What are some things we can likely agree on?

1. 86

   Valeantposted 2 years ago

   Government isn't working so great these days.  The parties are pretty divided.  Let's see if there is some common ground. 
   
   I'll open by guessing that we can all agree we'd like to see elected representatives operate with a balanced budget, so we can start tackling the national debt.
   
   What are some other common areas?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Valeant, government is terribly divided. But, idea of a balanced budget has gone the way of the nickel Pepsi. Both sides are profligate spenders, just in different directions. Whose ox are we going to gore with the goal of reaching Nirvana, a balanced budget?
      
      I think we should start with the waste, fraud and abuse built into every federal budget as areas both sides can agree upon that need to be curbed. If we can't agree on the meat and bone to be cut, perhaps we can agree on what is fat and gristle?
      
      I have little if any interests that I can find in common with Republicans as they are presently.....

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         ...  yeah, they are out of touch, old codgers just moseying along being recklessly extravagant and wasteful in the use of resources.
         
         - didn't we vote them out yet?
         
         - term limits, anyone?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I think we can definitely agree that term limits on both sides is a good thing.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with you.
               
               Can we agree the main problem is this is it would require those who would lose their position to vote it into law? Washington DC is too political for such a thing to ever happen.
               
               I agree with you very strongly, I just don't see a way for it to happen.

               replyreport
   2. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      There are none that all Americans can agree on.
      
      America is truly a divided country, a tribal society, with no common core.
      
      The common core has been stripped away over the course of many decades... and today, there is none.  Things like the Pledge of Allegiance, having to learn English, having to conform to "Christian" norms, all gone.
      
      Ahead lies more efforts to separate Americans based on Race and Gender, what today may seem like extreme or unacceptable efforts of Social Justice and Gender Equality will pale in comparison to what tomorrow brings to help deepen the divides among Americans.
      
      I believe by the end of the decade, there will be some form of global entity that has usurped America's sovereignty and relegated the Constitution and people's freedoms and liberties to an afterthought... a footnote of history of a time as antiquated to the people growing up in the 2030s and beyond as the Holy Roman Empire is to us.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         And yet, just above, Mike and I can find agreement on term limits and balanced budgets.  Two people, about as far apart on the political spectrum, can actually agree on some things.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            And just how far are you going to go to encourage your government into doing those things you agree on?
            
            Because there will never be a voluntary effort by the politicians whose lives revolve around DC to do either.
            
            And the issues that divide you and Mike will continue to divide you... keeping you from coming together to force change in your government.
            
            Should you continue to pursue change, you will just be labeled, isolated, stripped of your ability to communicate on Social Media or in the MSM.
            
            https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/20/politics … index.html
            
            Central Control is coming.  We will have a lot more in common with CCP China than anyone would have believed possible a few years back just a couple years from now.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Well, I won't be attacking my own Capitol, that's for sure. 
               
               And you don't think someone who runs on being able to balance a budget would appeal to people of both parties? 
               
               There's part of the reason Biden was able to be elected.  His old, whiteness appealed to enough conservatives to make him comfortable enough to vote for. 
               
               Sometimes, a single issue can be the determining factor to electability.  Trump immigration issue could be seen an an example to his rise in 2016.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  You're right about those single issues, but there is a very large problem when it comes to term limits. 
                  
                  When people are asked to remove their pipeline to federal funds (old time politicians playing pork barrel), when they are asked to remove a very powerful politician of their chosen party, when they are asked to remove a politician that they are familiar with and have voted for the last 20 years...well, there is a wee problem.  It will always come down to "term limits for your representative, but I want mine to remain.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Seems to work fairly well for Presidents, so I'll disagree that people will be as selfish as you believe them to be.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        But at the same time nearly everyone in the country is presented (and I agree with that) as needing term limits.  Even as they continue to vote their own long term professional politicians back into office.
                        
                        You can't have it both ways; either they actually WANT term limits, whereupon they won't vote their own favorites back into office, or they don't.

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           Sure you can.  I can want a law for term limits, but choose to vote the most beneficial option until that happens.  Those two things can exist at the same time.
                           
                           And we're back to you just arguing to argue I see.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              OK.  But I will absolutely stand by the concept that those truly wanting term limits will not vote for long term politicians.  Only that that want everyone else to get rid of theirs, while keeping their own, will do that.

                              replyreport
               2. 76

                  Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  How far does your government go before you do?
                  
                  Or is that a blanket statement, covering all instances?
                  
                  Like when the Germans accepted the Nazi Party and the "work camps" and the Warsaw Ghetto.
                  
                  Or how the Chinese accept anything their Party does, from locking up hundreds of thousands of Muslims without trial in its western region of Xinjiang, to enforcing unwanted rulership over Hong Kong, to threatening war on Taiwan.
                  
