs less money. Prevention is far cheaper than cure. So while I acknowledge the argument "why should the healthy man pay for another mans vice?" I don't agree with it because by doing so the overall costs of healthcare are decreased. And when society is wasting less money treating preventable illnesses everyone benefits. That money gets spent or invested and returns back into the cycle. Wasting money makes society as a whole poorer, not just the individual wasting it. This example of low cost prevention is even more extreme when you look at vaccination programs or free checkups for early treatment of cancer. In the UK women at risk of cervical cancer are notified and recommended to see their doctor for a checkup because it is far cheaper to only find it in 1% of the people you screen but find it when it is easily treatable than wait until the symptoms force them to you but require far more trained staff spending far more hours dealing with it.
Secondly, the costs of curing someone are less than the costs of treating the symptoms of a condition for years on end. Lower class people without insurance will have trouble paying for the treatment they need immediately and will instead spend far more money with worse results managing the symptoms over a long period of time. Again, this is money being wasted. I get that you believe people should be allowed to waste their money as they see fit but ultimately, unless you believe in it so strongly you'll allow them to die on the street, eventually you pick up the tab. If you accept the responsibility of providing critical care to a patient regardless of insurance, and I hope you do, then ultimately you're agreeing to pick up the tab on his healthcare. Once you accept the state has a vested interest it makes sense to act pre-emptively to lower that. A state system does that. An insurance system doesn't because they only pay indirectly, through higher hospital costs. Either way the people end up paying for it, through premiums or taxation. But in one system they pay less.
Thirdly. medicine has a diminishing return on investment, the improvement in healthcare is not proportionate to the increase in cost. To put that in context. Public takes X money and treats everyone with Y quality of health care. Private will take X money, treat half the people with only 1.5Y quality. Better for the people being treated but far less cost efficient. This is where we get moralising versus free market. I accept that the guy who has saved all his life will want to spend his fortune on some expensive treatment by the most expensive doctors to try and buy himself another 6 months of breathing. However that same money could buy people who don't need such talented doctors or such expensive equipment many times his 6 months. Why should he get to waste his money on buying himself a few more days when the same money could buy some poorer people years. Of course here we're moving into socialism and there is no right answer. After all, you could take it to the extreme and point out that if I really believed in that then I'd do away with the NHS and spend all the money on curing tb and malaria in Africa for the few dollars it takes to save a life. I believe a mixed system of public and private along with rationing in the public sector is the best answer to this question. You may disagree and I won't begrudge you for it because this is an entirely subjective issue. However, in my opinion rationing provides by far the most effective healthcare with the money provided. We have an institute called NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) which weighs the costs of treatments against the gains in patient welfare and judges where the money should be spent. It is a collection of economists, doctors, medical researchers and statisticians who issue guidelines on which treatments can be afforded by the NHS. By dealing with all the cheaply cured patients first and moving up the scale you get the maximum bang for your buck. This system is more efficient than a private system but it also takes away individual choice. However you must remember that there is always the private option. By opting to go private you are essentially forfeiting the tax you paid towards the nationalised health service but ultimately that is not all that much money. If you can afford expensive health insurance then that remains available to you and you can take advantage of getting the exact same level of care for your money as anyone in the US would with the same insurance. The highly expensive procedures which will be out of reach of the middle class in a public system will still be out of their reach in a private system, the rich will get the same quality of care in both systems as they'll go private in both. It is only a very small segment of society on the cusp who could just about scrape the money together for good insurance coverage in a private system but could not in a public who will be adversely effected. Whereas the number of people positively effected is far greater. However as I've already said, I will understand if you don't agree with my third point about the morality of rationing (although not if you disagree with the greater efficiency from rationing).
Fourthly, sick people are bad for society in general. Poor people who are ill with a contagious virus and ignore it will infect those around them, perpetuating the problem. While that may not bother you, eventually one of those people getting paid so little he can't afford to take a sick day will be the guy coughing over your food. To use a crude analogy, you may not like your toilet on a personal level, you may not think it deserves your investment, but you still buy products to keep it hygenic because if you don't it'll be worse for you.
On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote: (‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)
News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock!
As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.
This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.
You're kinda missing the point. The Republicans need a "soul transplant" because their current "soul" is foul and corrupted.
The left and the right are not equally valid viewpoints on all issues. Many social conservatives would like nothing better than to strip homosexuals of the right to get married, or otherwise prevent them from gaining that right. They would like to put the Bible and other religious texts in classrooms. Hell, conservatives in Texas have tried to sanitize history books so that they fit more in tune with conservative ideology.
These are not acceptable. That's the part of the Republican "soul" they need to leave.
