Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

Byron · 2004-02-20 14:39:04

So kids, what's the moderate position on space exploration?

Umm, maybe pursuing a space program in which we don't do things we've already done, like going back to the Moon. That sort of thing...

B

clark · 2004-02-20 15:03:58

Hmmm, and here I was thinking that the moderate view would be to pursue space exploration in a systematic way that provides greater opportunity as it progresses.

Notice that this view isn't set upon a destination, or a specific way of pursuing space exploration. It leaves open either pursuit of manned or unmanned exploration.

It's about results. Who cares if it's the Moon or Mars or the moons of Jupiter, or even if it's flesh and blood or cold uncaring machines?

My take on it, just my opinion, is that moderates, or moderation, implies a general ambivilence to an issue or string of issues. "I don't care if you swear to god, or you don't. Just as long as we each get a choice in the matter." Isn't that moderation?

I don't care if we go to the moon or mars, just as long as we're going somewhere.

Palomar · 2004-02-20 15:13:10

Umm, maybe pursuing a space program in which we don't do things we've already done, like going back to the Moon. That sort of thing...
B

*Go Byron, Go Byron! :laugh:

I was only speaking of Moderate as -politics- go. I believe I've already stated my thoughts therein, extensively yet concisely.

Most anything else? HOLD ON, BABY!!!

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-20 16:23:33

Ah, Byron. Clinton was not as good, nor is Bush as bad as you describe. Each had their strengths and their collossal failings. To enumerate them all would take days. The real problem is deeper, but that is a conversation for another time...

Good link, Bill. :laugh: "I'm putting that message on my yacht and taking it all the way across America."

What, politically speaking, is a "moderate?" Well, it seems reasonable that it would be a "middle" position between two extremes. Okay, if we assume the Republican and Democratic parties are the "poles" than what is a moderate?

Well, what are the two parties? One, the Democrat Party, isn't really a party in the proper sense at all, when you really get down to it. It's a collection of various interest groups aligned together in common cause against the other "extreme," in this case the Republican Party, which is on it's way to becoming a fractured mess itself. So, is a moderate anyone who doesn't align themselves with either "party?" Well, no. There are many people with very strong convictions who reject both parties, myself among them. I've been called many things, but never "moderate."

The whole model is flawed due to over-simplification. We place too much currency in the labels we create. The label does not define the subject.

A quick review of the thread brings up Prometheus' quote:

If the national partys always pushed ideology to the forefront, there would be a whole lotta more partys to support the broad range of public opinion.

Precisely. if every political force had its own proper Party we would have dozens of Parties to choose from. In some countries it is done this way, but we have grown accustomed to our two-party system, whatever those two parties may be.

Okay, my point. The political landscape has inexorably been moving Left for more than a century. We may be witnessing a "lurch" that way right now as the Republicn party steals traditionally Democrat issues, thus taking some of their more "moderate" voters. We could very well see the demise of the Democrat Party within the next decade, though it's principles would live on in the newly diluted Republican Party. Conservatives would be forced to migrate elsewhere, just as some "moderate" to conservative Democrats are venturing off the Democrat Party plantation with greater frequency. They haven't changed, but the political landscape around them has. This has happened before, it's a normal part of American politics over the long-term. Ever voted Federalist? Today's moderate is yesterday's commie symp.

What this will mean is hard to say. Some days I think we are about to plummet off the craggy cliffs of socialism onto the jagged rocks below. Other days I think we're on the verge of turning this country around and being better for the experience. Only time will tell. Maybe the Libertarians or some similarly conservative, self-reliant, Constitutionally minded party will fill the vacuum. Maybe we'll just have two leftist parties, one socialist and one flaming commie. Either way, I'm never gonna see that Social Security money again.

clark · 2004-02-20 16:38:00

.

The whole model is flawed due to over-simplification. We place too much currency in the labels we create. The label does not define the subject.

As Ginsberg would say, "Language! Language! Language!" Then something about MacNamera, the Senate, and a long tangent on cock and balls and the fairy boys of Kansas.

I still think moderates are those who just don't care enough about the issue to take a solidified stance. Extremeists, of any derivation, of any label, do care about their particular issue, and their is little room for compromise.

I'm an extremist when it comes to the death penalty, I don't believe there is room for comprimise on the issue. But I'm pretty moderate towards religion, becuase I simply don't care what you believe in.