                  Yes, I understand your position, always support your government, it is never wrong, always believe what the government supported "news" tells you to believe.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Now, you're just changing context.  Here is the question my sarcastic response was an answer to:
                     
                     And just how far are you going to go to encourage your government into doing those things you agree on?
                     
                     And you're now choosing to apply one answer to a fairly different scenario and make a false statement that you understand 'my position.'  Do us all a favor and find a sense of humor.
                     
                     I understand some have serious trust issues - one's own government, the media, elections.  I'm sorry I'm going to choose not to live in a full-on paranoid state like that.

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        As I said, despite your effort to deflect, or state a change of context...
                        
                        You choose to believe what your government and government supported "news" puts out.
                        
                        Whether a virus, where some information is inflated while other information is suppressed, or politicians, where we are told by one side that their antagonistic opposition is a rapist, Russian conspirator, card carrying KKK member, or occurrence, where a riot that includes buildings burned and people killed is merely a peaceful protest.
                        
                        There really is nothing that can be agreed upon, no matter what Mike or Dan may say they agree with you on.
                        
                        Because quite simply, you don't come close to having their perspectives on what the reality is.  We come from different times, listen to different news sources, have seen different things in the world.
                        
                        I think you are someone who will accept whatever "facts" your government, or more specifically, whatever your "side" in the political dichotomy tells you 'the truth' is.
                        
                        I don't blame you for that... there is nothing heroic or honorable about standing up expressing an alternate opinion to that, when it likely will cost you your job, your friends, your acceptance in the community you live in.
                        
                        Better to just swallow that blue pill and live in that safe world, life is too short, and we are living in such good times with so much freedom and liberty to do what we want.
                        
                        We live in a great country, and for the most part a great world, never been better, never been more civil or safe.  Just be thankful of it and enjoy.

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           And yet, I've been critical of my 'side' on certain issues, such as immigration.  So, your incorrect theory that I will 'accept' whatever narrative they want to sell me seems to be undermined by my actions here at this site. 
                           
                           I don't blame you for ignoring those actions, as you seem to think you're the only critical thinker on the planet, despite buying in to the big lie that a proven liar has sold you about the 2020 election - the exact same lie he tried to sell in 2016, formed a commission to investigate, and was then proven to be a lie.  To fall for the same lie twice kind of undermines your expertise in being able to determine when other people's 'facts' may or may not be accurate.
                           
                           So while you claim that 'I am someone who will accept whatever "facts" your government, or more specifically, whatever your "side" in the political dichotomy tells you 'the truth' is,' you seem to be doing that exact same thing, just more from a side willing to undermine democracy and the peaceful transfer of power and turn to violence.
                           
                           And by the way, it has been proven by both 'sides' that the 2016 Trump campaign conspired with Russia.  And I didn't need to listen to government or government supported sources to come to the conclusion that Trump is a rapist, I just had to listen to his own admission about it.  Again, something it appears you're more than willing to block out because it's a hard truth.

                           replyreport
   3. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Elect representatives with LIFE experience, not politicians.   Elect intelligent, grassroots people with a combination of commonsense and education.  Establish a strict meritocracy.   Housewives would be great representatives, especially lower middle class housewives.  These are the people who are QUITE ADEPT at balancing budgets.

      replyreport
2. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   What is the "meat and bone" and what is the "fat and gristle?"
   .... when were Pepsis only a nickel?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I wanted to show you an example or two of what I mean by fat and gristle.
      
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrze … c907073dc0
      
      You don't remember when you were a kid when you could get a soft drink or candy bar for a nickel? Officially, the last nickel coke was in 1959 and I remember.
      
      Meat and bone would constitute the areas of federal spending that do have purpose, but some aspects are promoted or opposed by many based on partisan or ideological ideals.
      
      I worked in Federal Contracting for over 25 years and the culture is not about saving more than it is spending the entire allotment or appropriation for your agency before the end of fiscal year or risk not being given the same amount for the next year. That means buying everything and anything to fill the void. It can be considered an attitude and culture that  encourages waste. There was a lot of "glad handing", no bid contract and outrageous overhead and indirect cost rates explain the $600.00 hammers and all the other horror stories that I am sure that you have heard about.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         My only memory from 1959 is falling asleep after the first few minutes of the movie, Bambii.
         
         
         I do not doubt what you report.

         replyreport
3. 95

   Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

   Can we agree that if there was a law passed that if we don't have a balance budget, Congress is held responsible for it, and does not get paid until it is budget is balanced, would change things.
   
   I agree...may never happen, but I believe this would change things when it comes to the budget.

   replyreport