sob

I'll add that I've been in agreement with the posts of some people whom I never thought I'd find common ground with.

It will probably make me be less of a smartass when I reply to them, at least for a while.

I second the statement that this thread was a good idea.

MSD

I do not believe in government handouts. I feel that the current welfare system hurts the economically impoverished more than it helps, in many cases. I do not think that these people should be abandoned, therefore I propose the following welfare reform:

Welfare shold be available to those who are not working in the following circumstances. It should be distributed in the form of food stamps, housing credits (for rent, basic utilities, etc,) and a small cash allowance.
-They are permanently disabled
-They are actively searching for a job (let's be generous and say applying for one job per week,)
-They are actively persuing higher education in order to be better able to enter the workforce. The current system of federal student loans and grants would cover most education related expenses
-They are unable to hold a job due to care for a young child. After a certain point (again, let's be generous and say a year and a half) they would recieve child care credits for use toward daycare while they persued education and work

Every Friday, welfare recipients would be tested for ilegal substances. Those who tests came back clean would recieve their welfare payments on the folowing Monday. Anyone found having used illegal substances for two consecutive weeks would be given vouchers for treatment at a rehab facility. After completing the rehab program, any further use of illegal substances would result in detention in a state-run rehab facility (a nice way of saying prison hospital) until they were certified to be clean of whatever they were in rehab for.

pan6467

I could agree to most of what you said until the last paragraph. I am an addictions counselor and I work with these people that you would have in a "state-run rehab facility. You would rather pay far more to incarcerate than to work with these people. Forced recovery and that is what you are talking about WILL NOT AND WILL NEVER WORK, plus getting a job with the record that would be hanging over your head would be very detrimental. So in the end you are paying far more for addiction. Don't believe it? Look at how much the "War on Drugs" and incarcerating non violent drug addicts has already cost us.

If you want to reform welfare into something that truly helps and lessens the political red tape, abuse and waste then great. I can see a need for that.

BUT, I would say get rid of corporate welfare, loopholes and deductions for those making over $1 million and severely cut aid to other countries.

Unlike some who believe globalization requires a lowering of our standards, I argue, that if a country wants to do business with us they must raise their standards to a degree where we are on equal footing.

To lower standards for one country, only leads to looking for the next country with lower standards so that labor can be even more cheaper and the profits even bigger.

I truly find it sad we must lower our standards and fight over crap while we allow countries to undercut us and laugh as they are on the plus side of a huge trade deficit.

Yeah, let's support more third world countries and China while we shit on our poor and give workers even less pay, fewer benefits and tax them more.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

host

It is certainly your right to focus your attention on screening and possibly detaining welfare recipients who fail your proposed screening.

I am distracted by the spectacle of the U.S. House of Representatives majority leader, who is repeatedly investigated for ethics violations that have resulted in repeated findings by the house ethics committee, that he has engaged in questionable conduct, including seriously abusing the authority of his office.
As "freepers" enthusiastically reported,Tom Delay struck back at the Democrat who initiated etihics complaints against him:
Tom Delay holds the second most powerful office in the 435 member house.
He has been the subject of a still to be concluded crminal investigation by a
Texas prosecutor in his home congressional district for a number of months.
Apparently anticipating that he would be indicted and criminally prosecuted, Delay attempted unsuccessfully to persuade a majority of House members to vote for a rules change that would have reversed a house rule that would require him to relinquish his leadership post if he is indicted in Texas.

Now, the NY Times reports that two corporations with close ties to Tom Delay, one been indicted by the Texas prosecutor and the other also under scrutiny in the same investigation that is examining Delay's activities, have "donated" large amounts to Delay's legal defense fund:
Tom Delay's misconduct and alleged criminal activities, and the complicity and
the corporate financial support he is receiving from already indicted Bacardi and by the unindicted list of major corporations, IMO, is a much greater cause for concern than whether there is welfare cheating going undetected.
Delay and his corporate supporters flaunt the law, and by their disappointing and appalling example, because they should know better, make it more difficult to send a message to the public that they should, of their own volition, respect and obey the law because it is good citizenship to do so.

KMA-628

Host -

What did that have to do with anything discussed here?

That had nothing to do with the topic at hand and it had absolutely nothing to do with MSD's post that you quoted.

Were you just looking for a place to post this? Why here?

Nice segway though, to get from MSD's post to your point, I almost thought your point was going to be relevant.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

sob

I like your thinking for the most part, but they use food stamps as a medium of exchange. Example: Someone pays them for the food stamps, and they buy cigarettes or drugs with the money.

sob

I see suggestions such as your $1 million limit a lot, but I usually don't see anyone considering that:

1. That number is completely arbitrary. There's no reason you can give for it, and even if you could, people would simply make sure they earned $999,999.99, and you couldn't blame them.

