Should Democrats and Republicans Compromise With Each Other?

[Not2BSubjugated]

If the US government would negotiate the cost of healthcare it would lower the cost of healthcare for everybody, individuals and business. It would not be any cost to you as a matter of fact your wallet would get thicker. So lets see,,two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending. Lowering healthcare costs gives the consumer more money to spend. Business would benefit because they just received a very significant cost of doing business reduction (the cost of their employees benefits), thusly putting more money in their coffers. This helps US business compete internationally and create more jobs at home.
And your problem with this is,,,,?

Maybe I don't feel like I share the responsibility to help businesses pay for their employees' benefits.

And you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your economic assessment at face value. As I said before, I won't argue the economics of healthcare with you, but I will say that there's enough different contradicting opinions by people with actual credentials to put my chances of believing a random guy on USMB has it all worked out and can explain this complex problem's solution in a paragraph or two well outside of betting range.

OK,,,,try these links, they all paint a pretty consistent picture.

U.S. Health Care Spending In An International Context

List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France - The Washington Post

We can go make a main topic post and I'm sure I can get plenty of Republican types and plenty of Libertarian types to drop all sorts of links to experts on their side of the issue with their own analysis of the causality of the health care situation as it stands, as well as their own take on what the "obvious" solutions are. Then you could probably drop some links to articles where experts who support your ideals make some pretty persuasive arguments on why the experts who disagree are bought and paid for, or aren't real experts, or are easily marginalized for whatever reason. Then we could make another topic where the Republicans and then the Libertarians link their own experts making their own persuasive arguments on why your experts are bought and paid for, or aren't real experts, or are easily marginalized for this reason or that. . .

See the pattern emerging, here? Does it smell like the global warming argument, yet? Or the supply-side-demand-side argument, yet?

Sadly, it probably doesn't. One thing most people seem to have in common is that they're utterly convinced that their experts are the right experts, and as much as I'd be willing to bet that you're far from certain of that, I'd also be willing to bet that you'll claim to be -quite- sure.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Public funding would be a horrible way to do it. You'd end up having to make an ugly choice:

1. Let any crazy who wants to run have that funding and force taxpayers to pay for a lot of whack jobs to pretend they have half a clue or any chance at swaying anyone to vote for their psychotic BS

2. Implement some sort of bureaucratic body to decide who is and who isn't a serious candidate. If you can't imagine what the potential problems would be with either political party getting hold of -that- control panel, then I'm not sure what sort of reasoning led you to believe campaign finance reform is a necessity in the first place.

So that's the choice it boils down to if you publicly fund elections. Either blast exorbitant amounts of the government's budget on a whole lot of stupid, or accept the eventuality that we'll go from a 2 party to a 1 party system. No thanks.

No, not at all. You simply require anyone who wants to run, to obtain "X" number of signatures and that weeds out the whackjobs. We already have states that use clean elections. We just need to look at it again, with an open mind and see if we can improve what's in place.
Or we can enjoy the perfect system we have...

The "or" part is my main problem with this post. This is not an either or situation. If we don't go to purely public funded elections, we don't absolutely have to keep everything the same as it is now. I agree that the campaign funding system's dicked up as it stands, I'm just not sure that full-on government override is what's necessary, or that it wouldn't hinder the electoral process more than it helped.

The problem I have with the signature idea is this new tactic that the major parties are employing for public initiative measures, where you flood the petitioners with frauds signing fake names and get the samplers to declare that too high a percentage of the signatures are [probably] fake to validate said measure. The best part about this method is that it's all under-the-table. That means you don't have to use "official" campaign funds to pay asswipes to do it. That's the nice thing about basing the legitimacy of the campaign on campaign donations: Monopoly money lends no credence to someone buying ad time.

If you ask me, it would -seem- (I haven't examined this issue nearly thoroughly enough to think that I've got it figured out from all angles, mind you. Pointing out problems with proposed solutions is, sadly, easier than coming up with the correct solution) that a cleaner fix would be getting rid of the corporate personhood bullshit, for one. Easy rule to implement: If you can't vote in said election, you can't donate in said election. General Electric doesn't get a ballot. . . no GE donations. UAW also gets no ballot and thus no donations.

