The Things We Agree On

[Gotham_Central]

Have you ever stopped to ask why we -those of us on both sides of any political disagreement. Are bombarded with news of the wicked intentions of "those guys"?

Have you considered that politicians, Rs and Ds alike, know the old adage, Divide and Conquer?

If I as a conservative am busy being agree and riled up over "the liberal agenda" and you as a liberal are busy being riled up over "the conservative agenda", when do we have time to look and see if our politicians actually support "our" agenda?

There is a fast amount to be done, issues we all agree on. When was the last time anyone in Washington did a thing to address any of that?

The greatest fear of politicians of all stripes is an awake, aware, educated electorate. Maybe it's time we stop allowing them to tell us what's important and we come together where we live, red and blue, and find the things we can agree on and start holding our public servants responsible to fix what matters where we all agree?

Just a thought.

 

[sr71plt]

There is a fast amount to be done, issues we all agree on. When was the last time anyone in Washington did a thing to address any of that?

Senator Mark Warner, for one in Washington, has frequently addressed this. I think part of the problem is in assuming that no one in Washington is doing anything. Scapegoating is so easy to do, isn't it?

 

[Gotham_Central]

Senator Mark Warner, for one in Washington, has frequently addressed this. I think part of the problem is in assuming that no one in Washington is doing anything. Scapegoating is so easy to do, isn't it?

And I think it's safe to state that for every politicians trying to do something -is as I fail to support Ron Paul, he tried to shine a light on think- there are at least double the number most interested in the status quo, including their own reelection.

So, to your point, easy to assume your view is full and complete, the only correct one, isn't it? Especially when our individual echo chamber tell us daily how we are right.

Though, I can't help but notice that your response APPEARS to be to find fault with a call for unity, rather than find something on which you and I might agree.

I'd like to say I am shocked, but I have read your posts, so... Not so much.

 

[sr71plt]

And I think it's safe to state that for every politicians trying to do something -is as I fail to support Ron Paul, he tried to shine a light on think- there are at least double the number most interested in the status quo, including their own reelection.

So, to your point, easy to assume your view is full and complete, the only correct one, isn't it? Especially when our individual echo chamber tell us daily how we are right.

Though, I can't help but notice that your response APPEARS to be to find fault with a call for unity, rather than find something on which you and I might agree.

I'd like to say I am shocked, but I have read your posts, so... Not so much.

I offered the possibility we could agree that there ARE folks in Washington working on arriving at agreements. You choose to ignore that. So, you have some other agenda to post, apparently. Go for it, if you like.

 

[Gotham_Central]

I offered the possibility we could agree that there ARE folks in Washington working on arriving at agreements. You choose to ignore that. So, you have some other agenda to post, apparently. Go for it, if you like.

No agenda, I just didn't read it that way.

That said, we have one, but how do we increase that number?

 

[JackLuis]

Let us start with the burning issue, Debt, Taxes and Congressional irresponsibility?

America is deep in debt, to the Chinese among others, and we have to do something about that. Congress refuses to rein in spending or to raise enough revenue to pay for what they spend every year.

Congress set a debt limit, but every time we reach that limit, they just raise the limit, and authorize an increase for the Defense Department! WTF is that?

Tax reform is generally about cutting taxes at the top end of the scale or giving Corporation greater tax breaks.

Until we settle that issue, all the rest is just deflection IMHO.

 

[Gotham_Central]

Let us start with the burning issue, Debt, Taxes and Congressional irresponsibility?

America is deep in debt, to the Chinese among others, and we have to do something about that. Congress refuses to rein in spending or to raise enough revenue to pay for what they spend every year.

Congress set a debt limit, but every time we reach that limit, they just raise the limit, and authorize an increase for the Defense Department! WTF is that?

Tax reform is generally about cutting taxes at the top end of the scale or giving Corporation greater tax breaks.

Until we settle that issue, all the rest is just deflection IMHO.