Remember: when it comes to compromise, Democrats are far more willing to do so than Republicans. Just look at healthcare: Republicans effectively forced the single-payer option off the table. They forced a lot of changes to the bill. Was there compromise? No; they basically sabotaged it to the point where it's questionable whether it's better than we had before.
And even then, it only barely passed.
Democrats have been giving ground to obstinate Republicans for years now. It's time we held firm on some things and make them compromise with us by giving up something they want.
I was referring to economic policies, rather than social stances. And you're missing my point. Liberals insist that Republicans are super-far right that need to be reined in to the center, when instead I see most of them as moderates who are being pulled further left.
The fact that the healthcare bill passed in the first place was quite the compromise. I see that as a very liberal piece of legislature, and Reps were forcing it to the center.
Unfortunately, many of the changes to the ACA that formed the backbone of that "compromise" are disliked by both Republicans and Democrats and are demonstrably inefficient. And it bears worth mentioning that a discussion of where compromise ought to take place, at least if Obama's signals mean anything so far, needs to include a rather substantive appropriation of Obama's re-election campaign platform. The order of operations in post-election policy back and forth is considerably more important than it is during other times; the results of the election suggest that the public wants Republicans to make the first concessions, not the other way around, and the dialogue ought to be carried out in such a manner.
Fine. But supposing they have (say they agree to drastic military spending cuts, as I mentioned before, for the sake of argument, because I realize it's unlikely), I still ask what Democrats and liberals would be willing to sacrifice in order to meet a compromise with Republicans.
How about starting there. The issue has always been revenue increases by raising taxes, which republicans (used to) flat out oppose. A deal shouldn't be too far off now that the majority of americans favor increasing taxes on the rich, forcing republicans out of their 'no higher taxes, ever' position.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Gonna make a lot of seniors mad over it, since they've paid into the system for decades, but if you ask me, the programs shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. If we can ween ourselves off Social Security and the like, this might be the only way to do it. Will be intriguing to see how long Obama and the Dems can keep cutting into the programs to appease Reps. That sounds fair in my mind, given the Dem-heavy climate in Washington, to trade large military cuts with sizable SS and Medicare cuts.
With responses like that you won't get anywhere.
The democratic position is, and will be, that the rich need to be taxed at rates higher than they currently are, and to use that money to keep paying for reformed entitlement programs. Weening people off isn't the goal, creating sustainable entitlement programs is. For any cuts to entitlements, the democrats will demand additional revenue, not additional cuts elsewhere.
Oh, I'm just secretly hoping. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Pardon me, my idealism was showing, lol.
I guess concluding on SS/Medicare seemed odd to me, since that deals with peoples' lives and health. You'd think they would choose something a little less...touchy...to compromise on.
On November 15 2012 07:45 Rassy wrote: Edit: And in regards to entitlement reform, I didn't include that because Democrats tend to agree on entitlement reform anyways
Off course everyone agrees on entitlement reform. Old people dont go to the streets protesting, nor will they go on strike. They have been working for 45 years and already paid their contribution to society and some more. There is nothing more to get from them,so now they are useless eaters. They will silently accept it, they standing with 1 foot in the grave already annyway.
This is what political advisors tell to the democratic and republican leaders, though you will never hear this motivation in public off course. It is outrageous how people are threated,The current population dont care off course. They dont look further ahead then 1 week 1 year at best ,and their own retirement isnt due for another 20-50 years. I realy do hope that one day elderly people will unite politically. And i do see this day coming, even in the usa. They are a huge demographic group to wich none of the current parties reaches out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARP And when I said Democrats agree, I mean they have come up with an acceptable brand of reform that centers around optimization as opposed to flat out cuts in order to reduce costs.
Well that's better than nothing.
KwarK, I'll have to read your lengthy text-wall later, sadly. But thank you for reposting it for reference.
Have to agree with a lot of what KwarK said there, as I tend to do
I will add that I'm against a totally private system for a number of reasons. Americans pay more money for lower quality healthcare, as noted by numerous international agencies who aren't exactly beholden to the spin and bias that Democrats or Republicans might be when they report on the efficacy of the US healthcare system. I would also add that personally, anything that I pay towards healthcare that finds it's way into the pockets of shareholders, or an insurance company executive, is wasted money. I spend money for healthcare in the notion that it improves my health, not that it makes someone else richer. My money should go towards drugs, or treatment, or the doctors and nurses and orderlies that care for me and the hospital (obviously they need to be paid a decent wage, the hospital gets money to improve and maintain equipment). Add to this the fact I believe medical care is a human right, not a privilege.
I am honestly amazed that so many defend what is obviously a terrible healthcare system in this country. The shite about 'death panels' which was spewed by a certain party in regards to Obamacare was typical of big interests trying to protect its revenue streams, and frankly when an insurance company decides on your treatment based on what little you can pay them, it seems you're fearing something you already have.