2. The alternative minimum tax is a great example of what happens when you try to do such things. Intended to punish people for being rich, it now ensnares a policeman married to a nurse, at least in California.

pan6467

I understand what you are saying, but you accusing me or the idea of trying to find a fair tax rate ALL can live with, is the same as those who argue that the welfare system needs fixed but THEY don't see a problem with their corporate welfare, and tax loopholes.

I just feel if you ask one side to sacrifice something THEN FOR THE BETTERMENT OF ALL the other side must sacrifice or make concessions also.

Just as you see the taxes being thrown around and it being "arbitrary", I see the same from the other side.

I believe FREEDOM AND OUR SOCIETY needs compromise and sacrifice from both sides. And I believe the reason we are in such problems is the fact we have lost sight of compromise and sacrifice and we have 2 sides demanding their way is the only way, neither wants to compromise and neither is willing to sacrifice.

This is a great idea and thread and I applaud KMA for doing it. It does allow us too see what drives the other side and perhaps as a whole we can find compromise and sacrifice.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

host

KMA...... I'll cite roachboy's earlier comments on this thread in support of my
response to Mrselfdestruct's outline of a proposal to add a new dimension of
"hoop jumping" controls as a prerequisite to continued eligibility for welfare financial aid from the government:
I responded to MrSelfdestruct's post on this thread just as I would if I encountered it on any other thread here at TFP Politics.
The post struck me as containing similar controlling tendencies as I see used as the excuse to back the "bankruptcy reform and consumer protection" 2005 senate bill. IMO, it is a mindset that attempts to justifiy an agenda of huge inconvenience and penalty for the compliant majority in order to make ABSOLUTELY sure that no abuse of the bankruptcy law or of welfare eligibility rules (or whatever class of ordinary public, practitioners of this controlling mindset targets next......).

I ask you, KMA, is it fair to disqualify huge numbers of legitimate Chapter 7 bankruptcy filers from the same debt protection that currently exists, in order
to prevent abuse of the system by an assuredly smaller number? Is it fair
to add new hurdles and new privacy invasion on all welfare recipients to prevent system abuse by a small number?

Is it fair to hold ordinary people to tough new levels of accountability even as
those who control this agenda isolate and exempt themselves and their wealthy corporate benefactors?

Posting on these threads is how I deliver my message of (hopefully) well documented opinion, and of informed and reasoned protest. I engage those who disagree with me. For the most part, they support and give a "pass" to a
federal executive and legislative regime that I believe is the most malignant in U.S. history. The current government, and by extension, it's supporters, is the greatest threat to my family's and heirs' future. The number of abortions performed, welfare checks pilfered, and abusive chapter 7 filings, are, in comparison, non-issues for me and mine, compared to the damage that Bush, Delay, et al, inflict on this country every day.

I doubt that many TFP Politics readers were aware that indicted corporation
Bacardi Rum is propping up Tom Delay financially while they both pay lawyers to provide legal representation to defend against the same investigation.
I accept that I have little in common with you and with those who often agree with you. A propagandized voting public has unwittingly ceded control of our national government to one political party that shows itself to be incapable of running an open, accountable, ethical, or fiscally responsible
federal government. Forgive me for posting evidence and commentary about this disturbing tread on this TFP Politics thread.

host

Your comments seem to me to be unrealistically sterotypical and prejudicial towards the least of us in American society. Would that you find the enthusiasm to launch a post filled with similar contempt at Tom Delay and those who vote "yea" for this "bankruptcy reform" bill, changes in air quality enforcement, and Bush's advocacy for the wealthiest, instead of for the many who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own.........just for starters.
Do you offer similar stereotypes and prejudice toward predatory lenders, or corporate executives who skirt or break securities laws and act above the law to the detriment of their employees, consumers, and small investors?

I offer this information to rebut your comments,

KMA-628

host -

I will tell you the same thing I told roach - rather than complain, offer something of substance up. If you think it is a bad idea, suggest something else. No one is trying to shut anybody out, but if your only addition is to complain and not offer anything of value, the commentary is more about you than it is about the discussion at hand.

