Dam thee for making me look up in the dictionary ! Though my intention is to really find what is (if at all) the common ground. Ok some issues we can “play” with:
Education. I think a good majority can see that US education needs some boosting/help. I bet we will disagree on how to do so.
South America might not be doing well economically… but we certainly are more modern in culture, technology and education as regards Middle Eastern countries. Arabs do graduate engineers of course… but that is not the only aspect that counts. So by “modernization” of the Middle East I don’t mean wholesale reform… or the fucked up Bush doctrines… but certainly more political and cultural changes. Any region that is responsible for so much terrorism must be in need of change… even if IMO the US is to blame for the upsurge in the past years.
Well it depends… ignorance of what the “right” position is hardly counts as a “common ground”. Some politicians actually love ignorance.
Now your probably talking about having a well informed and educated population ? Then I’d agree that the alternative is bad.
This one I’m not surprised anyone responded too:
I’ve seen many a comment around the internet on how freedom to chose, win and to lose defines America… and that helping the “losers” will only create dependence. That the poor are poor because they didn’t suceed. So I don’t think you’ll see high agreement on this issue…
Well back to the “foreign policy” comments… does anyone think Bush did a great job of it ? Good Job ? I doubt even his backers would claim so… but then probably no president will ever get enough right for both sides ?
Short answer: No. As for reasons, there are quite a few, but let’s just start out by saying that being poor isn’t hereditary. There are plenty of people who start out poor and who become well off, even wealthy. If we lived in a society with a rigid caste system, I’d agree with you. But we don’t.
JM: * If we lived in a society with a rigid caste system, I’d agree with you. *
Well, does that mean that we can agree that increasing economic stratification—that is, declining economic mobility, where it becomes harder for people to move up from the level they started at—is a problem? As BusinessWeek has reported, recent studies indicate that nowadays “the notion of America being a highly mobile society isn’t as true as it used to be […] Some 49 % of families who started the1970 s in poverty were still stuck there at the end of that decade, the Boston Fed study found. During the1990 s, the figure had jumped to 53 %, even after accounting for two-earner families.”
In other words, although we don’t currently have a rigid caste system, we’re apparently moving closer to rigid economic stratification, where it’s significantly more difficult to get out of the class that you’re born in. Of course, if we were all in the same class—in other words, if we had very low inequality—that wouldn’t really matter. But as BG points out, the opposite is true: inequality is large and growing.
So can we agree that the combination of increasing economic inequality and decreasing economic mobility is a problem? (I’m not asking us to agree on exactly how bad the problem currently is in practical terms, but are we agreed that in the abstract, such a combination is bad for a society?)
I agree that its a problem… but I don’t think a majority would. Its too ingrained in the American mythos that opportunity is equal for everyone… or something like that. A “caste” system is obviously unfair and easily perceived… a rigged system where mostly those with education and contacts get ahead is hard to be perceived as unfair.
American crime rates seem to me the most direct result of this inequality…
I disagree with the above quoted statements, strongly.
Anything that moves social security funding away from the hands of government, I’d be in favor of, privatization of portions of contributions is a start.
Wealth inequality is a joke. A communist I am not.
Standards in education assumes that each child needs the same type of treatment, standards in teachers assumes that the same type of teacher is needed for each situation. Anything that increases the grasp of govt in any arena, I am against.
We are the only superpower. Everything is a cost/benefit, if one day it is more beneficial to work with others, then we should do so. If it is not, then we should not. Forget about any sense of humbleness.
Geez Bone, why are you so scared of government? I’m the first to admit that governments make lots of mistakes, but so do businesses and private individuals and all other decision-making entities. I really think that this sort of kneejerk anti-government reaction isn’t a useful guide to policy.
I think it’s a great idea because it would allow me to funnel my money into a position were it will grow better and be more useful in the long run. Others would have the same opportunity.
It’s not kneejerk, it’s well thought out. Government is the only entity that can legally coerce me into doing something. I can think of no other entity that can and does inflict so much force onto a person as does organized government.
The thread was asking for things we could all (most) agree on. Maybe I’m in the 20%, but I don’t think so.
Bone, you don’t need to be a “communist” to recognize that massive wealth inequality is a substantive social problem, in the same way that drug addiction and illiteracy are social problems.
catsix:I think it’s a great idea because it would allow me to funnel my money into a position were it will grow better and be more useful in the long run.
If you were lucky. If, on the other hand, you became disabled and lost your earning power well before retirement, or if a market downturn severely diminished your savings shortly before you needed to start drawing them out, or if you made some poor choices and your investments did poorly… then it might not seem like such a great idea.
Social Security privatization is very appealing to the same American sparkling optimism that makes casino owners so wealthy.
Hm…political issues that 80% of us can agree on?? Not happening, unless we speak VERY broadly IMO. I’d say that you could probably get 80% (or even higher) on this board to agree that the scientific method is superior to faith, that evolution is both a theory and a fact, that critical thinking is key in evaluating anything, and that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs to back em up. Out side of that though…hm.
Well, I think, as others have said, that gay marriage or at least the legal equivelent is only fair…though of course there is a wide range of disagreements on when and how this should happen.
Legalized abortion (or maintaining the legal right for a woman to have an abortion in the US) is also something I think would have a fairly high percentage of folks agreeing with, though again with lots of caviots (like partial birth, states vs federal enforcement, etc). Here I think many would personally disagree with abortion, but would agree with the right of a woman to choose…within variable limits. THATS where the contention would be.
I think the majority on THIS board would agree that Bush hasn’t been one of the stellar presidents we’ve had. Some would put him at the very bottom, others perhaps in the middle somewhere. I don’t think there are many who would put him in the top 10, say.
Hm…how about, broadly speaking, that nuclear energy is a good alternative to using fosil fuels and should be something more heavily looked into developing in the future?
I can’t really think of anything else broad enough to get a high percentage of agreements. I’m trying to think back on the various threads I’ve been in and where people who are usually opposites came together…but it happens so rarely that I can’t think of anything else atm.
No, you won’t get 80% agreement on that. Everybody agrees “election fraud” is a bad thing – but the liberals are talking about voter intimidation and dishonest ballot-counting, while the conservatives are talking about legally ineligible voters sneaking into the polls.
I could get behind that! Maybe nuclear waste is bad for the environment, but it’s a lot easier to contain than smokestack/tailpipe emissions. And I think the industry’s technology has advanced to the point where we don’t need to fear any more Three Mile Islands or Chernobyls. France gets most of its electricity from nuclear plants, and have you ever heard of a meltdown there?
They aren’t arguing over the legal definition of election fraud, just the possibility of it. Besides, their sentiments change depending on whether or not their team is the winner. I expect that from anyone who feels compelled to defend their chosen label that intensely.
I don’t mean to speak for Bone, but I think he was being facetious with the “communist” stuff. But you’re playing right into that argument by talking about “wealth inequality,” as though it’s somehow inequitable for some people to be richer than others.
But I, for one, don’t see any problem with large discrepancies in wealth. If there are systemic problems keeping people from climbing the socioeconomic ladder, then those might need to be addressed. But the mere fact that slightly less than 50% of families that began the 90s in poverty managed to get out of poverty by the end of the decade, in and of itself, doesn’t mean that there are problems in the American system that must be corrected.
Show me a casino with an average payout of 109% (like the S&P 500 over the last 50 years), and I’ll show you where I’ll be spending my next few weekends.
So I think that there’s going to be some disagreement on this issue. Especially on a board with a significant minority of people who trend libertarian.
Though my intention is to really find what is (if at all) the common ground. Ok some issues we can “play” with: