Where is the Common Ground?

[Ziggurat]

It would be highly desirable if it were possible.

Everyone thinks it would be highly desirable if everyone else agreed with them.

 

[acbytesla]

Everyone thinks it would be highly desirable if everyone else agreed with them.

I don't and never have. I don't want the whole world making my mistskes or me making theirs. If what you are saying was true, very little would be learned. The art of the dialectic would be lost. Can't you see that?

 

[kellyb]

It isn't merely that you can't find common ground, it's that you mustn't find common ground.

I get absolutely no joy out of my diagnosis of selfish and sadistic rot in the heart of the party's policy elites.

...finding common ground isn't even desirable. So I think my analysis is spot on.

It would be highly desirable if it were possible.

Everyone thinks it would be highly desirable if everyone else agreed with them.

 

[kellyb]

I don't and never have. I don't want the whole world making my mistskes or me making theirs. If what you are saying was true, very little would be learned. The art of the dialectic would be lost. Can't you see that?

When it comes to so much suffering and death in the US, and the policies advocated by the left vs the right, yes, I wish the rightwingers would agree with us that tens of thousands of people in America dying from lack of healthcare yearly (for example) is not okay and agree to go along with literally ANY of the policies which would alleviate it.

Or agree that having the highest level of child poverty in the developed world is not acceptable, and agree with any of the policies which would help alleviate it.

But instead, all we can get is that "Oh, that sucks, but there's no point in dwelling upon it because empathy is overrated and it's too bad there's nothing which can be done, because such is the nature of freedom" crap.

 

[acbytesla]

When it comes to so much suffering and death in the US, and the policies advocated by the left vs the right, yes, I wish the rightwingers would agree with us that tens of thousands of people in America dying from lack of healthcare yearly (for example) is not okay and agree to go along with literally ANY of the policies which would alleviate it.

Or agree that having the highest level of child poverty in the developed world is not acceptable, and agree with any of the policies which would help alleviate it.

But instead, all we can get is that "Oh, that sucks, but there's no point in dwelling upon it because empathy is overrated and it's too bad there's nothing which can be done, because such is the nature of freedom" crap.

Sure, there are many opinions I have where I could hope that I could get agreement. But that isn't what Zig said. He made a blanket statement. I argue with people not necessarily looking to win, but also to learn. It helps me come to and refine my positions. My father use to tell me all the time that what you don't know fills libraries and it does. I learn a lot by talking it out.

I like it when people oppose my positions honestly. Someone who doesn't spin the facts. I despise the dishonest arguer. Unfortunately, I'm seeing more and more of the latter these days.

 

[Mumbles]

Trump is none of those things.

Definitely not going to find any common ground here.

The problem is that the Democrats just declare Trump is a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, bigot, etc. like they do the rest of us, based on nothing, and like they have been doing long before Trump was even a candidate.

Or...maybe you're just extremely poor at recognizing obvious biases and prejudices. Frankly, I'm reminded of those polls during the Jim Crow era where many (most)white people swore that black people had equal opportunities, and quite a few thought that black people had distinct government-based advantages over white people.

Or of Drapetomania (Google it).

The unfortunate truth is the Democrats' single issue for the mid-terms amounts to "You're a racist if you don't vote for us."

I could have sworn dems have been discussing education, health care access, small businesses, better policing, and the like, in addition to Cheeto Benito's obvious bigotry, corruption, and manifest inability to fulfill the most basic duties of the office. What I'm hearing from out-of-state republicans (I'm in Maryland, most of the in-state GOP isn't worth listening to) is mostly "Oh no, it's Nancy Pelosi!" and retreads of Dolt 45's xenophobic rants.

That is, unless they're discussing having sex with students and/or Bigfoot...

Maybe they're discussing local issues, in areas where I don't live and rarely if ever visit. In fact, I'd be sure of it in at least a few cases. But I won't vote for any of those people, so naturally, I wouldn't hear of anything but the most ridiculous cases.

 

[kellyb]

Sure, there are many opinions I have where I could hope that I could get agreement. But that isn't what Zig said. He made a blanket statement. I argue with people not necessarily looking to win, but also to learn. It helps me come to and refine my positions. My father use to tell me all the time that what you don't know fills libraries and it does. I learn a lot by talking it out.

I like it when people oppose my positions honestly. Someone who doesn't spin the facts. I despise the dishonest arguer. Unfortunately, I'm seeing more and more of the latter these days.

I enjoy honest fact-based dialogue and debate enormously, too. It's how I came to hold all of my current positions, after all (I was once a Republican who believed all those things I now see as right wing myths and lies.)

When it comes to certain policy debates, it's not really a legitimate debate any longer, any more than YEC vs natural selection is a legitimate debate.

Except, it's even worse, because smart rightwingers know exactly what the real deal is, and they're simply playing stupid to make what the rest of us see as the problems worse, so they can justify implementation of further overtly social darwinist policies.