So far, this thread has gone really well.....for both sides.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

roachboy

what is curious about your reactions, kma, is that you seem to have decided that it is you who gets to determine what constitutes "something of substance"---you refuse at every point to consider what i have been saying, what host is saying--that your "common ground" experiment presupposes a particular ideological control over the terms of debate. those terms of debate are conservative. period. you are not interested in common ground--you are interested in seeing the extent to which your frame of reference is THE frame of reference.

so that when objections to that frame of reference come up, you choose to either ignore them or declare them "without substance"--which is something i have come to expect from the talking heads that enforce this tiny debilitating frame on others in the context of opinion management shows on cable news networks.

example no. 1: you have no problem with wholly reactionary posts about welfare, that are predicated start to finish on the right's conventional "wisdom" concerning its origin, function and effects. every single element of that "understanding" of the welfare system is historically false, intellectually vacant and politically dangerous. but you are fine with it....as if it is obvious that the problem with the welfare system resides with th poor--which is insane outside the narrow world of rightwing ideology...that this bigger problem can be reduced to some kind of absurd "moral" question (see above)--and that from this it follows that unbelievably draconian, wholly illegal tyeps of searching/screening can be put into place.
you accept this kind of crap as rational.
it is really unbelievable.

example no. 2:
you say above:

just after i tried to raise a question about the notion of the "free market"--which you ignored--and which you then follow with a series of empty propositions that echo conservative buzzwords (not more regulation but better regulation--what does that mean? anything?)

and yet, after a post like this, you demand of host that he "add something of substance"???

you could at least be up front about it: you are interested only in a very particular type of "common ground" that you are trying to enforce this very particular type of "common ground"--that you are not really interested in anything approaching this "common ground" that might include positions which are critical of your frame of reference itself.

just dont pretend that you are or this thread is interested in finding some points of agreement across different political positions. you--and this thread--are about trying to find commanlities amongst political positions that do not have significant ideological differences between them. what is the point of that? you know that there is agreement about basic positions up front.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

KMA-628

It is very simple roach, I followed a trend.

The topic of free-markets was brought up by both sides, not by me. I merely echoed the fact that this topic came up on more than one occasion and seemed to have some similarities in opinion.

#1 - I am not setting any course, I am just looking for ideas that have real room for discussion.

#2 - I asked for opinions on what I observed--nothing tyrannical here, I wanted input on the trends I thought came from this discussion. If you'll notice how I ended my post you would see that I asked for opinion on my take.

#3 - host was just looking for a thread to post his DeLay comment--I think it is just chance that it ended up here in this thread. Usually he starts a new thread for his comments like this, why he added it here I don't know.

#4 - I have refused nothing, rather I have asked for more input from you that is constructive. I know how you feel roach, I didn't need to see it repeated several times. As I said before, if you view this as flawed, offer up some options. Give us some alternatives that would help you accept the idea more. Asking for your suggestions is the polar opposite of refusing anything, yet you still do not offer anything.

As to some of your other comments:

My first comment was my answer your post, yes it was flippant, but that was my response

Very simple, enforce the regulation we already have. Why add more regulations that won't be enforced?

You will notice that issues related to "welfare" came from both sides--not just the "right wingers".

You can call the people who hold such opinions "intellectually vacant", but I think you only hurt yourself by doing that. At this point, I am simply ignoring your "right wing" and "conservative discourse" comments--as mentioned earlier, I have been pleasantly surprised by comments made by people on the other side of the aisle, and I think the opposite is true as well.

I will pose this to you....my final try: You will notice that when I posted my own personal opinions (i.e. the irrational crap) I offered up what I wanted and then I offered up where I was open to negotiation. You will also notice that many other people did the same thing. So, what we did was find areas where the discussion could continue and possible be fruitful, rather than just continue the endless bantering we usually see here. We can sit here and pound on everbody's opinions all day long and get nowhere, but that is not the idea for this thread. So, where are you willing to negotiate? Can you bring anything in that might help us? In order to promote some of your ideas, what would you give up?


And, I missed this when I first read your post:
First, several opinions came forth that I didn't expect. Further, I saw wiggle room for discussion that I have not seen before. Many things came out in this thread that were not "basic positions up front". Willravel would be a one example; I saw places where discussion could continue that I wasn't aware of prior to his comments here in this thread.