On November 15 2012 08:16 Sanctimonius wrote: Have to agree with a lot of what KwarK said there, as I tend to do
I will add that I'm against a totally private system for a number of reasons. Americans pay more money for lower quality healthcare, as noted by numerous international agencies who aren't exactly beholden to the spin and bias that Democrats or Republicans might be when they report on the efficacy of the US healthcare system. I would also add that personally, anything that I pay towards healthcare that finds it's way into the pockets of shareholders, or an insurance company executive, is wasted money. I spend money for healthcare in the notion that it improves my health, not that it makes someone else richer. My money should go towards drugs, or treatment, or the doctors and nurses and orderlies that care for me and the hospital (obviously they need to be paid a decent wage, the hospital gets money to improve and maintain equipment). Add to this the fact I believe medical care is a human right, not a privilege.
I am honestly amazed that so many defend what is obviously a terrible healthcare system in this country. The shite about 'death panels' which was spewed by a certain party in regards to Obamacare was typical of big interests trying to protect its revenue streams, and frankly when an insurance company decides on your treatment based on what little you can pay them, it seems you're fearing something you already have.
To add to this and Kwark's post. There are also other reasons that might be closer to right wing people. One, universal healthcare lowers or even removes cost of healthcare from the employer. Yes, in most countries they have to pay insurance for their employees, but that is mostly a formality as the employer and employee know that beforehand and thus it is really cut from the employee's pay. Plus all his competitors in the country pay the same, thus no unfair advantage. Plus since universal system is cheaper they pay less no matter what.
Second, universal system allow people to be more productive and work freely in a field of their choosing. There are more than few people in US that stay at their jobs just because they provide health insurance of at least reasonable quality. They could get better paying job or job where they could achieve more, but cannot risk it due to existing or potential health issues.
Third, universal system creates stability. When you do not have to worry about bankrupting yourself due to medical expenses, your life is more stable and less stressful. Stress is now pretty much known to cause a lot of issues that lower productivity.
Actually second and third reasons are I think at least partially behind the fact that US is scoring so low on social mobility rankings. It is funny how social nets and universal healthcare are used as an example of anti-meritocracy, when actually countries implementing them are much more meritocratic than US.
On November 15 2012 07:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:Would it be possible, do you think, to convince Democrats to abandon wind and solar energy initiatives, and instead open up the U.S. for more drilling and constructing new power plants? For the price of, say, a notable tax increase on the top income earners?
You won't even get Republicans to abandon wind energy initiatives. The biggest beneficiaries of the policies are states such as Texas, and the Republicans there know it.
Obama won because he was more moderate, the Republican party acted like everyone who didn't vote for them was stupid instead of trying to figure out why they weren't interested in what Obama was offering that was selling well, people weren't oblivious to things like their attempts to trick the elderly into not voting and denying large swaths of populations from voting with ID laws, Romney didn't pivot back to the center quickly enough (though even if he had he would've been feeding his image as an unprincipled candidate), the Paul Ryan budget plan isn't a plan as much as it is something the Republicans were clinging to to claim they were making attempts to change things instead of just be stubborn, and the fact that the Republicans were trying to make him out as objectively the worst President we've ever had when he had made good achievements, like repealing DADT, Saving big banks and the auto industry, making healthcare accessible to younger people and those who were already sick and were actually going to need it, passing a law to give women equal pay, and getting unemployment lowered to around 8% without being able to raise taxes. He pulled us out of Afghanistan and killed various kingpins in Al Qaeda. He has done a good job in addition to the Republicans denying reality and Romney being utterly unappealing.
As for what will happen now in Washington, Obama will continue finding ways to go around Congress to further his agenda while Republicans either cling to the same plays they've been using as they slide into obscurity, or they take some time to soul search and completely change how we go about things in Washington
On November 15 2012 07:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:Would it be possible, do you think, to convince Democrats to abandon wind and solar energy initiatives, and instead open up the U.S. for more drilling and constructing new power plants? For the price of, say, a notable tax increase on the top income earners?
You won't even get Republicans to abandon wind energy initiatives. The biggest beneficiaries of the policies are states such as Texas, and the Republicans there know it.
There is nothing more beautiful than driving down a Texas highway and seeing row after row of white spinnies. It almost makes up for the feedlots. Almost.
@below: Bill O'Reilly is pretty much a one-man demonstration that arguments ad hominem are not nearly as fallacious as is commonly reported.
Liberal rage or not, this sums up my assessment of the USA today.
Ya. Minus the semi-racist comments, I don't really disagree with his assessment.
If you came here just to say "I agree with Bill O'Reilly." and leave it at that, the readers of this thread, even most of the conservative ones, are going to probably consider you an idiot. Just so you know.
