[Pseudonym]

The_Doctor wrote:

They complain because social security does not have to change. It's a pay as you go system. The only thing we need to do is NOT TO TAKE MONEY FROM SOCIAL SECURITY! Also 15 years ago we had a surplus because Regan raised payroll taxes.

While I completely agree that politicians should not have and should not continue to raid from the Social Security fund, demographic shifts are going to make the system more and more difficult to maintain. People are living longer. The ratio of working age population to retired population is shifting. Increasing the retirement age and payroll taxes can take care of some of these shifts, but many projections hold that expenditures are going to vastly exceed receipts in the next couple decades. My personal preference would be to completely get rid of the system (with some reasonable transition period). Something will need to be done.

[Murray_Smith]

BartSimpson wrote:

Some of us who are actually conservatives see the Republican Party as having been co-opted by 'neo-cons' (as in, not really conservatives) who dragged the GOP to the left in an attempt to appear nice and moderate. That's because they can't handle the name calling from the Democrats who moved even further to the left when the GOP moved to the left.

The irony is that, from what I remember, liberals hated neo-cons with a frothy-mouthed passion.

Quote:

But I am totally opposed to affirmative action.

Food for thought: We forced the Iraqi Parliament to have at least 25% of the seats filled by womerns. While they have done so, only 17% of our own legislature are womerns.

Quote:

I support a flat tax without deductions or loopholes for anyone who can afford a good tax lawyer. Make the income tax 20% if you want, but apply it to everyone. Even if they're poor they'll have a sense of ownership in the country if they pay their way.

I say we have a federal sales tax and repeal the 16th Amendment.

Quote:

And anyone who pays no taxes at all should not have the right to vote taxes upon those who do.

The only possible solutions to that involve some abridgment of rights.
The first would be to disallow those who paid zero taxes from voting, which keeps them from voting on non-tax-related issues, which obviously abridges their right to vote. The second would be to make sure they don't vote on any tax-related issues, which compromises the secret ballot. The third solution, poll taxes, were used to disenfranchise black voters before the 24th Amendment made them (poll taxes, not black voters) illegal.

Quote:

Now good luck classifying me.

http://www.cogsdev.org/w/images/d/d3/Nochian_notopher.gif

[Psudo]

Murray_Smith wrote:

Teikiatsu wrote:

It'd be like me walking up to you with a chainsaw and we have the following conversation:

Me: I want to chop off your leg.
You: Please don't
Me: You are so argumentative, fine. Just your foot.
You: No, I like my foot.
Me: Obstructionist!

There is a compromise here, depending on the situation. The real argument here is whether the foot needs to be removed. I'd rather keep my leg, but not if it's utterly crushed under something, or gangrenous. If only my foot is gangrenous/bitten by a zombie, I'd argue to remove only my foot before the infection spread. In those cases, a chainsaw would be a messy but practical choice. So I would be an obstructionist in your case, Q.E.D.

Dr. Greg House disagrees; he preserved his leg at risk to his own life and in the face of chronic, unendurable pain. Some things should not be compromised.

Compromise should be both sides getting mostly what they want. It is not one side getting what they want and the other side getting what the first side thinks they need. That's imposition or paternalism, not compromise.

The ideal is the win-win scenario, where both sides get exactly what they want. Even then you might get opposition from the radicals on both sides who want the other side to lose more than their own side to win.

Zipperfish wrote:

Pseudonym wrote:

One thing I have never really understood - what is a center position, and who gets to define it. Could I have an example?

I would argue that the centre position would be the point where 50% of the population is to the left and 50% to the right.

I don't think you can measure it that way, since many people don't have an opinion at all or change their minds under the slightest persuasion. It would only work if you were polling major headline issues that had been repeated in the news for weeks, and then you'd still be measuring the skill of the two sides' publicists more than public sentiment.

Zipperfish wrote:

Also, it would be a moving target since the nation naturally undergoes sways from to the left and right and certain high-consequence events (like 9/11) cause sudden shifts in the popular psyche.

Gradual changes would move the center, too.

Given how easily this "center" moves and sways, often in disregard or defiance of proven evidence and reasonable arguments, why care where it is? Being in the center doesn't make it the right thing to do. Being in the center doesn't even make it possible. So what exactly is the inherent value of being in the center?