Judging by comments by others in this thread, I think many disagree with your assessment/dismissal of this thread and the participants in this thread.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

roachboy

ok, last try. in what follows, i use the word conservative consistently. it refers to the dominant political frame of reference, which is dominated by conservative discourse. it encompasses right political positions and those of moderate democrats who agree with this frame of reference while quibbling about tactics and implications.


on the welfare system: if you understand it historically--that is in the context of the situations that gave rise to it, what its functions and effects were--you find that you have nothing to say about the ways conservative ideology tries to frame the issue. in historical terms, the welfare state is linked to several factors: fear of the left first of all--it was a compromise forced onto the states because the state felt a threat from a possible revolutionary mobilization of the poor. that this was rooted in a very narrow understanding of marxism is beside the point. it is also a result of two or three other recognitions:
1. that market capitalism does not and cannot provide the basis for social stability
2. that the continued existence of the political framework that operates around capitalism requires that social stability be assured
3. that this stability is a public function.
4. that the previous models of "charity"--what would now be called "faith-based initiatives"---were hopelessly inadequate.
but the americans in particular never were able to break with the illusion that poverty is the fault of the poor, so you get a largely punitive welfare system.

the conservative line on this is wholly without context.
it departs from treating taxation as if it was an end in itself designed to punish those who accumulate wealth. this "logic" seems to me obscene. it seperates the fact of wealth extraction from the fact of the social system that enables it. from this viewpoint, the position is incoherent.

it refuses to acknowledge a meaningful role for instruments of public power in redressing social problems--of course infrastrcture for corporate activities is split away from this, and understood as part of creating a "business-friendly environment"
from this split, you can see following arguments that business activity need not take account of social consequences. i do not accept this split.

this position blames the poor for the dysfunctional effects of a system that from the outset was designed to be punitive.

what i think is going on behind the facade here is that the american state--particularly the right--understands that it has no idea how to deal with teh social consequences of integrating the american economy into a more global context. so it is looking to cut its political losses by looking to dismantle state action in problematic areas. the calculation is based on a notion of how to cut political losses for the state in a context of great uncertainty.

i think that conservative views of the welfare state are not adequately thought out in terms of consequences. i think they are not concerned with social stability. i see them as short-term, short-sighted, cynical and misinformed attempts to reduce the political risks for the american state of navigating a transition that will effect working people in particular in very serious ways.

does this mean that i imagine the existing system to be without problems?--no but i think the conservative line on this question is so wrong, so misinformed that it courts disaster if it were to actually be implemented.

see, i live here too.
i do not want to see this kind of damage be done on the basis of such fucked up suppositions.
i do not relish living through the period where the implications of this ideology become obvious to everyone, the right admits gradually that it screwed up or returns to living under an political rock for 30 years, leaving the mess to be cleaned up by others.
i do not see why you would look forward to this either.

that is what i think is up with conservative discourse about welfare. i find the whole of it both disengenuous (in that it does not make its motivations obvious) and false logically and historically.

is there common ground to be found here?

on the matter of the market--it is conventional wisdom in the conservative-dominated american political mainstream to treat markets as quasi-natural formations, ones that float about in an abstract space apart from, say, the legal frames that create them and shape activity within them. from this it follows that this ideology sees nothing specific about capitalist markets--instead it prefers to treat markets as transcendent. i do not see how anyone outside the bizarre world of econ 101 classes can manage to seperate markets, their nature and effects, from history and from politics. conservative ideology is keyed around performing precisely these seperations.


is there common ground here?

does the fact that one might see these basic issues in a fundamentally different way than you do mean that saying so is "not constructive"?

on abortion: the questions raised by opponents of abortion on demand are not compelling to me at all. i think that women should be able to control the disposition of their bodies. period.

i do not accept the conserative suspicion of organization in forms like unions--when they themselves are highly highly organized, when the business interests who are the real constituency of the republican party are highly highly organized--when everyone knows that without organization you have no power--no power at all--in this system. conservative ideology on this is a recipe for wholesale self-disempowerment.
this does not mean that i like the afl-cio model fo thinking about union activity--i think it was a mistake for the americans to opt for sector monopoly models for thinking about trade union activity--this was a result of a particularly american fear of politics--this has a history--you should read about it.


at every point, nothing that i say fits within the terms of debate you woudl prefer to see here. but the question i keep trying to raise is: why are you so unwilling to consider problems with your terms of debate, your frame of reference?

you could have an interesting conversation here if you would open it up.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

KMA-628

See this is where I think you are wrong. Plus, I think you misunderstand the concept here.

The main concept is: Are there topics that we can discuss that might actually be fruitful?

We have tons of threads here with everybody pointing out the problems with the other person's position. Has one of these threads led anywhere? Nope, they just go on and on and on until everybody gives up.

What was accomplished? Nothing. We went nowhere. Everybody ended up exactly where they started.

I am trying to see if there are topics that could be discussed, where common ground could be achieved through equal concessions of both sides.

Example: Universal Healthcare.

Did the previous threads about Universal Healthcare go anywhere? No, because nobody was willing to give in a little to their opinion.

Now, after several comments in this thread, we see that the idea can be brought up again and it might actually lead somewhere. We see that people that were against the idea, might consider it, if the discussion was framed correctly.