They cry crocodile tears over the deficit, but they know this was real in the 80's:

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/19/opinion/in-the-nation-a-deliberate-deficit.html

But, Dr. von Hayek continued, ''You see, one of Reagan's advisers told me why the President has permitted that to happen, which makes the matter partly excusable: Reagan thinks it is impossible to persuade Congress that expenditures must be reduced unless one creates deficits so large that absolutely everyone becomes convinced that no more money can be spent.''

Thus, the economist said, Mr. Reagan ''hopes to persuade Congress of the necessity of spending reductions by means of an immense deficit.

They approve of blowing up the deficit to justify cutting social security and health care further.

It's intentional, and vile.

 

[kellyb]

I could have sworn dems have been discussing education, health care access, small businesses, better policing, and the like, ...

A lot of us do. Obsessively, even.

Part of the problem is that little of the MSM from Fox to Maddow covers that sort of stuff, though.

 

[dann]

Reagan thinks it is impossible to persuade Congress that expenditures must be reduced unless one creates deficits so large that absolutely everyone becomes convinced that no more money can be spent

Of course, it's impossible to even imagine deficits so large that absolutely every Republican becomes convinced that more tax cuts for rich people can't be done.

 

[jimbob]

Of course, it's impossible to even imagine deficits so large that absolutely every Republican becomes convinced that more tax cuts for rich people can't be done.

The Laffer curve is wonderful, isn't it.

Of course the fact that it is pointing out a trivially true thing (100% tax and 0% tax both won't raise much revenue) doesn't absolve it if we're nowhere near the situation where increased taxes reduce revenue.

 

[kellyb]

Of course, it's impossible to even imagine deficits so large that absolutely every Republican becomes convinced that more tax cuts for rich people can't be done.

Tax cuts for the rich (combined with increased military spending) is what caused the deficit increase in Reagan's day as well as today.
Part of their long term deficit scamming (and it is undeniably overt con artistry) is promoting the myth that tax cuts always pay or themselves and INCREASE government revenue.

They also never, ever believe deficits are so large that significant military cuts must be made.

 

[Upchurch]

(Apologies for the re-cross post.)

Strange how indifferent some people are to Obama's lies. Is it that you knew all along that he was lying and just didn't care, because it served the cause? Or is it that you're not one of the people getting screwed right now because of it?

You should mostly ignore what he says, yes. What he does is a different matter, but you don't need to read his tweets to follow that.

It’s funny how much Zig used to really, really care about what presidents said and was far more concerned about empathy. Wonder what changed?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The Laffer curve is wonderful, isn't it.

Of course the fact that it is pointing out a trivially true thing (100% tax and 0% tax both won't raise much revenue) doesn't absolve it if we're nowhere near the situation where increased taxes reduce revenue.

I unironically love the Laffer curve. Because it's a curve, not a slope. It has a peak. And that peak is around a 70% tax rate. Any less and their own numbers show that all the "job creator" talk is counterproductive. It's like that recent Koch study that showed universal healthcare would be a few trillion $ cheaper over time than our current system.

 

[jimbob]

I unironically love the Laffer curve. Because it's a curve, not a slope. It has a peak. And that peak is around a 70% tax rate. Any less and their own numbers show that all the "job creator" talk is counterproductive. It's like that recent Koch study that showed universal healthcare would be a few trillion $ cheaper over time than our current system.

It probably should be a derail to the Economics subforum, but do you have any information about how the figure of 70% was arrived at?

 

[Ziggurat]

Your confusion is my point. You don’t even comprehend the difference.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't and never have. I don't want the whole world making my mistskes or me making theirs. If what you are saying was true, very little would be learned. The art of the dialectic would be lost. Can't you see that?

It’s already been lost. Honestly, are you new here?

 

[kellyb]

It probably should be a derail to the Economics subforum, but do you have any information about how the figure of 70% was arrived at?

There's no consensus on it being 70%, or adjusted for different income brackets, or anything like that.

It's (in its basic form) just based on the intuitive sense (assumption) that no revenue will be generated if the rate is zero (obviously) or if it's 100% (that part's debatable.)

 

[kellyb]

Your confusion is my point. You don’t even comprehend the difference.

I don't understand the difference between desperately wishing to be able to find a common ground on policy with conservatives, and "needing" to not be able to?

Y'all are actually totally reasonable on policy, but we leftwingers have some bizarre psychological need to think you're unwilling to expand or just stop cutting Medicaid, for example?

 

[kellyb]

It’s already been lost. Honestly, are you new here?

Funny how "fringy" Sanders-style leftwingers like me are able to dialogue with Clintonista centrists fairly well, as well as with "never Trump" Republicans.

What do you think is going on there?

 

[jimbob]

Ziggurat, I understand that you are quite a bit to the right of me. But you don't come across as religious, so why is the Trump presidency good for you?

Are you in favour of reducing access to contraception and abortion? That is something that is likely from the Supreme Court, which I seem to understand is one of your considerations.