Hidden Common Ground: The Economy - Bridging the Gap (1 Viewer)

[wardorican]

Courtesy of my hotel USA Today. I couldn't find it online, so excuse the photos.

I think it shows some strong common ground. Even in areas of divide, there is still significant support.

The part about min wage is interesting. Some republicans want it increased, they just differ on how much. One firefighter said he supported the $15/hr. So, there are spots to negotiate. But I would start with the common ground areas.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Uploading pictures of a newspaper article seems like a performance art piece

 

[Port City JJ]

cool story bro!!!

 

[Infoman]

There is plenty of common ground on both sides of the divide... not just on economic issues either.

The problem is... what we have in common is never focused on by political candidates or campaigns seeking election...

What we have in common does not induce fear, division, anxiety, or the emotional response necessary to farm large blocks of votes.

Our collective differences, insecurities, and lack of facts does... so that's what we get.

Love the topic though... would love to see more of this mass produced and circulated in the media and social media so that people can eventually realize... we all have way more in common than we are lead to believe by the people screaming the loudest.

Thanks.

 

[wardorican]

Uploading pictures of a newspaper article seems like a performance art piece

I'm currently sitting in a very good arts university. Haha.

 

[JimEverett]

I think most of us have more in common than we think. But at the same time - these things in US Today seem incredibly broad and generalized.

Upgrade public infrastructure?? First of all - I cannot believe that did not garner 100% support across the board. But it is the details where disagreements will form. How do you pay for it? Environmental concerns, project emphasis, etc. are all places people will disagree.

I think with the way the country is divided now it is interesting that there are few calls for stronger and more robust federalism.

 

[zztop]

What we have in common does not induce fear, division, anxiety, or the emotional response necessary to farm large blocks of votes.

many years ago a comedian went around asking people what they thought about affordable healthcare (ACA) and most were like "oh? I'm all in favor of more affordable healthcare! sounds like a great idea!' then he asked the same people what they thought about Obamacare and many of the same people were negative about it, and didn't want anything to do with it. A lot of the (R) strategy has been spreading FUD, they did that for the 8 years he as in office and basically tainting the whole thing as soon as it was signed. The whole political system is broken, between fearmongering, special interest groups, big corp lobbyists, voter suppression, gerrymandering etc.

 

[JimEverett]

many years ago a comedian went around asking people what they thought about affordable healthcare (ACA) and most were like "oh? I'm all in favor of more affordable healthcare! sounds like a great idea!' then he asked the same people what they thought about Obamacare and many of the same people were negative about it, and didn't want anything to do with it. A lot of the (R) strategy has been spreading FUD, they did that for the 8 years he as in office and basically tainting the whole thing as soon as it was signed. The whole political system is broken, between fearmongering, special interest groups, big corp lobbyists, voter suppression, gerrymandering etc.

More affordable healthcare does not equal Obamacare.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I think most of us have more in common than we think. But at the same time - these things in US Today seem incredibly broad and generalized.

Upgrade public infrastructure?? First of all - I cannot believe that did not garner 100% support across the board. But it is the details where disagreements will form. How do you pay for it? Environmental concerns, project emphasis, etc. are all places people will disagree.

I think with the way the country is divided now it is interesting that there are few calls for stronger and more robust federalism.

I would say that people find differences when it is convenient to do so - to accomplish an end
I would add that the ‘how are we going to pay for it’ is a tool to drive a wedge into a convenient difference
It’s the ‘ perfect being the enemy of the good’ tactic:
Yes, in theory, everyone should have equal access to housing/education, BUT...
Yes, in theory, women should have the same pay, BUT...
Set long term goals (20+ years) for equitable infrastructure, education, housing, justice, et al and work backwards from there

 

[JimEverett]

I would say that people find differences when it is convenient to do so - to accomplish an end
I would add that the ‘how are we going to pay for it’ is a tool to drive a wedge into a convenient difference
It’s the ‘ perfect being the enemy of the good’ tactic:
Yes, in theory, everyone should have equal access to housing/education, BUT...
Yes, in theory, women should have the same pay, BUT...
Set long term goals (20+ years) for equitable infrastructure, education, housing, justice, et al and work backwards from there

I don't think it is a convenient way to accomplish an end.
A person whose taxes would be raised to support infrastructure might want more infrastructure but at the same time realize how much of a personal hit he will take and therefore be opposed. At the same time he might be for cutting, say, the military budget to pay for it, which will then be opposed by someone who thinks a strong defense is more important than infrastructure improvements, etc., etc.
At the same time, I might agree that a certain type of leader can mask certain differences at that level and get people to buy into the big picture - but that is easy to say and hard to accomplish.
On a personal level, most people want "more" of one thing or another but when it comes time to sacrifice and/or make it happen the particulars of getting there mean many won't do it.

