Re: [OT] Compassionate Conservatism and "moral values"
- From: George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:47:05 GMT
In article <znu-5018C0.02380708112005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article
> <gmgraves-E095E1.13450507112005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In article <znu-091CE5.01460807112005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <2005110622575975249%briantlewis@STOPTHESPAMcincirrcom>,
> > > Brian Lewis <briantlewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2005-11-06 21:25:16 -0500, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <2005110617090616807%briantlewis@STOPTHESPAMcincirrcom>,
> > > > > Brian Lewis <briantlewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> What is your definition of "mainstream"?
> > > > >
> > > > > That tends to be one of those "I know it when I see it" things,
> > > > > though
> > > > > issue polls can help to define things. The mainstream tends to be
> > > > > fairly conservative on most issues -- in the traditional sense
> > > > > there's
> > > > > reasonably satisfaction with the status quo. This puts the mainstream
> > > > > pretty squarely at odds with the current bunch of Republicans, who
> > > > > want
> > > > > fairly radical change in everything from tax policy to social policy
> > > > > to
> > > > > the international order.
> > > >
> > > > Let's go a little further. What would you consider a mainstream view
> > > > of:
> > > >
> > > > 1: Taxes
> > >
> > > People hate taxes, of course, but seem extremely positive about many of
> > > the services they pay for, and mostly seem to understand that, you know,
> > > those things cost money.
> > >
> > > The polls on http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm might helpful.
> > > Polls are always tricky, because your average American doesn't
> > > necessarily have consistent views, but they're unavoidable if you're
> > > trying to gauge public opinion.
> > >
> > > What do we learn? Well, 54% to 39%, Americans think the Bush tax cuts
> > > haven't been worth it, because of increased deficits and program cuts.
> > > On the other hand, 70% to 26%, people don't want to see taxes raised to
> > > cut the deficit; go figure. But there isn't a majority to support
> > > cutting either domestic programs or defense spending in order to do it
> > > either.
> >
> > That's because most Americans realize that the government wastes more
> > money than it spends and that increasing taxes just increases waste.
>
> Uh, I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. If people supported
> cuts to spending, and didn't support raising taxes, you might have a
> point, but this data shows people don't support *either*.
That's because they don't understand enough about the subject to respond
in any meaningful way.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > 51% of Americans think their federal income taxes are too high; 44% say
> > > they're about right. On the other hand, in the same poll, 61% vs. 34%
> > > say their federal income taxes are fair. The *really* interesting thing,
> > > though, is the table breaking out what people think about who should be
> > > paying more or less in federal taxes. I won't go through all the results
> > > here, but the data pretty clearly supports the idea that most Americans
> > > want a somewhat more progressive tax system, and more corporate taxes as
> > > well.
> >
> > They might think that they want more corporate taxes until they see how
> > much everything they buy will go-up in price as a result. This is the
> > problem with polls. They assume that the pollee understands the issues
> > well enough to make an intelligent response when the fact is that most
> > people simply don't have a clue.
>
> That's not really the point. When I say the current batch of Republicans
> are out of touch with the mainstream, all I'm saying is that they're not
> implementing policies that most people currently want.
I agree. They essentially represent a very narrow section of the
populace - the very rich and the corporate sector. They do not represent
mainstream America in any way shape or form. As someone else pointed
out, they got elected simply because the other choices seemed worse.
What Americans have to wake up to is that our form of government has,
within the confines of the Constitution, evolved into a system that
essentially no longer works. The problem with any written document that
proscribes a government, is that the those who frame it are merely men.
They may be very smart men, but they they are still fallible. They
couldn't cover every possible scenario with a written document. And over
the centuries, holes that allow government to morph into what it has
become have been found and exploited. We seriously need a system reset
if we are going to solve any of this nation's problems and we aren't
going to get it.
> Whether people would still want those policies after they saw the
> results is an entirely different subject.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > 2: Lawsuits
> > >
> > > This is a tricky one, because it's a subject about which most people
> > > have no real knowledge on which to base any sort of informed opinion.
> >
> > But this is true of almost anything that a poll would ask. The truth is
> > that most people don't know enough about any of these subjects to
> > respond in an intelligent, measured manner.
>
> I think there's a significant difference between something like this,
> and, say, tax policy. People might not know all the ins and outs of what
> results different tax structures will have, but they're not totally
> clueless. In contrast, the only information most people have about
> litigation issues is that litigation makes some things significantly
> more expensive. The problem with that bit of information is that it's
> mostly wrong.
>
> > > Polls on http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm show that more people
> > > than not seem to favor caps on lawsuit awards, but the Republicans have
> > > been extremely effective at convincing people that large awards
> > > represent a major cost to consumers, which is objectively not the case.
> > > If people were more aware of the actual facts, I suspect they wouldn't
> > > see a problem with the present system.
> >
> > That's where you're wrong. Our system of litigation costs us a lot and
> > more than just money. There are things Americans just can't do because
> > of the current litigation laws. Just a for-instance, and something that
> > I know about. In Europe its possible to pay a small fee and go driving
> > on one of Europe's many automobile race tracks. Pay 15 Euros/lap and you
> > can drive your car on the famous 14-mile Nurburgring. In England they
> > have track days all the time at various tracks and all are welcome to
> > participate. Here in the US, you can't get on a race track unless you
> > are part of some legally sanctioned group, and then, mostly for legal
> > protection/insurance reasons, the tracks charge thousands of dollars a
> > day. So access to race tracks is something Americans who like to drive
> > fast don't have casual access to, and its our litigious laws that
> > prevents it. I'm sure that there are other activities that we Americans
> > can't do for similar reasons.
>
> Can't you just solve these problems with liability waivers?
That's the point. Liability waivers under this country's system of civil
law mean nothing. You can sign one, get in a bad accident, and STILL sue
and have a good chance of winning because under our system, anybody can
sue anybody else for anything they want. Under Napoleonic law, as
practiced in Europe, once you sign a liability waiver, that's it.
Whatever happens after that doesn't matter. You signed the document and
you and your family and heirs gave-up your right to sue.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > 4: Health care
> > >
> > > http://www.pollingreport.com/health2.htm
> > >
> > > People generally seem dissatisfied with both the cost and quality of
> > > health care in this country.
> > >
> > > 69% to 28%, they say it should be legal to import drugs from Canada, so
> > > they seem to disagree with the Republicans there. 79% to 17% they say
> > > that providing health coverage for all Americans is more important than
> > > holding down taxes, another strike for the current Republican
> > > leadership. 62% to 33%, people say they would support a universal health
> > > care system, which seems to put them slightly to the left of most
> > > *Democrats*.
> >
> > As I said, above, most people don't have enough information to make an
> > intelligent decision on this issue. Also, the answer one is likely to
> > get depends on how the question is asked (and therefore revealing the
> > "political bias" of the pollsters) and the results are therefore,
> > essentially, worthless.
>
> You can go take a look at how the question was asked. I'm not seeing any
> particular bias.
>
> I think we disagree considerably about the value of the opinions of
> regular people. See, I actually believe in the whole democracy thing. In
> the absence of totally one-sided misinformation, people generally tend
> to make pretty good choices.
I believe in democracy too. The difference between you and me is that I
can see that this one is broken and it doesn't really work any more.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: New User w/G4
- Next by Date: Re: Mac takes bite out of Windows
- Previous by thread: Re: [OT] Compassionate Conservatism and "moral values"
- Next by thread: Re: [OT] Compassionate Conservatism and "moral values"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