Are there still topics where we will never be able to find common ground? Of course.

But, as I mentioned in another thread, most of those discussions are way too similar to banging one's head against a wall.

My second thought relates to habits. Right now the habit is to disagree with the other side simply because they are the other side. I think the habit can be broken, but it will require steps.

We start with the easy ones. Both sides give a little and the next thing you know, we have a conclusion that is agreeable to most of us. Sure we started out with an idea that had existing middle ground, but we showed to ourselves and each other that we can move forward--we discover that middle ground isn't a fantasy.

Kinda like football, you don't start out pro, you start out pee-wee.

Then we move on and the chances for success are greater because we have already overcome the hurdle that has been holding us back this whole time.

You are never, ever going to get everything the way you want them to be and neither will I.

So, how do we progress if we aren't willing to give a little to get a little?

Right now, I will not concede one inch to your positions because you offer up nothing in return. That is the core of any negotiation. Why would I concede everything when you concede nothing, it just ain't going to happen.

That is why I am not responding to any of your comments about the free-market, capitalism, welfare, etc.

What is more important to you? To move forward or to stay stuck in the mud, because right now we are spinning our wheels? Wouldn't it benefit you more to get a few concessions made to you rather than none?

What are you willing to hedge on in order to get other people to take a more favorable view on your stances?


As to your last question: open it up how? (the question I have asked you several times)

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

I am beginning to get stuck in the very quagmire I was trying to avoid, so I would like to move on.

Do you guys think we can take a couple of ideas from this thread and move them onto their own thread? Do you think the ideas will be more fruitful this time?

Based on your reading of this thread, what do you think would be your first choice for a new thread? Second choice?

I will chime in later so as not to appear as I am framing the path for discussion.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Manx

I haven't commented on this thread because I didn't understand its purpose. We are looking at how some people's views match, to various degrees, other people's views and then assigning those people to "left" or "right" based on previous discussions? Odd.

But then I saw this and now I understand what the thread is about - finding a "solution".I oppose the concept of concession or compromise. I am not willing to sacrifice my opinion on abortion for the sake of my opinion on welfare. I do not consider compromise or concession to be a solution.

roachboy

no problem, kma. no need to respond. no need to think about your frame of reference. do as you like. just dont pretend that those who are stuck are those who have tried to raise problems for your "common ground" experiment--it seems to me that it is you who refuse to move--or even think about--the terms that you decide are the center of this "common ground" fabrication.

negociation as a model? negociation presupposes an element of coercion as external parameter. here there really is none of that, except if one chooses to participate in this thread---in which case, the "idea" seems to be to work within a framework that i do not recognize as compelling in order to arrive at some sort of common space with folk i disagree with from top to bottom--you ask of folk who share your political position that they shift a little in order to participate in some well-meaning circle jerk--for others of us, you ask that we trade away everything in order to play with you. and you refuse--still---to acknowledge that you are doing it.

whatever. there are other things to do in the big world. this is a waste of my time.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

I think for one to say there is no compromise and that their beliefs are THE only way.... is as small minded and damaging as they claim the other side's ideas to be.

If neither side compromises than one or both have to play to win it all. And we have seen who has won it all..... which I am not happy over but the Dems polarizations cost them far more than helping them.

If you play to win.... you cannot truly be worried about the true health and wealth of our nation. You have in fact lost sight of what will truly help and care only about your agenda.

Abortion: compromise==== allow the states the right to vote, IT is not and should never be a federal case because some states are religious (UTAH) and should have the right to decide how they want to handle the issue. I am sure there are states that would keep abortion legal. IT IS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE.

Welfare: compromise==== simple if you clean up social programs you must clean up corporate and give workers back rights to form unions and have benefits and decent wages.

Taxes: compromise: find a tax system that is fair, raise tariffs and promote factories to come home and hire people thereby in and of itself raising the tax base. To say factory work is dying is an excuse to keep sending jobs overseas while our workers are stuck in temp jobs, Wal*Marts and McDonald's.

Social Security: compromise==== allow the worker several different plans to pay into and secure their money. I posted an idea a while back that I think could work if people with far more expertise on the subject tweeked out the problems I am too unaware of because I am not an expert in the subject.

Some may say Country states are dead or dying and blah blah blah... it's bullshit. When the USSR broke up countries fought and still fight to be independant. A country is far more than where you live it is your heritage, it is you culture.

