Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a big divide between Conservatives and Liberals but in my opinion most of that is not in regards to what the problems arebut how they should be fixed. If you take the Tea Party and the OWS crowd the basis for their complaints is the same to some degree. Who could agree with the following.
1. A lot of our government is corrupt, both Republicans and Democrats.
2. Our Government spends way too much money.
3. Special interests both Republican and Democratic causes carry far too much weight in the decisions our leaders make.
4. The tax system is broke and taxes far too high both personal and business.
5. The education system is broken.
6. Religion, Gays and other similar social issues..... Your business, not mine until you get in my face about it.
7. Both laws for citizens and regulations for business are far too many.
If you can't answer yes to everyone of these question please answer no. I've no doubt this will turn into political bickering but lets try an avoid that? What we need in this topic is finding out what the common ground is.
i voted no.
1. i think our politicians are not so much corrupt, as they are stupid. i think they are a reflection of the voters. people who know what the hell they are talking about are scary to voters.
2. sure, government spends too much, but government spending isn't the cause of our economic problems.
3. agree
4. the tax system is broken, sure, but not because tax rates are too high or too low. We have too many loopholes and exceptions in our tax code that unfairly reduce taxable income. We are getting more and more of our tax revenue from wages (like payroll tax), and less of it from corporate income and capital gains, which is favoring capital over labor.
5. education at the federal level? not sure what you're talking about.
6. sure, whatever.
7. We need smarter regulation, not necessarily "less regulation. " We need much more restrictive banking regulation, and I generally support what the EPA does.
Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 11-08-2011 at 07:42 AM..
something neither side can agree on and one side in particular (conservatives) has decided to take the stand of no compromise on anything
I'm not one for compromise and the reason for that is the special interests are usually the compromise. You could have a bill in Congress that is the greatest thing since sliced bread and by the time the compromise is done it's worse that what they are trying to fix.
5. education at the federal level? not sure what you're talking about.
I'm referring to the state of public education and most certainly would not support more federal intrusion. I'd could go on but I'm going to cross that line into the "how" and it will get political.
Quote:
We need smarter regulation, not necessarily "less regulation. "
Exactly but I think smarter regulation leads to less regulation.
Last edited by thecoalman; 11-08-2011 at 07:51 AM..
I'm not one for compromise and the reason for that is the special interests are usually the compromise. You could have a bill in Congress that is the greatest thing since sliced bread and by the time the compromise is done it's worse that what they are trying to fix.
That is why I believe in reforming the lobby system, which usually goes against the will of the people. There are ways to compromise but it takes both sides to sit down like adults and work it out.
Exactly but I think smarter regualtion leads to less regualtion.
sure, i agree, it is just important to be clear about what we're talking about.
i prefer simple regulation, but not weak regulation.
In the case of the environment, for example, there seem to be some on the right who don't mind polluting the air, soil, and water, for the sake of economic growth. I am firmly against that stance.
In the case of finance, for example, there seem to be some (on both sides) who want to deregulate the things which protect consumers, but want to keep other pro-banking regulations, like the fractional reserve system, the Fed and its open market operations, et cetera. They aren't really arguing for free markets, they are pro-banking folks who want to have their cake and eat it too.
You should of answered no then. The issue with regualtions of business boils down to quantity does not equal quality.In the example you provided If a company is going to put a product on the market like a drug that has potential deadly side effects but has great benefits as well you let the consumer decide. I believe the drug in question you mentioned was the same one I saw a woman pleading to Congress to keep on the market as it made her life livable, she was willing to take the risk. The only thing that is important is that she knows those risks. As far as the companies responsibilities go it should begins and end with them providing all the information they know about the drug, if they do not disclose that information then certainly jail time for those responsible would be justified.
I voted "yes' because I will take the more desirable with the less desirable to accomplish the overall goal of putting the country back on track.
Trying to get everyone to completely agree on everything is a fairy tale in matters of politics. The key is to agree on a plan, not all of the finer details within the plan.
For instance, I hate guns. I think there are far too many idiots walking around with these things. However, I know this is something that conservatives hold near and dear. So I can let that one go, and not seek to change the 2nd amendment.
I only wish they could do the same with abortion choice.
Both are essentially the right to kill. We just disagree on the timing and the methods that should be allowed
On the other side, I wish liberals would agree to drug testing for welfare. They wont.
I wish liberals would agree to the use of deadly force at our borders, they wont.
It all comes down to compromise. Believe it or not, I think a couple of 12 year olds trading baseball cards could come up with better legislation than congress. They're better at making deals.
i prefer simple regulation, but not weak regulation.
Yes and make it criminal act to break them. That would get their attention.
Quote:
In the case of the environment, for example, there seem to be some on the right who don't mind polluting the air, soil, and water, for the sake of economic growth. I am firmly against that stance.
I have to breathe the same air you do. On the flip side you have environmentalists that will regulate companies right out of business and drive this nation right off a cliff to achieve their goals. Fracking is a big topic in my area, you have the natural gas industry on one side claiming it causes no harm and environmentalists on the other side claiming the end of the world. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
