PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Common Ground


FAX
09-11-2008, 09:30 PM
Common ground ...

I wonder ... do you guys think any exists upon which we Americans might build for the common good? I mean, are there any objectives at all that both the "left" and the "right" might agree are sufficiently worthwhile to pursue without concern for party affiliation or loyalty? Or, perhaps, current problems that both sides might accede to resolve?

For example, could a consensus be developed on the subject of ending speculation-for-profit on petroleum and petroleum derivatives which has now, I believe, been proven to both significantly and artificially inflate costs across the entire energy spectrum? How about education? Could both sides support an approach that, based perhaps on individual GPA and/or attendance, the cost of higher education might be offset through tax relief, for example? Or, could both parties simply concede that all US companies or individuals who employ illegal aliens must pay a simple, immediate, but substantial fine? Or, perhaps, incentives provided to American manufacturers in exchange for measurable progress toward the creation of an affordable, practical, marketable, urban/suburban electric vehicle could be established that would be palatable for both sides.

Is there anything that you peeps believe could be agreed upon? Or is it too late to hope for such a thing?

FAX

Disclaimers: Sorry if repost.

alnorth
09-11-2008, 09:34 PM
I honestly dont think so, and there's a pretty simple and practical reason for it.

Bipartisan issues where everyone agrees on the solution are easy. Those dont require debate and several election cycles and supreme court appointments to determine a final victor. They simply get passed and implemented by acclimation with a voice vote.

Anything that we have common ground with has been done already. Anything that regularly comes up (annually? some small budget items?) that has common ground gets passed with no problem. If it hasnt been done yet, theres either not enough interest, or there is no common ground.

cdcox
09-11-2008, 09:34 PM
Running Herm and Carl out of KC, FTW.

banyon
09-11-2008, 09:34 PM
Sorry Mr. Fax, but it's a repost.

Common Ground? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=190854&highlight=common+ground)

Common ground was searched for, yet none was found.

I wish you more luck than Mr. max sleeper. :D

FAX
09-11-2008, 09:36 PM
Sorry Mr. Fax, but it's a repost.

Common Ground? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=190854&highlight=common+ground)

Common ground was searched for, yet none was found.

I wish you more luck than Mr. max sleeper. :D

How funny. I didn't even bother to look, Mr. banyon. My humble and sincere apologies to all. My bad. My baddie bad bad.

Everybody, please feel free to not post on this thread or, if you can find a mod, delete it. Sorry.

FAX THE OOPSIE MAKER

banyon
09-11-2008, 09:38 PM
How funny. I didn't even bother to look, Mr. banyon. My humble and sincere apologies to all. My bad. My baddie bad bad.

Everybody, please feel free to not post on this thread or, if you can find a mod, delete it. Sorry.

FAX THE OOPSIE MAKER

I was just kidding anyway. I wish you'd post more threads. It'd be better than 90% of the refuse currently littering the place.

banyon
09-11-2008, 09:40 PM
Actually FAX, one poster did appear to find common ground in the other thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4990948&postcount=13):

F**k Herm Edwards. There's your common ground.

Logical
09-11-2008, 09:42 PM
I honestly dont think so, and there's a pretty simple and practical reason for it.

Bipartisan issues where everyone agrees on the solution are easy. Those dont require debate and several election cycles and supreme court appointments to determine a final victor. They simply get passed and implemented by acclimation with a voice vote.

Anything that we have common ground with has been done already. Anything that regularly comes up (annually? some small budget items?) that has common ground gets passed with no problem. If it hasnt been done yet, theres either not enough interest, or there is no common ground.Wow someone took the time to give a serious answer. I applaud you.:clap:

FAX
09-11-2008, 09:48 PM
I was just kidding anyway. I wish you'd post more threads. It'd be better than 90% of the refuse currently littering the place.

Thank you for the compliment, Mr. banyon. I very much appreciate it.

Honestly, I can only take DC in small doses. Even though I'm always impressed with the knowledge level and intelligence of most of the forum posters - yourself included, the amazingly intense and seemingly pointless bickering makes it difficult for me to spend a lot of time here.

But, actually, that's the point of my poor thread attempt. It seems to me that our country's interests are often set aside in favor of party interests. It seems to me that this is happening more and more frequently. It seems to me that this is a very bad thing and that the only way to correct it is through a particular kind of leadership which, at this moment in time, is unavailable to us. Nevertheless, I wondered if (given the amount of animosity displayed here) the DC inhabitants could identify one or two initiatives or solutions that most could agree on. I think that, if such an agreement could be reached here, anything is possible.