For too long we have had people within our own country try to destroy what we have here (i.e. political correctness and all the hyphenated - Americanisms.) We need to be proud of what our country has achieved in her 200+ years and the beauty of the freedom, land and oppurtunities. Granted the oppurtunities are dwindling but not because of government per se, but because of the polarizations and the hatreds the 2 political sides have for each other.

So stop the fucking bickering, look deep within and ask youself what is best for the country and the future for my children and their children and find common ground to work on.

Otherwise, we WILL just be numbers, our freedoms will truly disappear and we will be waste land because people wanted things their way and wouldn't bend.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Manx

pan6467 -

Your first few sentences denounce anyone who would not compromise because they therefore only care about their own agenda.

Then you follow that with a list of "compromises", which are, in fact, nothing more than your own "agendas" on specific topics. Why should your offer be considered anything different than my offer?

Abortion: compromise==== it is a womans choice.
Welfare: compromise==== it needs to be increased and optimized to negate class division
Taxes: compromise==== The rich must be taxed far more than the non-rich to negate class division
Secularism: compromise==== the gov't will not endorse, explicity or implicitly, any religion

etc.

Those are all "compromises". Why won't you accept them? Why won't KMA accept them?

I have spent, literally, my entire life formulating my opinions on any of numerous topics. And now you suppose that I must change my opinions in order to reach a solution? I cannot agree to something that is not what I believe to be correct. Changing my opinion for the sake of compromise is not a solution at all. If you want me to agree to something, you must convince me it is right. I will not sacrifice what I believe in to appease you - and that is what compromise is and exactly why I'll have none of it.

NCB

Nice compromise, considering it comes from someone whose mother made the right choice and did not abort him.

Reward the lazy.....


....punish the producers. Do you really see that as a solid strategy for advancing the economy?


So we should scrap the Judeo/Christian principles of not stealing, killing, ect...
because of it's implicity?

__________________

Willravel

Well, that's odd. I completly agree with you.
Ever lost your job?
It's a little more complicated then that.
Not stealing, killing ect. is not just Judeo-Christian. It belongs to a whole array of religions, but more importantly it is morality that happens to come from religion. Morality should never be compromised.
I'm assuming you mean "simplicity". It's not a matter of complication or simplicity, it is a matter of safeguarding us from a theocracy. God is not the president of the US, though the president is free to worship God.


Edit: why are we picking apart other peoples beliefs? This post is about finding common ground (I think), not about arguing. There are plenty of posts for arguing in politics.

NCB

Very intresting.

We could probably do a whole thread on this, but I'll try to keep it short. So do you think morality comes from religion or does religion come from morality? If the former, does "moral" laws constitute relgious values imposed via govt laws?

I'm not trying to stump anyone here (nor do I really have any answers worth posting), I just find it an intresting topic.

__________________

guy44

I have many friends who are not religious who are very moral. I have a good friend and ex-roommate from China, where he obviously grew up nonreligious, who is a good and moral person. Morals don't originate solely from religion, and even if they did, certainly not just from Judeo-Christian religions.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

sob

Hmmm. Sounds a lot like this philosophy:

"No Compromise is Permitted in Defending Unborn Life"
Pope John Paul II, 11/1/1999

You two could have a very lively conversation.

KMA-628

Yeah, we seem to be degrading here.

Did you guys see my questions to you in my last post? Any input?

If we move forward a bit we may be able to take this to the next step (I hope).

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Manx

What is the next step? Compromise? What for? Is a mutually agreed upon blending of opinons going to become federal law?

Hardly.

What is the point of this thread? Since when are we not here to continually and endlessly discuss issues? Since when are we supposed to sacrifice our opinion to find "common ground" with 5 or 8 TFP members? What is the benefit of blending opinions into something no one fully agrees with? Is the intent to file the issue away and whenever its brought up again to point to it and say, "oh no need, we've already figured out what to do with that issue"? Or is the intent to pretend like something valuable is being accomplished when we mututally agree upon a solution that no one likes? And if it is neither of those things, what is the intent?

Someone once said:

If you and I both agree on everything, one of us is unnecessary.

This is a discussion board - we're not supposed to agree.

Willravel

Trying to respond to your last question, shown above above.

So you're trying to make this a jumping point to other threads that have the potential to actually have people switching sides and opening up on issues, yes? Nobel, indeed. What would be my first choice on a spin off with potential? Hmmmm..... I'd be interested in continuing the conversation about the chicken/egg relationship between religion and morality, but that's philosophy. As far as Politics, it seems to me that much that has been mentioned here has been mentioned before and has eventually boiled down to a partisan, polarized left vs. right battle royale...and that's not what we want. I'm going to still read this thread with great interest waiting for the holy grail of Politics: the convergent issue!

