767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 664 times:
I don't think the "right" (as in political view) is against social programs at all. I think the issue is more about the degree to which personal responsibility plays a role, in each party's viewpoint.
NEVER: As long as a significant belief there is a God, and the even longer use of the book as a crutch, there will NEVER be a concession on this issue. Of course until MAYBE when just putting food on the table (due to overpopulation) is 'the common man's' issue.
I doubt it... until communisim is viable because we loose our will to be greedy (somthing that will never happen) we will always have workers and those above them.
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7336 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 646 times:
Can we ever compromise on:
1) Abortion-No, religion controlling the right and feminism controling the other side, I serious doubt that a compromise can be reached. My question is, how can someone be ardent on aborting a child when there are so many couples dying to have children, but can't. It's just my {two cents}.
2) Gay Rights-Again conservative christians look at homosexuality a sin. But I think it has a better chance than the Abortion issue. At least gay rights aren't involving the perception of a human life being destroyed.
3) Iraq-When it's over, and Iraq is a thriving nation, I do think it's possible that both sides could come together.
4) Social Programs, for the truly needy-How many more social programs do we need? This is a topic that tends to make both sides angry. Because it's over money, and how we spend it. It seems that we have a social program for everything under the sun. I think that tweaking the programs that we already have is a better idea before we go off and spend more money on starting more programs. Welfare reform is needed, stop making it so easily tempting to stay on welfare, rather than getting up off your backside and finding success. Job training programs for single mothers are programs have both success and unsuccessful outcomes, depending on who you talk to.
5) The environment-Never
6) Labor-Hrrmmm, not as long as union-leaders are as corrupt as the corporations.[/quote]
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 636 times:
Can we ever compromise on:
1) Abortion: Not really. This will always be a very divisive issue. Bible Thumpers will forever claim it's wrong. Moderates - like me - will say it's not my call, or the Governments - it's up to the woman (I have stipulations to that, but not necessary for this thread). And the far left and far right will remain where they are, either all for it , or all against it. No middle ground.
2) Gay Rights: Inevtiable. When, I don't know. But inevitable.
3) Iraq: When it's all said and done, and Iraq is on it's own. Until then, as with abortion, the far left and far right will continue to spew about it at the soldier's expense. First thing we could do is get Dumsfeld outta there and get a decent SecDef to chart the proper course.
4) Social Programs, for the truly needy: Define the truly needy. Just about every lower middle income and low income family could describe a need with enough articulation to warrant a gift from the government. I think we have WAY too many social programs and give a away WAY too much. I'm all for helping when it's necessary but I think when we continue to pay unemployment to a crack whore mother of 6 kids by 6 different fathers and her check gets bigger for each little bastard she has something is damn sure wrong.
5) The environment: When the sky glows orange (at midnight) we'll worry about it .
6) Labor: There will always be the bosses and widgets. They will always fight each other. As long as we continue to have Unions that are more concerned about the $$$ in their pockets rather than the good of the membership AND the company, there will never be a settlement with labor.
1. No
2. No
3. No - those who hate Bush will always hate him, and there is a huge number of those. Win, lose or draw, whenever we pull out of Iraq, few will find common ground then who do not now.
4. Yes - When people give more and more individually to the needy and the government (if they ever do this) realizes that government programs are a vacuum for taxpayer money.
5. Yes - like ANCflyer said. But only rather when the sky is black in the middle of the day.
6. No - there will always be the "ruling elite" and the grunts who make it happen. Middle ground is hard to gain there.
B744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 578 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4): 4) Social Programs, for the truly needy: Define the truly needy. Just about every lower middle income and low income family could describe a need with enough articulation to warrant a gift from the government. I think we have WAY too many social programs and give a away WAY too much. I'm all for helping when it's necessary but I think when we continue to pay unemployment to a crack whore mother of 6 kids by 6 different fathers and her check gets bigger for each little bastard she has something is damn sure wrong.
You use the same logic as Reagan. Unfortunately it is wrong. The facts always get in the way. Mothers on welfare have less of a birth rate perecentage than those not on it. And way too many social programs? Nonsense! There are not enough and not enough money goes to them. 1 in 4 American children go starving each night. Tell me how this can be true in your perfect American universe?
