What three things would we all have to agree on?

AspenValley wrote: Some of you have hinted at what I was thinking when I started this thread. The disagreement seems to focus on how to accomplish the goals, not necessarily the goals themselves.

What would happen, do you think, if people got a whole lot less invested in "their way" to achieve the goal being the "right way" and a lot MORE invested in just solving the problem, even if the eventual method isn't the one they would have supported? What then?

Because, see, I think a lot of the reason it is so difficult to achieve public policy change is that people get so hung up on the "hows" they forget the "whys". And most of the stupid ideological fights and gridlocks come out of not so much disagreeing on what needs to be the goal, but getting stubborn, opinionated and very ego-invested in believeing "our side" knows the only "right way" to get things done.

But that is exactly what happened with the Healthcare bill. It was passed not the 'right way' but just to say they tried something to try and solve the problem. Now more and more is coming out everyday that shows how terrible this is going to be for so many people. Including now, college students and the elderly. When Pelosi stood at the podium and acted as excited a a kid opening a present on Christmas morning and said, we need to just pass the bill so we can all see what is in it. (jumping up and down clapping her hands all giddy) Are you flippen kidding me! Now economist are all saying our health care costs are going to go up. There will be no net gain in people insured. And it will increase our deficit huge! There is so much crap in here that is going to hurt us all in the long run. Not to mention doctors quitting. States refusing to follow it because they can't afford it. That is the type of, lets forget about doing it the right way and just get somethign done mentality that is failing this country. So why can't people agree to do it the 'right' way instead of the greedy 2000 page full of pork crap, way?

The Viking wrote: So why can't people agree to do it the 'right' way instead of the greedy 2000 page full of pork crap, way?

Because people can't agree on what is the 'right' way.

The Viking wrote:

AspenValley wrote: Some of you have hinted at what I was thinking when I started this thread. The disagreement seems to focus on how to accomplish the goals, not necessarily the goals themselves.

What would happen, do you think, if people got a whole lot less invested in "their way" to achieve the goal being the "right way" and a lot MORE invested in just solving the problem, even if the eventual method isn't the one they would have supported? What then?

Because, see, I think a lot of the reason it is so difficult to achieve public policy change is that people get so hung up on the "hows" they forget the "whys". And most of the stupid ideological fights and gridlocks come out of not so much disagreeing on what needs to be the goal, but getting stubborn, opinionated and very ego-invested in believeing "our side" knows the only "right way" to get things done.

But that is exactly what happened with the Healthcare bill. It was passed not the 'right way' but just to say they tried something to try and solve the problem. Now more and more is coming out everyday that shows how terrible this is going to be for so many people. Including now, college students and the elderly. When Pelosi stood at the podium and acted as excited a a kid opening a present on Christmas morning and said, we need to just pass the bill so we can all see what is in it. (jumping up and down clapping her hands all giddy) Are you flippen kidding me! Now economist are all saying our health care costs are going to go up. There will be no net gain in people insured. And it will increase our deficit huge! There is so much crap in here that is going to hurt us all in the long run. Not to mention doctors quitting. States refusing to follow it because they can't afford it. That is the type of, lets forget about doing it the right way and just get somethign done mentality that is failing this country. So why can't people agree to do it the 'right' way instead of the greedy 2000 page full of pork crap, way?

You totally misunderstood my point.

Oh well.

AspenValley wrote: If there could be a coming together of Americans across all aisles, what three things would we have to agree on?

How to manage the economy?
Military budgets?
Income levels?
Social spending?
Campaign funding?
The role of religion in regards to government?
Education?
Immigration?
Income tax structure?
Cultural differences?
????

What is it that keeps us divided?

What could bring us together?

Faith, Hope & Charity

travelingirl wrote:

AspenValley wrote: If there could be a coming together of Americans across all aisles, what three things would we have to agree on?

How to manage the economy?
Military budgets?
Income levels?
Social spending?
Campaign funding?
The role of religion in regards to government?
Education?
Immigration?
Income tax structure?
Cultural differences?
????

What is it that keeps us divided?

What could bring us together?

Faith, Hope & Charity

I really like those and I agree that those are 3 very fundamental issues that could bring this nation together. But unfortunately this country will never come together on Faith. And one party believes that charity bgins at home and the other believes that the goevernment should have more control over our money and who it goes to. Third, hope is a word that has unfortunately been very misused as an election tool. They give hope with promises then cannot deliver when elected.

I think this country should come together on Hope, Change, and Transparency. Oh wait........that one was already used and none of them work.

A lot of the disagreement is whether the government should provide "cradle to grave" security to everyone regardless of their worth as a human being. And, yes........not all humans have the same worth; there are lazy people in this world, slackers abound, leeches exits, users and abusers are everywhere.
Government should provide an equal playing field so that everyone can have equal chance and receive justice. And.......there is great disagreement on what "equal opportunity" and "justice" consist. Some would disagree that the parents have responsibility to inspire and direct their children. If the parents should fail at this responsibility then some the children can claim disadvantage and get another free ride from the government. We provide free schools and one day at a time the students and their parents fail. Daily

And then some people live in fairytale land.

major bean wrote: A lot of the disagreement is whether the government should provide "cradle to grave" security to everyone regardless of their worth as a human being. And, yes........not all humans have the same worth; there are lazy people in this world, slackers abound, leeches exits, users and abusers are everywhere.

Wow.

I would agree that not all human beings can command the same salary, succeed at self determination, have equal abilities, ambition or intelligence.

But I find your suggestion that those things determine their "worth" is really repugnant.

All people have worth as human beings, yes, even "lazy slackers". The minute you start putting a "worth" on people based on factors like that, you have degraded human beings into commodities to be judged as "having worth" or "not having worth". And the "lazy slacker" of today (Einstein was considered just that while in school and even beyond) can be the genuis who brings huge benefits to mankind tomorrow.

And you people wonder why some of us are worried about Facisim? Hitler's "Final Solution" people would have LOVED you! Yeah, maybe right now you wouldn't be willing to send those people you see as being of "lesser worth" to death camps, but the very fact that you are thinking of people in those terms is the kind of train of thought that leads to atrocities.

AspenValley wrote: And you people wonder why some of us are worried about Facisim?

And this sentence alone shows our divide. 'You people' vs. 'Us'? Who are 'You people' and who is 'us'?

OK, simple question to determine if we are even close to common ground. Do you believe that the government has the right to determine who makes too much money and that they should take more from them to give to those who have less?

I believe this is the biggest dividing difference between Liberals and COnservatives. Conservatives believe in more charity from free will and help more people where as Liberals believe in more government control and that the government is the only one who can control and hand out our money fairly. Conservatives have an extra dollar, they believe in helping others with it. Liberals believe in giving it to the government to hand out. And after all the administrative fees and paying people for handling that dollar, there is probably less than 30 cents left to hand out. Which one makes more sense?