Edit: look over in philosophy in a few minutes for the religion/morality thread...

KMA-628

What is the point of your post?

It is for the fun and edification of the people who wish to participate; nothing more, nothing less.

It is an attempt at a different form of communication here that doesn't leave us all with bruised foreheads.

It is an attempt at a better understanding of the people we normally dismiss.

It is because there is an obvious interest, regardless of the numbers.

Everyday we see the same people clashing back and forth (myself included), accomplishing nothing other than getting a chance to type their own rhetoric. Up until this thread, there were things I honestly didn't know about some members here. Some of the things I learned have had a profound affect on how I perceive that member. Other people just reaffirmed my belief that, for some people, the desire to move forward and actually achieve something is over-ruled by the desire to always think they're right.

If this was as bogus as you would like it to be, then the number of people responding here and the number of PM's I have gotten would be a fraction of what they are.

And, for the record, nobody is being asked to lose their principles or to completely change their way of thinking, the idea is to see if there is a meeting place in the middle--that is how progress is usually made. You never get 100% of what you want, you just hope to get as much of what you originally wanted as possible.

Example: I would like to see a flat tax replace our system. You are completely opposed to the idea. Can I convince you that my idea is good and should be 100% accepted by? Not in a million years, regardless of the evidence/argument/whatever. Could you convince me to adopt 100% of what you want? Not a chance in hell.

So, where does that leave us?

Nowhere and getting there fast.

However, if we both sat down and tried to negotiate a plan that would possibly be acceptable to both of us, we might actually get somewhere. Are we both going to get everything we want? Nope.

What do you want more? 100% of nothing or 50% of something?

If you wish to participate, then please do so. If you don't want to participate, then don't. Nobody is forcing you either way.


I will close with a quote from Barbara Sinclair, professor at University of California, Los Angeles that was just sent to me by someone who thought it appropriate (to which, I agree):

LINK

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

What about Universal Healthcare?

I know it was discussed previously and pretty much went down in flames; I am wondering if it can be brought up again.

Using this thread as a launching point, we know what we expect of each other.

We also might consider agreeing to some basic groundrules and guidelines for any threads that spawn off of this one. That way, we something mutually (well, for the most part) agreed upon that we can hold each other accountable to.

Whaddya think?

p.s. I think it is a bit lofty to look for the grail in the initial stages, but who knows how this will progress.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Willravel

That's true. It might be good to go after the holy plastic cup first. When you say "using this thread as a launching point", you mean starting another thread right? Sounds good to me. I think the real deciding factor will be the ground rules and the willingness of our respected members to stick to those rules. A lot of good people in Politics have trouble avoiding flaming and being a bit disrespectful from time to time (I've even been giulty a few times myself). I guess all we can do is hope.

On to Universal Healthcare.....

KMA-628

will -

What would you like to see regarding groundrules and guidelines?

I would like to have as many ducks in a row as possible before we start the spin-off thread.

Our chances of success aren't very high, but the chances will go up if we can all pretty much agree on our expectations of each other. If we can keep it civil and if we can hold each other accountable to the standards agreed upon beforehand, it might just go over.

I have spoken with guy44 about a few, but I would like your input before I post my ideas.

/actually laughed out loud on the plastic cup comment.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Willravel

Oops...I kinda jumped in the pool a bit early. Please feel free to tell me to fix any problems you see with our "first draft" of the experiment. You and guy are probably the fathers of this idea, I'm only the crazy uncle.

Common Ground Experiment #1: Universal Healthcare

Check it out and have fun.

Manx

Fair enough.
Desires are nice to have - but there is no "moving forward". TFP is not going to come to a consensus on an issue and then have that consensus enacted into policy. And you left out the most obvious and realistic desire: the desire to have a discussion to enhance perspective.
Nonsense. Britney Spears is a popular musician - that doesn't make her a good one.
But we're not setting policy here. I don't expect, want or need anything from you except for you to provide your perspective on issues. The better you provide your perspective, the more likely I am able to understand it, the better the chance that I will adapt my perspective if I come to the conclusion that it makes sense to do so. But this thread is not designed to educate (outside of your new viewpoints on other members) but rather, it is designed to distill issues down into something that all people agree is not what they believe is right.

Nothing is accomplished by me and you sitting down and mutually agreeing to compromise. Nothing at all.
I wish to question the purpose and effects of this thread. And so I have.
Even if I were to agree with Barbara Sinclair (to be clear: I don't): TFP is NOT Congress. We are not here to make decisions and have them enacted.

pan6467

Compromise is giving and recieving. Look NOONE is going to give up values and beliefs and not get anything in return. Thet is human nature.