Pretty sure we agree on this! You and I, I assume, can't spend more than we make. It makes sense we should be able to expect that from our government. The solution will likely be messy, but I bet we can agree it will mean both sides give up some "sacred cows" for the greater good.

Thoughts?

 

[JackLuis]

Pretty sure we agree on this! You and I, I assume, can't spend more than we make. It makes sense we should be able to expect that from our government. The solution will likely be messy, but I bet we can agree it will mean both sides give up some "sacred cows" for the greater good.

Thoughts?

History shows that increasing taxes on the wealthy does not stifle the economy as much as reducing taxes on the wealthy. During the early 50's-60's period tax rates for the 1% were huge and yet the economy was booming, revenue was pouring in and the unemployment rates were pretty good.

Corporate taxes were much higher and yet our Corporations were making money hand over fist! There were fewer tax breaks for Oil, Manufacturing and many other industries.

Enter "Trickle Down" and Vodoo Economics and the shit started sliding down hill, yet Taxes were cut and debt began to pile up.

So I think a ~40% tax on income over $20 Million might change our revenue situation. Reducing the Defense Dept. budget to something like half of what the rest of the world spends would open up a lot of room for other things.

 

[Gotham_Central]

History shows that increasing taxes on the wealthy does not stifle the economy as much as reducing taxes on the wealthy. During the early 50's-60's period tax rates for the 1% were huge and yet the economy was booming, revenue was pouring in and the unemployment rates were pretty good.

Corporate taxes were much higher and yet our Corporations were making money hand over fist! There were fewer tax breaks for Oil, Manufacturing and many other industries.

Enter "Trickle Down" and Vodoo Economics and the shit started sliding down hill, yet Taxes were cut and debt began to pile up.

So I think a ~40% tax on income over $20 Million might change our revenue situation. Reducing the Defense Dept. budget to something like half of what the rest of the world spends would open up a lot of room for other things.

Don't forget two things, in the 50s and 60s, the American industrial sector was the only one in the world that had not been bombed into the Stone age within the last twenty years. This left us with an artificial sense of the demand for our services. A demand that started to wane in the 70s and really declined in the 80s. We could -and can-do no longer sell everything we can make for the price we chose. American industry can no longer perform as it did then.

Second, look at how much those in the upper 1% actually make that is classified as income. A 10% flat consumption tax would serve us all better. You don't spend it, it doesn't get taxed. But when you do spend it, presumably on a big ticket item, Uncle Sam gets his cut.

All that said, you listed the usual Leftist talking points re: what the right needs to give up. But what should the left give up to draw the right to the table?

 

[just4friends]

One
Reduce debt? Ok... the sacred cow with all the money is the Defence Budget!
5(?) NATO countries spend 2% or more?? We are at what?? 40%?? (Not looking it up because it's sick!)

More aircraft carriers? Not going to help in future war!! Really profitable though!

Hell.. fighters vs drones?? Good luck! But old school Air Force wants more!!
Drones don't give a shit about pulling more g's! We will find ourselves equipped with yesterday's calvery against tanks in the next war. Spend? Sure! But wisely not based on lobbiests needs

Two
Empty the swamp of lobbiests and campaign finance!!!

 

[JackLuis]

Don't forget two things, in the 50s and 60s, the American industrial sector was the only one in the world that had not been bombed into the Stone age within the last twenty years. -
Second, look at how much those in the upper 1% actually make that is classified as income. A 10% flat consumption tax would serve us all better. You don't spend it, it doesn't get taxed. But when you do spend it, presumably on a big ticket item, Uncle Sam gets his cut.

All that said, you listed the usual Leftist talking points re: what the right needs to give up. But what should the left give up to draw the right to the table?

I don't know what the Right Wing wants? They are generally only deflecting the discussion off into the weeds. And cutting taxes for the rich. Most of the RWNJ's whining is due to their own fault.