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-20 16:50:47

I'm an extremist when it comes to the death penalty, I don't believe there is room for comprimise on the issue.

All you damn not-killin'-people extremists!

Nah, I'll leave this one alone.

Byron · 2004-02-20 17:31:41

Either way, I'm never gonna see that Social Security money again.

Yeah, I hear ya on that one...lol.

The way both political parties are spending our money these days, there won't be much of anything left by the time the Boomers start collecting their checks...let alone people around my age.

B

clark · 2004-02-20 18:19:45

Tell ya what Cobra, I'll support your personal view of world conquest if you can do it without killing anyone.

Earthfirst · 2004-02-20 18:23:53

I hate liberial degenerates, I am not conseritive but more of a right footed conserve, why does ever one have to belong to a party or wing? I am proud to be the last member of the Bullmouse party in america!

Alt2War · 2004-02-20 18:52:17

Either way, I'm never gonna see that Social Security money again.
Yeah, I hear ya on that one...lol.
The way both political parties are spending our money these days, there won't be much of anything left by the time the Boomers start collecting their checks...let alone people around my age.
B

I dont think you understand how social security works.

It is not you putting money away for your future. it is quite simply the yough paying for the old to survive. It is implied that when you turn old, the young will do the same for you.

It's not an investment plan. That money is spent as soon as it's paid. (actuially, we have been for a decade now paying an extra 2% on top of cost and saving it up for the day when Baby Boomers retire. So there is a growing surplus.)

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-20 21:44:17

Tell ya what Cobra, I'll support your personal view of world conquest if you can do it without killing anyone.

Oh, there are ways. It's more expensive, but there are ways.

Earthfirst · 2004-02-20 22:23:05

Bunch of liberials, I hope in the name of lord that you come to your sense and join the Bull Mouse party. As the founder of noebullmouseism I would like every one to join my party.
I could become leader of the people of north dakota.
Then you will tremble at my feet!

Byron · 2004-02-21 05:51:09

You're right...it's not an investment plan...it's a Ponzi scheme. (If you don't know what that is, Google it).

As for the extra 2% we've been paying since 1983...yeah, that money's been spent too...if you think there's a surplus, you're dreaming...it's being used to pay for things like...um, like Iraq, etc.

What happens when there's a whole bunch of people (Boomers) retired and drawing heavily upon the workers paying the taxes...what if the workers get tired of paying and vote in a no-tax government, or worse yet, simply quit working as they can't make enough to pay the bills and taxes, etc? This is otherwise known as an economic depression, and I honestly feel we're going to have one within 20 years. Then what's the government going to do about paying Social Security benefits when there's no new money coming in...?

No, it would not be a good idea for *anyone* under 40 to ever count on getting a dime from the U.S. government....

B

Josh Cryer · 2004-02-22 18:14:52

Either way, you're all a bunch of statists!

Palomar · 2004-02-22 19:30:06

Either way, you're all a bunch of statists!

*Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me....Nyaaaa!

Seriously, though, Josh: My view of being a Moderate is that of keeping an open mind; you know, not just paying lip service to the -concept- of open-mindedness...*ahem*...

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2004-02-22 21:11:54

That's my way of avoiding the discussion 'cuz I don't have the energy for politics lately. :;):

But I do certainly see where you're coming from. To see both sides of the coin, read FreeRepublic.com and DemocraticUnderground.com, it's rather striking.

Bill White · 2004-02-23 00:10:57

That's my way of avoiding the discussion 'cuz I don't have the energy for politics lately. :;):
But I do certainly see where you're coming from. To see both sides of the coin, read FreeRepublic.com and DemocraticUnderground.com, it's rather striking.

Freepers, creepers, those guys give me the jeepers. . .

Alt2War · 2004-02-24 11:21:57

You're right...it's not an investment plan...it's a Ponzi scheme. (If you don't know what that is, Google it).
As for the extra 2% we've been paying since 1983...yeah, that money's been spent too...if you think there's a surplus, you're dreaming...it's being used to pay for things like...um, like Iraq, etc.
What happens when there's a whole bunch of people (Boomers) retired and drawing heavily upon the workers paying the taxes...what if the workers get tired of paying and vote in a no-tax government, or worse yet, simply quit working as they can't make enough to pay the bills and taxes, etc? This is otherwise known as an economic depression, and I honestly feel we're going to have one within 20 years. Then what's the government going to do about paying Social Security benefits when there's no new money coming in...?
No, it would not be a good idea for *anyone* under 40 to ever count on getting a dime from the U.S. government....
B

I believe the surplus was put back into US Bonds.