 

[Infoman]

many years ago a comedian went around asking people what they thought about affordable healthcare (ACA) and most were like "oh? I'm all in favor of more affordable healthcare! sounds like a great idea!' then he asked the same people what they thought about Obamacare and many of the same people were negative about it, and didn't want anything to do with it. A lot of the (R) strategy has been spreading FUD, they did that for the 8 years he as in office and basically tainting the whole thing as soon as it was signed. The whole political system is broken, between fearmongering, special interest groups, big corp lobbyists, voter suppression, gerrymandering etc.

That was on Howard Stern's show I think... I remember that... The question was... what did they rather... The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare?.... Which are the same thing.... the responses were hilarious.... and depressing all at once.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

That was on Howard Stern's show I think... I remember that... The question was... what did they rather... The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare?.... Which are the same thing.... the responses were hilarious.... and depressing all at once.

Yes, it goes straight down the board for most bills as well, which is why politicians spend so much time on branding of bills.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think with the way the country is divided now it is interesting that there are few calls for stronger and more robust federalism.

I actually started floating that idea a bit on the old board. You'd lose some economies of scale, but it would align with what the founders were thinking with the state model - each state could try things a different way and if it was obviously successful other states would adopt, and people could move to states where things worked the way they'd want it to.

 

[CoolBrees]

I think how influential state and local government is in our lives gets blurred because we are surrounded by it every day. It is everywhere and a lot of the community itself. Schools, libraries, community centers, social services, DHS, and almost all of the roads, utilities, zoning, etc etc. all heavily governmentally involved at least, if not an actual entity itself.

But if you are talking about complete separate states with trade agreements, etc. then tax pools would get pulled out too, and that isn’t a great deal for most. Most states would be so freaking broke If they couldn’t lean on California like we do.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I don't think it is a convenient way to accomplish an end.
A person whose taxes would be raised to support infrastructure might want more infrastructure but at the same time realize how much of a personal hit he will take and therefore be opposed. At the same time he might be for cutting, say, the military budget to pay for it, which will then be opposed by someone who thinks a strong defense is more important than infrastructure improvements, etc., etc.
At the same time, I might agree that a certain type of leader can mask certain differences at that level and get people to buy into the big picture - but that is easy to say and hard to accomplish.
On a personal level, most people want "more" of one thing or another but when it comes time to sacrifice and/or make it happen the particulars of getting there mean many won't do it.

imo, the line item tax argument is another of those ‘convenient’ ones - it is NEVER applied with any sort of equal or fair or general or public manner
Again, apply the long range goal - even In Reagan’s Cold War fever dream, no citizen would line item the ability to destroy the world 20x over
Set the long term strategy and work backwards

 

[zztop]

More affordable healthcare does not equal Obamacare.

ACA is the same thing as Obamacare, but you already knew that. Anyways, I think ACA is a failure due to Obama trying to bridge the divide and appease republicans. Instead of how it was originally planned (even then it seemed pretty behind the rest of the developed world) and right after it got signed, what do republicans do? Wage a 7 year campaign to tarnish the word obamacare into something vile, rake Obama over the coals every chance they got, constantly complain how they could do it better (and here we are a decade plus later they still never came up with a better alternative). And so, when presented with two identical things, people disliked obamacare based on just the name alone, while ignorant that ACA was the same thing. Care to comment on any of that instead?

 

[zztop]

That was on Howard Stern's show I think... I remember that... The question was... what did they rather... The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare?.... Which are the same thing.... the responses were hilarious.... and depressing all at once.

Theres bias everywhere. I wish some people were more informed. Some people complain about their taxes going to people on welfare and they should not be having 6 kids and spending it on alcohol or w/e don't bat an eye when trump and co. gave farmers 28+ billion due to some stupid trade war with china

 

[JimEverett]

ACA is the same thing as Obamacare, but you already knew that. Anyways, I think ACA is a failure due to Obama trying to bridge the divide and appease republicans. Instead of how it was originally planned (even then it seemed pretty behind the rest of the developed world) and right after it got signed, what do republicans do? Wage a 7 year campaign to tarnish the word obamacare into something vile, rake Obama over the coals every chance they got, constantly complain how they could do it better (and here we are a decade plus later they still never came up with a better alternative). And so, when presented with two identical things, people disliked obamacare based on just the name alone, while ignorant that ACA was the same thing. Care to comment on any of that instead?

I may have misinterpreted what you were writing. You wrote "affordable healthcare (ACA)" and I thought you were equating the two I am now taking you mean Affordable Healthcare Act - and if so, then I did misinterpret it, so I misunderstood if that was the case.
IMO, what Obama was trying to do was very difficult (of course) and I think the problem was that the focus was too much on maximizing coverage as opposed to controlling costs. Its a similar problem I have with any sort of single payer proposal. It seems to me that you need to find a way to cut costs (apart from the supposed savings of efficiency from having one payer, which would help to some degree) before, or as, you add tens of millions of people to coverage that are mostly unable to pay for that coverage either through premiums or taxes.