What is just one thing that could reduce the vitriol here?

[Anonymous]

George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Jesus, and Reagan all agree with the above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Fair enough: I'll rephrase it then.

The reason there is vitriol in this country is that there are two legitimate philosophical positions around which most of the political power in this country coalesces. Those two positions are in every way diametrically opposed, and irreconcilable.

To a certain extent, this is due to the winner-take-all two party system we have. You win by villifing the opposition.

I'm curious, though: what's the practical solution proposed by "centrists"? It always seems to be, "Let's find a bipartisan compromise." But what sort of compromise do you get between, say, "abortion is always murder" and "women should have the right to control their fertility"? Or "everyone should have health care" and "it's not important that everyone have health care"? Or "citizens must be guaranteed a minimum standard of living in their old age" and "citizens should be left to die in poverty if their investments don't pan out"?

Because those are the things you need to reconcile. And you don't do that by asking people to be nicer to one another. In fact, if history has shown us anything, it's that the far right in this country owes its success to demonizing the opposition and a complete and utter rejection of any compromise at the national legislative level.

I don't disagree that individual conservatives have honorable intentions. It's just that, where it matters, those intentions are absolutely antithetical to the spirit in which this country was founded.

10:14 here. That was nicely said, and as I thought, we are very much in agreement. I am not arguing for middle ground in the sense of compromising principles, but in the sense of debating with a tone of respect. Anyhow, I certainly liked this statement more than the first!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it pretty simple to compromise.

#1, obviously we cannot have a $14T debt and Obama's budget is beyond irresponsible. What to do? Cut, cut cut AND raise taxes. Raise the SS retirement, reform Medicare (i.e, cut it) AND cut defense by a good $100B or more.

#2, let the courts work out abortion. If Roe is overturned, it will still be legal in many states.

I also think it would be simple to compromise if everyone would simply accept my ideas.

you don't think dramatically cutting spending (including defense) AND raising taxes is a compromise position? same with raising the retirement age? i.e., follow the recommendations of the non-partisan deficit commission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the natural compromise on abortion is to keep it "legal", but make it impossible to get one. And I have to agree with PP: this nation was founded on the bedrock principle of "One Dollar, One Vote"

Clearly the compromise here is to allow a citizen one vote for each house they own. That way Galtian overlords like OP will be fairly represented, and the pararasites who are trying to take what's his will be thwarted.

I miised your suggestion to reduce vitriol.

Can you start your own immature thread.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it pretty simple to compromise.

#1, obviously we cannot have a $14T debt and Obama's budget is beyond irresponsible. What to do? Cut, cut cut AND raise taxes. Raise the SS retirement, reform Medicare (i.e, cut it) AND cut defense by a good $100B or more.

#2, let the courts work out abortion. If Roe is overturned, it will still be legal in many states.

I also think it would be simple to compromise if everyone would simply accept my ideas.

you don't think dramatically cutting spending (including defense) AND raising taxes is a compromise position? same with raising the retirement age? i.e., follow the recommendations of the non-partisan deficit commission.

The deficit commission was not "non-partisan". Every person who was on it was partisan. Specifically for that reason, its recommendations required a super-majority which it failed to obtain. Instead, a far-right wing Senator joined with a center-right political hack to create their own recommendations.

Let's face reality rather than some Fox News inspired fantasy land. We are in a time of high unemployment. Both sides of the aisle seem to believe that lowering the unemployment level is important. However, spending cuts don't create jobs. To the contrary, spending cuts lead to job cuts. If you raise the retirement age, people will stay in their jobs longer. That means fewer jobs are opened up for the unemployed. George W. Bush cuts taxes based on the belief that it would lead to economic growth. But, it didn't work. Instead, it drove up deficits. So, non of the ideas you espouse would help lower unemployment and, arguably, would increase unemployment.

Here is the non-partisan Jeff Steele Commission plan:

1) Lower the retirement age. Let a bunch of people move to Florida and open some jobs up;
2) Massively spend on infrastructure, including bridge-repair, high speed rail, and renewable energy. This will put a bunch of people to work;
3) End Bush tax cuts above $250,000; and
4) Establish a commission to begin planning a transition to a single-payer healthcare system.