We can go on and keep polarizing our country and eventually we will have all rights taken away because there is compromise in our rights.

Read the battles Jefferson and Addams had when writing the Constitution and why the "Bill OF Rights" were amendments and not placed in the Constitution. It was because of COMPROMISE.

Someone above stated that my examples were pushing my agenda.... no, they weren't.

They were taking what I see as trying to allow both sides footing.

Abortion IS NO, NOT, NEVER, supposed to be a FEDERAL issue. To have made it one cost our country BILLIONS in lawsuits, legislation, enforcement and so on.

Issues such as abortion should be issues dealt within the individual states and therefore both sides have a common ground. If Ohio votes no.... and Illinois votes yes.... then a woman still has her rights to her choice.

(BTW I am pro-choice provided the father signs off.... I do not believe it is just the woman's decision.... that is my view BUT I am willing to compromise for the better of society.)

To offer no compromise and to say "only my views are the truly educated and right views" is to be arrogant, assinine and egotistical. Much of which both sides claim the other to be.....

It's the same as a Baptist Evangelical saying "if you do not believe in Christ as your saviour and in the way we tell you the Bible says, then you are a sinner and going to burn in Hell and blah blah blah." That's very one sided and doesn't tak into consideration any other religion or even other Christian Denominational views.

I have my opinions and I freely give them out and some suck sewer water and some are very interesting to others. BUT I will never claim that my view is the only view and that there aren't better ways or a halfway point I could meet someone at.

It's like saying "I will work but only at what I want to make." Well, you maybe unemployed for a very very long time if you do not compromise.

Without compromise, without seeing both sides and finding the common good for all, mankind will cease to exist. We need give and take and to interact with each other in respectful and beneficial ways. Otherwise just fucking become a hermit, because anyone on this board that says they do not compromise and will not in any way is lieing to themselves and everyone else, or totally insane and someday will snap at a McDonald's or Luby's.

Every day you interact with any other human being (or animal) for that matter there is compromise. And unless you are a psychopathic mass murderer every compromise is for the good of each person or animal.

To me it's like abortion and the death penalty. How can you oppose one yet support another? One side says abortion is murder yet the death penalty is ok because it is an eye for an eye. The other side says, it is a woman's choice, her body and the embryo is not a human (which allows this side to say it is ok), yet the death penalty is evil and murder.... I see both as murder and I see both as necessary.

The death penalty is indeed needed in some cases, and abortion, to me is a necessity, because women will have one legal or not, if they want one bad enough (which is a compromise, because personally, I believe abortion to be murder, however, I cannot nor will not pass judgement on how others live. Not my situation, not my life, I don't truly know why they make the choice they did and they have to live with it.)

So, let's stop this pious, holier than thou bullshit and act like your views are the only ones out there and let ALL OF US work to find ways to better society as a whole.

I don't believe KMA intended this thread to be one for people to say only their beliefs are the ones that are right or to further any agenda of his. I believe KMA may have thought people would discourse and look at the other side and find common ground with which compromise then becomes possible.

COMPROMISE IS NO, NOT, NEVER A SIGN OF WEAKNESS BUT A TRUE SIGN OF STRENGTH.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Manx

What are you talking about?

TFP is a place of discussion. There is zero need for compromise in discussion. In fact, compromise is the enemy of discussion.

And no, you were not offering a "compromise" in your issue list above. You presented your opinion on what you believe should be acceptable to other people. And that is exactly what I did. Your list of solutions to issue may not be what you believe is right but that doesn't make them any more of a compromise than my solutions, which I do believe are right. And this is exactly my point: you sacrificed what you believed was right for absolutely no purpose. And not only that, but by virtue you are not presenting what you feel is right anymore - and that hinders discussion.

Willravel

What, in your opinion, is the ultimate goal of a discussion? Just curious.

Manx

To experience alternate perspectives.

And if we're going to actively attempt to turn our perspective into something that is not our perspective but we feel someone else will swallow, we're destroying the ultimate goal of discussion.

Willravel

In experiencing alternate perceptions, we chance actually broadening our own perceptions. Thast's what we're talking about. This is a reminder that sometimes it's alright to become sympathetic and become more aware of all perspectives. The more perspectives you experience, the more likely you are to have a complete understanding of something. Complete understanding is one of the great goals in life.

Manx

This thread is explicitly arguing against broadening perspectives - the goal of this thread is to find a single perspective in which "everyone" has sacrificed the portions of their own perspectives which make them unique.

Everything you said I agree with - except where you attribute it to what you are talking about, because you are not talking about that at all.