Nice fallacy there. I won't disagree with your statement that Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. That doesn't automatically invalidate every statement he has ever made.
Would it be possible, do you think, to convince Democrats to abandon wind and solar energy initiatives, and instead open up the U.S. for more drilling and constructing new power plants? For the price of, say, a notable tax increase on the top income earners?
Dude this isn't horse trading. The US isn't subjecting itself to the vulnerabilities of massively relying on oil and gas. The super rich aren't getting carte blanche forms of tax write offs and exemptions any longer. We didn't want this in 2008. We don't want this now. Deal with it (Or don't and the Republican Party will lose the House in 2014).
Nobody wants the failed policies of Bush or the insipid Reaganomics! from 30 years ago.
Would it be possible, do you think, to convince Democrats to abandon wind and solar energy initiatives, and instead open up the U.S. for more drilling and constructing new power plants? For the price of, say, a notable tax increase on the top income earners?
Dude this isn't horse trading. The US isn't subjecting itself to the vulnerabilities of massively relying on oil and gas. The super rich aren't getting carte blanche forms of tax write offs and exemptions any longer. We didn't want this in 2008. We don't want this now. Deal with it (Or don't and the Republican Party will lose the House in 2014).
Nobody wants the failed policies of Bush or the insipid Reaganomics! from 30 years ago.
And who the fuck wants to get rid of clean energy? Have you seen the advances in solar and wind energy in just a few years?
We need to get off fossil as quickly as possible without affecting the global economy, not because it's perfect but because it's realistic.
the market tends to not know a lot about the prospect of technology change that requires revolutionary improvements. almost by tautology.
for the simple reason that they use parameters of cost and risk that are themselves subject to change once discoveries are made. (thus it is a dynamic model that determines its own next step by an unknown event (technological discovery))
of course, this breaks both ways. policy makers don't know completely either. it is just strictly unknowable. (whcih is why evolutionarily speaking the instinct to invent new things, call it nerdiness, is a self propelled thing. it does not depend on rational expectancy. it just goes, and you need resources to support it)
nevertheless, history has shown that over the long run it's a good idea to give science monies.
Would it be possible, do you think, to convince Democrats to abandon wind and solar energy initiatives, and instead open up the U.S. for more drilling and constructing new power plants? For the price of, say, a notable tax increase on the top income earners?
Dude this isn't horse trading. The US isn't subjecting itself to the vulnerabilities of massively relying on oil and gas. The super rich aren't getting carte blanche forms of tax write offs and exemptions any longer. We didn't want this in 2008. We don't want this now. Deal with it (Or don't and the Republican Party will lose the House in 2014).
Nobody wants the failed policies of Bush or the insipid Reaganomics! from 30 years ago.
And who the fuck wants to get rid of clean energy? Have you seen the advances in solar and wind energy in just a few years?
We need to get off fossil as quickly as possible without affecting the global economy, not because it's perfect but because it's realistic.
In 10 years saying we should abandon solo energy will seem as stupid as saying we should abandon gas now. I mean really the rate of solar energy incrases is drastic and while it probably has to slow at some point (though it hasnt yet) the rate is growth is so large and so fast that even a slight slowdown will still make it a very very strong energy method in 10 years.
Would it be possible, do you think, to convince Democrats to abandon wind and solar energy initiatives, and instead open up the U.S. for more drilling and constructing new power plants? For the price of, say, a notable tax increase on the top income earners?
Dude this isn't horse trading. The US isn't subjecting itself to the vulnerabilities of massively relying on oil and gas. The super rich aren't getting carte blanche forms of tax write offs and exemptions any longer. We didn't want this in 2008. We don't want this now. Deal with it (Or don't and the Republican Party will lose the House in 2014).
Nobody wants the failed policies of Bush or the insipid Reaganomics! from 30 years ago.
And who the fuck wants to get rid of clean energy? Have you seen the advances in solar and wind energy in just a few years?
We need to get off fossil as quickly as possible without affecting the global economy, not because it's perfect but because it's realistic.
In 10 years saying we should abandon solo energy will seem as stupid as saying we should abandon gas now. I mean really the rate of solar energy incrases is drastic and while it probably has to slow at some point (though it hasnt yet) the rate is growth is so large and so fast that even a slight slowdown will still make it a very very strong energy method in 10 years.
At first I thought you were negating clean energy then I saw not. What I'm interested in is the Thorium based Nuclear Plants.. If they can manage 100% fuel rod consumption (like they theorize they can) along with the thorium instead of the steam heating with water which takes a massive containment facility and risks a melt down it could become the biggest power source. Let alone the achievements in fusion they've been making (not perfect but it's a theorized to work now just have to manage the power)
EPT