I bet my plan would create more jobs than your plan.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, what should be the percentage of NO-PAYERS in our system? Those that have no taxation coupled with representation and an increasing flow of benefits?

PS I miised your suggestion for reducing vitriol.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, what should be the percentage of NO-PAYERS in our system? Those that have no taxation coupled with representation and an increasing flow of benefits?

PS I miised your suggestion for reducing vitriol.

Just about everyone is paying taxes of some sort. So, frankly, I think the current percentage of "no-payers" is nearly zero. If you mean income taxes, I'd like to see income levels among all working people to be high enough to allow them to contribute income taxes. I'd also like to see the capital gains rates and estate taxes increased.

If everyone would simply accept my ideas, there would be no vitriol. Therefore, my proposal is for 100% elimination of vitriol.

[Anonymous]

Term limits!

[Anonymous]

jsteele for Dictator!

I think a lot of this stuff gets back to education. First of all, there are no NO-TAXPAYERS. Most poor folks pay more as a percentage of income in taxes than the wealthy.

Secondly, raising the retirement age sounds great if you're a professor, CEO, or other white-collar worker. If you're an iron worker, or do construction, not so much. And these tweaks to social security are misguided anyway: that's not where the money is. Social Security is projected to
be solvent for decades from now, and even then minor tweaks will be enough to maintain solvency. That's not where the money is.

The projected hemmoraghing is in health care expenses, which are expected to balloon to unsustainable levels--and that's across the board for health care. This is particularly true with Medicare, but that's because insuring the elderly is more expensive, and most of the elderly are in the Medicare pool. But we need to address health care costs, first and foremost. Eliminate Medicare completely, and you still have to deal with that.

Where does the vitriol come from? All of this stuff is well documented, and is pretty much universally accepted by experts. There's absolutely no reason why folks who follow this stuff shouldn't understand it. So when you hear folks on the other side say that the answer to the looming fiscal crisis is to gut Social Security, eliminate earmarks, or
some other nonsense, it's very easy to imagine they're being disingenuous. That may not be the case, but really the alternative isn't much better.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, what should be the percentage of NO-PAYERS in our system? Those that have no taxation coupled with representation and an increasing flow of benefits?

PS I miised your suggestion for reducing vitriol.

Just about everyone is paying taxes of some sort. So, frankly, I think the current percentage of "no-payers" is nearly zero. If you mean income taxes, I'd like to see income levels among all working people to be high enough to allow them to contribute income taxes. I'd also like to see the capital gains rates and estate taxes increased.

If everyone would simply accept my ideas, there would be no vitriol. Therefore, my proposal is for 100% elimination of vitriol.

Jeff, I would like to see rainwater become beer. Let's move on.

What percentage of NO-PAYERS of Federal Income Taxes are you comfortable with.

I believe it is the NO-PAYERS who are screaming the loudest for more. The current "talk" is paying off the mortgages of those who have made the most foolish decisions.

All that probably should have been left unsaid...

What percentage of NO-PAYERS of Federal Income Tax are you comfortable with right now here today?

[Anonymous]

Oh, one last thing: for your average Joe on the street who doesn't follow thus stuff at all, and who's familiarity with the issues might be 15 minutes of CNN at the airport departure lounge, or a 100 word Washington Post editorial, it's incredibly compelling to just throw up one's hands and say "Let's just all get along!"

[Anonymous]

"What percentage of NO-PAYERS of Federal Income Taxes are you comfortable with. "

Love how we're so quick to move goalposts here. Why not focus on NO-PAYERS of Estate Taxes. Or NO-PAYERS of capital gains taxes.

Like I said up-thread: Is it intellectual dishonesty, or just a lack of capacity? Who knows?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
What percentage of NO-PAYERS of Federal Income Taxes are you comfortable with.

I am not comfortable with any level. People who don't pay income tax have very little income. I wish they had greater income. Shit, I wish they had enough income that they could complain about getting hit with an over $250,000 tax increase.

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is the NO-PAYERS who are screaming the loudest for more. The current "talk" is paying off the mortgages of those who have made the most foolish decisions.