Should the US decide to start defaulting on it's bonds, the fall of western civilization would begin.

A culture will be judged by the by how well it takes care of its children and elderly.

To cut Social Security would put gobs and gobs of old people out on the street.

Considering the Baby boomers are the most reliable votes, and the most populus demographic, I dont see them voting themselves out of a check any time soon.

I dont see children voting to put grandma out on the street either.

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-24 13:02:14

I believe the surplus was put back into US Bonds.

Actually, it was used to pay other government expenses, as has always been done. The federal government would not be able to function as the monstrosity it has become without plundering social security. The so-called surplus was always a figment of accounting.

A culture will be judged by the by how well it takes care of its children and elderly.

You know, Nazis took very good care of their children and most of their elderly.

To cut Social Security would put gobs and gobs of old people out on the street.
Considering the Baby boomers are the most reliable votes, and the most populus demographic, I dont see them voting themselves out of a check any time soon.
I dont see children voting to put grandma out on the street either.

Unfortunately the proram cannot continue, all we can do is minimize the damage when it breaks. As a nation we have a choice: Do we suffer withdrawal, are do we stay on the drugs 'til we're dead. We can fix this, but it won't be comfortable.

Alt2War · 2004-02-24 14:05:58

I believe the surplus was put back into US Bonds.
Actually, it was used to pay other government expenses, as has always been done. The federal government would not be able to function as the monstrosity it has become without plundering social security. The so-called surplus was always a figment of accounting.
A culture will be judged by the by how well it takes care of its children and elderly.
You know, Nazis took very good care of their children and most of their elderly.
To cut Social Security would put gobs and gobs of old people out on the street.
Considering the Baby boomers are the most reliable votes, and the most populus demographic, I dont see them voting themselves out of a check any time soon.
I dont see children voting to put grandma out on the street either.
Unfortunately the proram cannot continue, all we can do is minimize the damage when it breaks. As a nation we have a choice: Do we suffer withdrawal, are do we stay on the drugs 'til we're dead. We can fix this, but it won't be comfortable.

I would love to hear how you would fix SS.

As it has been established that this is somthing akin to a Ponzi scheme, and not an investment plan, to "privatize" social security would require a large increase in taxation, or a cut in services.

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-24 15:06:29

I would love to hear how you would fix SS.

That's loaded, considering the political complexities. But assuming dictatorial powers:

I'd start by re-ordering it along the lines of Chile's system, wherein workers can opt out of the government system. They then can have a percentage of pay deducted and placed in an IRA managed privately.

Further, offer a "buy out" for anyone within 5 years of eligability who wants to forego their SS benefits in exchange for a single lump-sum payment (much less then total accrued pay in) which they could immediately drop into the privatized system or invest independently. Otherwise they can collect benefits. many well-off seniors will likely choose this option, thus reducing recipients.

Those currently recieving benefits, plus the reduced number of new recipients continue to get them, funded by cuts in other agencies. IRS, DofE, DofA, HHS among others and a generally more profitable management style. For example, the Forestry Service could generate billions, but it loses millions through bad policy.

When the last of the current recipients is, well, dead, so is the old Social Security program.

So we can maintain the benefits for those who need them without raising taxes. It might be a headache for some people, but overall it has potential. Needs some details filled in, but you get the idea.

But assuming dictatorial powers, I'd dump the federal Reserve as well, reintroducing gold-backed currency to stabilise inflation, which would help some right there. Until we start mining those asteroids, anyway :;):

Alt2War · 2004-02-24 20:10:57

I would love to hear how you would fix SS.
That's loaded, considering the political complexities. But assuming dictatorial powers:
I'd start by re-ordering it along the lines of Chile's system, wherein workers can opt out of the government system. They then can have a percentage of pay deducted and placed in an IRA managed privately.
Further, offer a "buy out" for anyone within 5 years of eligability who wants to forego their SS benefits in exchange for a single lump-sum payment (much less then total accrued pay in) which they could immediately drop into the privatized system or invest independently. Otherwise they can collect benefits. many well-off seniors will likely choose this option, thus reducing recipients.
Those currently recieving benefits, plus the reduced number of new recipients continue to get them, funded by cuts in other agencies. IRS, DofE, DofA, HHS among others and a generally more profitable management style. For example, the Forestry Service could generate billions, but it loses millions through bad policy.
When the last of the current recipients is, well, dead, so is the old Social Security program.
So we can maintain the benefits for those who need them without raising taxes. It might be a headache for some people, but overall it has potential. Needs some details filled in, but you get the idea.
But assuming dictatorial powers, I'd dump the federal Reserve as well, reintroducing gold-backed currency to stabilise inflation, which would help some right there. Until we start mining those asteroids, anyway :;):