A 10% Consumption tax would be very regressive and probably wouldn't cover half the Defense Dept's budget.

Sure America was in the drivers seat after WW2 but we still are a major portion of the worlds productivity. Many of our most profitable Corporations pay a very small % of their income in Taxes, due to the breaks we give them to 'improve the economy' and yet those breaks don't improve much but CEO payscales.

What do you think is an important issue that we can agree on? Ob's you don't think Revenue is a problem.

 

[Hypoxia]

A correlation exists: High-tax areas tend to be more prosperous than low-tax areas. Thus any move to drive down taxes is actually a plot to increase poverty and misery. QED.

 

[sr71plt]

I think that all in the United States could/can agree with the goal to keep acts of terrorism off U.S. soil.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I think that all in the United States could/can agree with the goal to keep acts of terrorism off U.S. soil.

We can agree on the goal. The game and how we achieve those goals is something else.

 

[sr71plt]

I think that all in the United States could/can agree with the goal to keep acts of terrorism off U.S. soil.

Apparently you didn't notice that I didn't take it further than a shared goal.

 

[BotanyBoy]

History shows that increasing taxes on the wealthy does not stifle the economy as much as reducing taxes on the wealthy.

Only if those taxes make it to the bottom.

In ours they do not....they collect taxes from consumers via corporations, a totally regressive way to tax and then that money just vanishes into the 0.1%'s pockets.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Let us start with the burning issue, Debt, Taxes and Congressional irresponsibility?

America is deep in debt, to the Chinese among others, and we have to do something about that. Congress refuses to rein in spending or to raise enough revenue to pay for what they spend every year.

Congress set a debt limit, but every time we reach that limit, they just raise the limit, and authorize an increase for the Defense Department! WTF is that?

Tax reform is generally about cutting taxes at the top end of the scale or giving Corporation greater tax breaks.

Until we settle that issue, all the rest is just deflection IMHO.

Were you equally opposed to high levels of debt when Obama was Pres.?

 

[phrodeau]

Apparently you didn't notice that I didn't take it further than a shared goal.

I used to think that there were no-brainer shared goals, like religious freedom for everyone, or giving safe harbor and aid to refugees.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I used to think that there were no-brainer shared goals, like religious freedom for everyone, or giving safe harbor and aid to refugees.

And there you just picked two hot points. What's a refugee? Your definition is not my definition. What's safe harbor? I don't think we'd agree on that either. And what's religious freedom? Nope. Bad choices. There's no shared goal there. Absolutely not. And as Pilot pointed out, even a shared goal does not mean agreement on how to reach that goal.

I for example would like to see Africa a prosperous and well governed continent, a goal I think we can all share. How? Personally, I think recolonization is the only way to achieve that. I think given our own experience we can also agree that Africa would obviously benefit from more diversity and multiculturalism as well as the introduction of good governance.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I used to think that there were no-brainer shared goals, like religious freedom for everyone, or giving safe harbor and aid to refugees.

(D)'s hate religious freedom and (R)'s hate fugees.


Wake up phro.

 

[Boxlicker101]

(D)'s hate religious freedom and (R)'s hate fugees.


Wake up phro.

What's a refugee? I believe everybody would welcome somebody fleeing from a Communist or Fascist dictatorship. Especially, R's welcomed people escaping from East Germany or Cuba and places like that. However, an "economic refugee" might be another matter, especially in large numbers, such as illegal immigrants from Mexico.

 

[JackLuis]

Were you equally opposed to high levels of debt when Obama was Pres.?

Yes, although Obama was having to deal with the residue of ~20 years of deregulation and a world wide catastrophe, so I gave him a break on that.

I did complain about pouring Millions down the Afghan rat hole though, and not closing Gitmo, and droning the shit out of the Muslim world, and not prosecuting Bush/Cheney for torturing people, and letting Hillary talk him into Libya and Syria.

Other that that he wasn't too bad.