I haven't heard that talk. But, the most foolish decisions were made by investor who invested in air. We already bailed them out.

BTW, I wee lots of concern from you about people who have representation but don't pay income tax. Are you concerned about those, like me, who pay income tax but lack representation?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it pretty simple to compromise.

#1, obviously we cannot have a $14T debt and Obama's budget is beyond irresponsible. What to do? Cut, cut cut AND raise taxes. Raise the SS retirement, reform Medicare (i.e, cut it) AND cut defense by a good $100B or more.

#2, let the courts work out abortion. If Roe is overturned, it will still be legal in many states.

I also think it would be simple to compromise if everyone would simply accept my ideas.

you don't think dramatically cutting spending (including defense) AND raising taxes is a compromise position? same with raising the retirement age? i.e., follow the recommendations of the non-partisan deficit commission.

The deficit commission was not "non-partisan". Every person who was on it was partisan. Specifically for that reason, its recommendations required a super-majority which it failed to obtain. Instead, a far-right wing Senator joined with a center-right political hack to create their own recommendations.

Let's face reality rather than some Fox News inspired fantasy land. We are in a time of high unemployment. Both sides of the aisle seem to believe that lowering the unemployment level is important. However, spending cuts don't create jobs. To the contrary, spending cuts lead to job cuts. If you raise the retirement age, people will stay in their jobs longer. That means fewer jobs are opened up for the unemployed. George W. Bush cuts taxes based on the belief that it would lead to economic growth. But, it didn't work. Instead, it drove up deficits. So, non of the ideas you espouse would help lower unemployment and, arguably, would increase unemployment.

Here is the non-partisan Jeff Steele Commission plan:

1) Lower the retirement age. Let a bunch of people move to Florida and open some jobs up;
2) Massively spend on infrastructure, including bridge-repair, high speed rail, and renewable energy. This will put a bunch of people to work;
3) End Bush tax cuts above $250,000; and
4) Establish a commission to begin planning a transition to a single-payer healthcare system.

I bet my plan would create more jobs than your plan.

more jobs, but more debt. can't ignore the debt, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it pretty simple to compromise.

#1, obviously we cannot have a $14T debt and Obama's budget is beyond irresponsible. What to do? Cut, cut cut AND raise taxes. Raise the SS retirement, reform Medicare (i.e, cut it) AND cut defense by a good $100B or more.

#2, let the courts work out abortion. If Roe is overturned, it will still be legal in many states.

I also think it would be simple to compromise if everyone would simply accept my ideas.

you don't think dramatically cutting spending (including defense) AND raising taxes is a compromise position? same with raising the retirement age? i.e., follow the recommendations of the non-partisan deficit commission.

The deficit commission was not "non-partisan". Every person who was on it was partisan. Specifically for that reason, its recommendations required a super-majority which it failed to obtain. Instead, a far-right wing Senator joined with a center-right political hack to create their own recommendations.

Let's face reality rather than some Fox News inspired fantasy land. We are in a time of high unemployment. Both sides of the aisle seem to believe that lowering the unemployment level is important. However, spending cuts don't create jobs. To the contrary, spending cuts lead to job cuts. If you raise the retirement age, people will stay in their jobs longer. That means fewer jobs are opened up for the unemployed. George W. Bush cuts taxes based on the belief that it would lead to economic growth. But, it didn't work. Instead, it drove up deficits. So, non of the ideas you espouse would help lower unemployment and, arguably, would increase unemployment.

Here is the non-partisan Jeff Steele Commission plan:

1) Lower the retirement age. Let a bunch of people move to Florida and open some jobs up;
2) Massively spend on infrastructure, including bridge-repair, high speed rail, and renewable energy. This will put a bunch of people to work;
3) End Bush tax cuts above $250,000; and
4) Establish a commission to begin planning a transition to a single-payer healthcare system.

I bet my plan would create more jobs than your plan.

more jobs, but more debt. can't ignore the debt, unfortunately.

No, actually short-term with unemployment at 10% and with demand lagging capacity (and with a failing infrastructure, and with the cost of debt essentially zero) that's exactly what you do.