I'd start by re-ordering it along the lines of Chile's system, wherein workers can opt out of the government system. They then can have a percentage of pay deducted and placed in an IRA managed privately.

Boom, 35% of the workforce opts out. Those recieving benefits have no choice but remain in the system.

Those benefits must either be cut by 35% (sending old folks out on the street) or medicare tax must be increased for those who remain in to compensate (which cause more to drop out, on and on)

Further, offer a "buy out" for anyone within 5 years of eligability who wants to forego their SS benefits in exchange for a single lump-sum payment (much less then total accrued pay in) which they could immediately drop into the privatized system or invest independently. Otherwise they can collect benefits. many well-off seniors will likely choose this option, thus reducing recipients.

but Social Security is not a savings account people can just withdraw money from. It's young people paying for old people to survive. There is no savings account to pull money out of.

It is easier to think of as a ponzi scheme.

Those currently recieving benefits, plus the reduced number of new recipients continue to get them, funded by cuts in other agencies. IRS, DofE, DofA, HHS among others and a generally more profitable management style. For example, the Forestry Service could generate billions, but it loses millions through bad policy.

I dont have the numbers in front of me, but as I recall you could entirely cut out every non-military/law inforcement Federal government agency out of existance and still not pay the Social Security tab.

There are only 2 ways out of Social Security, 1: Putting old ladies out on the street to die or 2: Increasing taxes dramaticly to pull off some sort of phase out plan.

Byron · 2004-02-25 05:55:19

There are only 2 ways out of Social Security, 1: Putting old ladies out on the street to die or 2: Increasing taxes dramaticly to pull off some sort of phase out plan.

Americans simply *will not* accept either option. It just won't happen. It won't happen in 10 years, it won't happen in a hundred.

Anyone have any ideas where America might get the extra $$??

The question in my mind, do I buy that one-way ticket on Air New Zealand sooner, or later...?

B

Byron · 2004-02-25 15:15:34

For more info, check this out...[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4371103/]Greenspan advocate cuts

But for this to work, we'd have to figure this out *soon*, before it's too late...

B

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-25 16:12:44

Boom, 35% of the workforce opts out. Those recieving benefits have no choice but remain in the system.
Those benefits must either be cut by 35% (sending old folks out on the street) or medicare tax must be increased for those who remain in to compensate (which cause more to drop out, on and on)

Only if you assume all other federal spending is static. There are literally billions of dollars that could be freed up with little or no adverse effect. In many ways such reductions would be a blessing themselves. It can be done as part of an overall plan to reduce the size of the federal government. Social Security cannot be saved, but it can be mercifully put down without 75% tax rates or streets littered with corpses.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-02-20 14:39:04

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#27 2004-02-20 15:03:58

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#28 2004-02-20 15:13:10

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#29 2004-02-20 16:23:33

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#30 2004-02-20 16:38:00

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#31 2004-02-20 16:50:47

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#32 2004-02-20 17:31:41

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#33 2004-02-20 18:19:45

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#34 2004-02-20 18:23:53

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#35 2004-02-20 18:52:17

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#36 2004-02-20 21:44:17

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#37 2004-02-20 22:23:05

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#38 2004-02-21 05:51:09

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#39 2004-02-22 18:14:52

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#40 2004-02-22 19:30:06

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#41 2004-02-22 21:11:54

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#42 2004-02-23 00:10:57

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#43 2004-02-24 11:21:57

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#44 2004-02-24 13:02:14

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#45 2004-02-24 14:05:58

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#46 2004-02-24 15:06:29

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#47 2004-02-24 20:10:57

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#48 2004-02-25 05:55:19

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#49 2004-02-25 15:15:34

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#50 2004-02-25 16:12:44

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

Board footer