FAX

tiptap
09-11-2008, 09:59 PM
You have to wait until the political season is over. Nothing gets done unless both parts of the Government are under the same party during the election year. If you are asking if this group of people can come to a consensus, well no. And that is because at a fundamental level of understanding people live in the 18th Century of Rationalism and Religious belief as the axiom of understanding or in the 21st Century when Rationalism is postulated from a materialistic existence. The both systems cannot be correct. It is possible to hold to both and ignore one or the other in certain spheres. But if the agent of politics and the vote is grounded in one or the other, there will be essential differences. And since we are not a deliberating body of action, we are peripheral to the decision, we can afford to be uncompromising in our discussions.

banyon
09-11-2008, 09:59 PM
If I were going to try to identify a couple of common goals, I would say that both parties have common goals in reaching energy independence and overall deficit/debt reduction. Also, everyone's always for fixing schools and improving education.

There are probably a few more subjects like this where there is a shared goal. The problem, however is a complete disagreement on how to get from point A to point B.

alnorth makes a good point, but I would put it slightly differently. The key to getting the broad policy changes in major areas is more about critical mass. When you have enough people sharing the same view, then it does look like it passes without much fanfare. I think Generation X and Y's views on the environment and race relations are probably a good indicator of this type of movement. Most people in this age group just think it's common sense to be good stewards of the planet and that discriminating against people based on race is just flat stupid. But it took years of small conversations to reach this point.

Taco John
09-11-2008, 10:12 PM
For example, could a consensus be developed on the subject of ending speculation-for-profit on petroleum and petroleum derivatives which has now, I believe, been proven to both significantly and artificially inflate costs across the entire energy spectrum?

Uh, no. There's absolutely no proof that it either significantly, nor artificially inflates costs. It's not even a necessary evil as there's nothing evil about it. It's just business. What you are talking about is central planning - socialism. You're not going to find agreement on the right to pursue a socialist solution to a problem that doesn't exist. You're just giving the government more control in the name of misunderstaning.



How about education? Could both sides support an approach that, based perhaps on individual GPA and/or attendance, the cost of higher education might be offset through tax relief, for example?

I'm always in favor of tax relief, but this proposal doesn't do anything for me. I don't understand the merits of making the dumb people pay for the educations of the smart people. People should pay their own way for their educations, or seek out private scholarships based on their academic merit. The government shouldn't be involved in favoring one citizen over another in any private circumstance.


Or, could both parties simply concede that all US companies or individuals who employ illegal aliens must pay a simple, immediate, but substantial fine?

Sure.


Or, perhaps, incentives provided to American manufacturers in exchange for measurable progress toward the creation of an affordable, practical, marketable, urban/suburban electric vehicle could be established that would be palatable for both sides.

Absolutely not. Forgive me, but I find it to be a stupid idea (I'm looking at you McCain) to give public incentive to firms for producing things that the market would reward them a thousand-fold for. The only way I'd be for giving public funds for such endeavors is if we are going to see a significant return on our investment, meaning a voucher to purchase said vehicles - and even that is a stupid idea because what you're doing is socializing the automobile market. A horrible idea that is born in good intentions, but headed hellward.



Is there anything that you peeps believe could be agreed upon? Or is it too late to hope for such a thing?


Yes. Liberty. Both sides agree on liberty, except for their pet projects. Democrats believe in Liberty when it comes to personal choices such as abortion, drugs, sex, etc. But when it comes to economics, Democrats believe that they need to use force in order to rule the market with an iron fist. Republicans believe in liberty when it comes to the market, but when it comes to social choices, they believe that they need to rule over the morality of society with an iron fist.

Both sides need to come to a fundamental understanding of liberty, and it's full implications - the fact that liberty does not mean anarchy, but in fact means order.

Logical
09-11-2008, 10:14 PM
Thank you for the compliment, Mr. banyon. I very much appreciate it.

Honestly, I can only take DC in small doses. Even though I'm always impressed with the knowledge level and intelligence of most of the forum posters - yourself included, the amazingly intense and seemingly pointless bickering makes it difficult for me to spend a lot of time here.

But, actually, that's the point of my poor thread attempt. It seems to me that our country's interests are often set aside in favor of party interests. It seems to me that this is happening more and more frequently. It seems to me that this is a very bad thing and that the only way to correct it is through a particular kind of leadership which, at this moment in time, is unavailable to us. Nevertheless, I wondered if (given the amount of animosity displayed here) the DC inhabitants could identify one or two initiatives or solutions that most could agree on. I think that, if such an agreement could be reached here, anything is possible.