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4): 5) The environment: When the sky glows orange (at midnight) we'll worry about it
Unfortunately that is the stance of the uneducated
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4): 6) Labor: There will always be the bosses and widgets. They will always fight each other. As long as we continue to have Unions that are more concerned about the $$$ in their pockets rather than the good of the membership AND the company, there will never be a settlement with labor.
Yes most labor leaders want more $$$, but unfortunately executives always want the $$ and will do anything and everything to get it. Unions counter this blind greed and it should be more popular than it currently is.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 556 times:
1) Abortion - The best that can be hopeful is an uneasy truce, but even achieving that will be extremely difficult. But I do feel that Roe vs Wade must be eventually overturned, in order to force the legislatures to vote laws into place, in accordance to the opinion of the voting populations. One of the causes, I feel, of the venom in the abortion debate is the fact that it was "legalized" by an activist court which clearly overstepped its constitutional bounderies.
2) Gay Rights - When gays stop insisting on "marriage" rights, and accept some form of civil union instead, there can be peace. Civil Unions is a good middle ground on which to bring a compromise.
3) Iraq - WWII also had a sizable part of the population that wanted nothing to do with overseas wars. Roosevelt himself refused to see the danger brewing behind Stalin's actions in Eastern Europe - which resulted in the Cold War. Unfortunately many people are ignorant and naive about the world around them, and it is up to the rest of us to protect them as well.
4) Social Programs, for the truly needy - Eductaion is the key. The United States' pension system is among the most complex, yet woefully underdeveloped systems in the world. I guess perhaps that is because it was put together in a peicemeal fashion.
Bush's proposal for a partial privatization of SS is absolutely correct, and essential for the long term health of the nation. Everyone's pension should rest in 3 distinct parts:
a) Social Security: This should give you a bare minimum income after retirement that will allow you to keep a roof over your head, and buy yourself enough food to eat. It should be the BARE MINIMUM necessary to keep you out of the poorhouse, that's all.
b) Company pension plans: If you work more than 25 hours per week, you should be allowed to contribute to your employer's pension plan. The pension plan should have strict federal guidelines to ensure that the funds are relatively safe, even in case of a stock market crash. What happened to Enron employees, for exmple, was inexcusable. No more than 50% in stocks, and a pension cannot have more than 5% of its assets invested in any one company, including its own, no bonds rated less than BBB, for example. The funds must also be completely and transparently transferable from one pension fund to another whenever you change jobs.
On top of the bare minimum living allowance given by Social Security, this is where you get the post retirement income to live a "decent" retirement - a nicer place to live, and enough to go on vacation every once in a while.
c) Private pension plans and savings schemes: This is your responsibility, if you want to have a really nice retirement, playing golf every day, have a nice car, etc. Strict federal guidelines would ensure the relative safety of these investments, just like the corporate pension plans, to ensure that they remain largely intact even in case of economic crises.
5) The environment - While we can argue untill we are all blue in the face about whether man is the root cause of global warming, and whether it is technologically possible for mankind to somehow stop it or even slow it down, that arguement should not take up too much of our time. What we should all be able to agree on is that wherever we can reasonable do it, we should improve emissions etc, even if it's "just in case". The biggest impact, I think, is to get people to buy smaller cars. I see no reason that anyone needs more than 200 hp or a vehicle that weighs more than 1500-2000 kg, maximum. Raise gas prices, and tax like crazy any vehicle larger than that.
6) Labor - Like I said earlier, people are naive, and believe when they hear the organized union guys say that they are protecting the workers' interest. That's bull. Any union that requires members to pay dues is NOT protecting your interests, but its own. These large unions thrive when workers are scared of losing their job, when unemployment is high, and high social costs make companies reluctant to hire, because that's when people are willing and gullible to pay into a union "for defence". Organized labor is nothing but a fraud, and the very last thing they want to see is labor and management getting along well, unemployment levels low, and workers happy with their pay and benefits.
But small unions specific to a particular factory or company, where no union dues are demanded, are excellent.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4681 posts, 
.
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
