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.
I am pressed for time today, so I'll keep it short. Feel free to flesh out.
As I am posted before, I believe moderates are likely to be more rational and likely more intelligent than partisans. We need to make a case to lead.
I think most moderates would support some of the following points:
1. Science and scholarship, not demagoguery, should inform our society and our politics. Listening to paid spin doctors is corroding our brains and sewing divisiveness.
2. Anti-business and anti-government ideologies are both braindead. We need both, like a heart and lungs. To imply otherwise is to ignore advanced civilizations around the world.
3. A mixed economy, where business is as free as possible, but regulated to limit crime and social and environmental damage, and a government which meets altruistic needs (public health, safety, environmental protections) and provides visionary leadership (looking to what we don't yet know in science, policy, innovation, business) to do things established corporations are not likely to do.
4. A respectful, outward look at the world, that does not assume we know everything. We have things to learn from others, and we have a duty as global citizens to participate in global initiatives (combat global warming, disease, keep an eye for asteroids,etc.)
5. Every generation has an obligation to future generations. It is not about coasting on the investments of the past and refusing to give for the future.
6. Neither super rich nor super poor should be coddled. A progressive tax system can limit the aggregation of capital at the top, and we should think of ways to limit parasitic behavior. Social and political pressures should be put on people who refuse to pull their weight or improve themselves. Pity is eventually self-defeating.
7. Freedom of religion requires that in political matters you ****. Got faith. Great. We don't want to hear about it on the campaign trail. Prayer breakfasts and home porn are both fun, but embarrasing, keep them to yourselves.
8. Bipartisan committees for many issues, like the Simpson-Bowles commission, should be the norm. Iron sharpens iron.
9. Affirmative action should be given a time window. Thirty years? Fifty years? Whatever, but it should not be a blank check forever.
10. We should explore the roles of incentives, innovation in many regulatory roles of government. It should be less about hand slapping and more about discovering and showing better ways to go.
If not, feel free to dissect, argue, or add other ideas. The point is, the moderates have the skills to lead, and they need to get the conviction to match the shouters on the fringes.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 10-09-2013 at 12:42 PM..
All the moderates are working two or three jobs trying to make ends meet as the Obama economy shreds the middle class. In the meantime they're getting angry and won't be moderate much longer.
I am pressed for time today, so I'll keep it short. Feel free to flesh out.
As I am posted before, I believe moderates are likely to be more rational and likely more intelligent than partisans. We need to make a case to lead.
I think most moderates would support some of the following points:
1. Science and scholarship, not demagoguery, should inform our society and our politics. Listening to paid spin doctors is corroding our brains and sewing divisiveness.
Agreed but keep in mind there are many "scientists" who have subverted science for their own ideological beliefs. If there is ONE thing about science, it is that it is never wrong. Man-made global warming is NOT science.
Quote:
2. Anti-business and anti-government ideologies are both braindead. We need both, like a heart and lungs. To imply otherwise is to ignore advanced civilizations around the world.
Agreed. We need government but NOT absolute government which is where we are trending towards. We need businesses but not big business that are too big too fail or big business in bed with big government. There needs to be a separation. How we achieve it is another matter.
Quote:
3. A mixed economy, where business is as free as possible, but regulated to limit crime and social end environmental damage, and a government which meets altruistic needs (public health, safety, environmental protections) and provides visionary leadership (looking to what we don't yet know in science, policy, innovation, business) to do things established corporations are not likely to do.
Now we are getting to ideological beliefs... do we need "altruistic" needs? Sure, do we need SOMEONE'S vision to get there? Who side are you on anyways? That person or that person?
Quote:
4. A respectful, outward look at the world, that does not assume we know everything. We have things to learn from others, and we have a duty as global citizens to participate in global initiatives (combat global warming, disease, keep an eye for asteroids,etc.)
Again with the ideological beliefs, I thought we were talking about being moderate? Global citizens to combat imaginary things isn't going to help. Do you want to help Africa and Asia minor extricate itself from poverty? Do you want to help other nations become industrious? Do you want to end decades-long conflicts between nations? But you choose to fight an imaginary belief of man-made global warming... really?
Quote:
5. Every generation has an obligation to future generations. It is not about coasting on the investments of the past and refusing to give for the future.
The way we do that is with parents and not with governments. I think parents have an obligation for the future, why are we not helping the parents? The future starts with the parents and it means ALL parents, not just the poor but the wealthy. Everyone should be treated equally. Help the parents to help their kids.
Quote:
6. Neither super rich nor super poor should be coddled. A progressive tax system can limit the aggregation of capital at the top, and we should think of ways to limit parasitic behavior. Social and political pressures should be put on people who refuse to pull their weight or improve themselves. Pity is eventually self-defeating.
Progressive tax system automatically coddles the poor because who else pays for it? Flat tax means everyone pulls the weight equally.
Quote:
7. Freedom of religion requires that in political matters you ****. Got faith. Great. We don't want to hear about it on the campaign trail. Prayer breakfasts and home porn are both fun, but embarrasing, keep them to yourselves.
Freedom of religion also means the free exercise of religion whether it is public or not. It does not mean you have to go after religion like the plague. Anytime "something" is forced means it is wrong. They can pray and it doesn't mean you have to. I have never seen the "freedom of religion" where the hypocrites go crazy ever been forced upon them to do what others do. Never once.
Quote:
8. Bipartisan committees for many issues, like the Simpson-Bowles commission, should be the norm. Iron sharpens iron.
There may be bipartisan committees but they don't represent the interests of equality. Committees should be under scrutiny and easily amended, otherwise their function is as worthless as the President.
Quote:
9. Affirmative action should be given a time window. Thirty years? Fifty years? Whatever, but it should not be a blank check forever.
Agreed. We can't keep putting substandard people into critical jobs because of race. If you can't meet the minimum standards then you aren't good enough. I don't mind having equal percentages for races, for instance 20% white, 20% black, etc etc but all of them have to meet the minimum standards.
Quote:
10. We should explore the roles of incentives, innovation in many regulatory roles of government. It should be less about hand slapping and more about discovering and showing better ways to go.
If not, feel free to dissect, argue, or add other ideas. The point is, the moderates have the skills to lead, and they need to get the conviction to match the shouters on the fringes.
The always say positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement. The problem with incentives is that they are only good for a subsection of people rather than the goals of the incentives. For instance, saying only people who make 100k and lower qualify to decrease pollution? Really, then those over 100k are not included because the goal is to help people under 100k? I thought the goal was to decrease pollution? See what I mean?
The hell he was. He was a neo-con thru and thru. Massive tax cuts to balloon the deficit. Preemptive, illegal, unjustified war. Fascist social policy.
Are we even talking about the same George W Bush?
Apparently not. You made yours up.
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.