FAXI would love to bicker with you on this but when you are so right, it is damn hard

banyon
09-11-2008, 10:17 PM
Yes, there is widespread agreement on those issues. Even today there is a small but vocal minority of fringe kooks who will not be satisfied with anything short of their rigid ideological dogma being imposed on everyone else.

Logical
09-11-2008, 10:19 PM
Absolutely not. Forgive me, but I find it to be a stupid idea (I'm looking at you McCain) to give public incentive to firms for producing things that the market would reward them a thousand-fold for. The only way I'd be for giving public funds for such endeavors is if we are going to see a significant return on our investment, meaning a voucher to purchase said vehicles - and even that is a stupid idea because what you're doing is socializing the automobile market. A horrible idea that is born in good intentions, but headed hellward.

....I don't know Europe socialized AirBus and destroyed 3 American manufacturers and Boeing is barely surviving. I am not convinced in limited applications it is a bad idea.

Mr Luzcious
09-11-2008, 10:22 PM
Actually FAX, one poster did appear to find common ground in the other thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4990948&postcount=13):

I was a little pissed after Sunday's game. :D

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 10:22 PM
The market always works, just look at Pinochet's Chile.

FAX
09-11-2008, 10:44 PM
You know, just to be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating the items mentioned in the thread starter ... rather, I'm merely providing some examples for the purpose of discussion. I do want to thank you for your posts, though. I have to get some work done here, but I appreciate your responses and look forward to replying in specifics when I have more time to devote to the question.

In general, however, I'm fairly certain that any objective or solution that could actually be agreed upon will, due to the extreme divisiveness that permeates our politics, be somewhat unremarkable and, likely, obvious.

FAX

SBK
09-11-2008, 10:52 PM
There's tons of common ground. We just disagree on the solution.

We all want America to be more prosperous for all, there's just a disagreement on how we get there. We all want American's to have good health care, we have a difference of opinion on how to achieve that. We all want a good energy policy, national security, fair taxation, etc etc etc etc etc.

We all want the same stuff, we just disagree on how to do it.

Silock
09-11-2008, 10:56 PM
I don't know Europe socialized AirBus and destroyed 3 American manufacturers and Boeing is barely surviving. I am not convinced in limited applications it is a bad idea.

The US gov't has been bailing out failing operations for quite some time, and lots of them are complete failures.

patteeu
09-12-2008, 06:52 AM
Can we all agree that Dick Cheney is a bad ass and that Sarah Palin has nice legs?

tiptap
09-12-2008, 07:00 AM
No, Dick Cheney has a bad heart and Sarah Palin is on a leggy gait.

Calcountry
09-12-2008, 11:14 AM
Common ground ...

I wonder ... do you guys think any exists upon which we Americans might build for the common good? I mean, are there any objectives at all that both the "left" and the "right" might agree are sufficiently worthwhile to pursue without concern for party affiliation or loyalty? Or, perhaps, current problems that both sides might accede to resolve?

For example, could a consensus be developed on the subject of ending speculation-for-profit on petroleum and petroleum derivatives which has now, I believe, been proven to both significantly and artificially inflate costs across the entire energy spectrum? How about education? Could both sides support an approach that, based perhaps on individual GPA and/or attendance, the cost of higher education might be offset through tax relief, for example? Or, could both parties simply concede that all US companies or individuals who employ illegal aliens must pay a simple, immediate, but substantial fine? Or, perhaps, incentives provided to American manufacturers in exchange for measurable progress toward the creation of an affordable, practical, marketable, urban/suburban electric vehicle could be established that would be palatable for both sides.

Is there anything that you peeps believe could be agreed upon? Or is it too late to hope for such a thing?

FAX

Disclaimers: Sorry if repost.
I disagree, if it weren't for the speculators, Boone Pickens would have never been moved to promote this alternate energy plan. People would not have switched to Prius in the numbers they have. Lastly, no chance Congress would ever have acted on a meaningful energy policy.

The glory of the invisible hand gives me hope, that Americans will prevail against the greed of the IOpec pigs that control most of the oil right now.

Look at them trying to run the price down now, knowing that they pissed off their best customer. The dumb asses in Iran and Venezuela don't get it, we are their CUSTOMERS. They need to keep us happy, otherwise, we leave fore somewhere, or something else and they go broke.

Game over, we rule.

Calcountry
09-12-2008, 11:15 AM
Can we all agree that Dick Cheney is a bad ass and that Sarah Palin has nice legs?They will have to redefine political coatTALE.