Next, implement a couple rules in light of Citizens United. Pick a time frame, maybe 8 months out from any election, any ad taken out by -anyone- that specifically takes a stand on any candidate (or any of said candidate's policies or their party) on the coming ballot is automatically considered a campaign donation worth the cost of the ad itself, and is subject to all implied limitations.

Last, I suppose I'll concede to the point that I could see partial public funding being a good option. Get this: drastically lower the limit that any individual can donate to a candidate. Since this will drastically lower the amount most candidates have access to, use the public funding end to say, match their donation funds 1:1 to pay for campaigning expenses, but those matching funds -only- kick in when the expenses are verified. This way, nut jobs still wouldn't be able to hit up the public coffers to prop up their soap boxes, yet you could still drastically cut down on the massive advantage that wealthy special interests have in getting their candidates elected.

Once again, this off-the-top-of-my-head solution leaves much to be desired and has more than a few holes in it, I'm sure. My main point is simply that there are alternatives other than the current shoddy system and complete government control over the campaign purse strings.

What an excellent post. It's great to see someone disagree with me so effectively, intelligently and with such well-reasoned supporting positions!
Normally, you just get whackjobs who sling petty insults and then parrrot something they saw on MSNBC or FOX.
I've never thought of what you say about partial public funding and limiting commercials to the degree of donations. Excellent ideas!

 

[saveliberty]

Compromising with insanity, is still insanity.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?

Compromise was possible and common until Grover Norquist and Carl Rove rode into town. Once both parties were focused on governance, today only the Democrats are so focused.

The Republican Party has moved so far right their adherents only concern is ideological purity and personal gain. They have no interest in compromise, their focus is on power and how to keep it. The great irony being this the more they focus on the prize, the fewer citizens register as Republican.

Numbers may have been important before this election, now the only number that matters is the one with the greatest number of zeros after the $$$ signs. The great test will be how many former members of the GOP will be fooled once again by the hate, fear and false promises of the Republican Party bosses.

 

[kiwiman127]

Maybe I don't feel like I share the responsibility to help businesses pay for their employees' benefits.

And you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your economic assessment at face value. As I said before, I won't argue the economics of healthcare with you, but I will say that there's enough different contradicting opinions by people with actual credentials to put my chances of believing a random guy on USMB has it all worked out and can explain this complex problem's solution in a paragraph or two well outside of betting range.

OK,,,,try these links, they all paint a pretty consistent picture.

U.S. Health Care Spending In An International Context

List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France - The Washington Post

We can go make a main topic post and I'm sure I can get plenty of Republican types and plenty of Libertarian types to drop all sorts of links to experts on their side of the issue with their own analysis of the causality of the health care situation as it stands, as well as their own take on what the "obvious" solutions are. Then you could probably drop some links to articles where experts who support your ideals make some pretty persuasive arguments on why the experts who disagree are bought and paid for, or aren't real experts, or are easily marginalized for whatever reason. Then we could make another topic where the Republicans and then the Libertarians link their own experts making their own persuasive arguments on why your experts are bought and paid for, or aren't real experts, or are easily marginalized for this reason or that. . .

See the pattern emerging, here? Does it smell like the global warming argument, yet? Or the supply-side-demand-side argument, yet?

Sadly, it probably doesn't. One thing most people seem to have in common is that they're utterly convinced that their experts are the right experts, and as much as I'd be willing to bet that you're far from certain of that, I'd also be willing to bet that you'll claim to be -quite- sure.

Find me one unbiased economist that doesn't think that the cost of healthcare in this country isn't a threat to the US economy in the long run,,just one.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, not at all. You simply require anyone who wants to run, to obtain "X" number of signatures and that weeds out the whackjobs. We already have states that use clean elections. We just need to look at it again, with an open mind and see if we can improve what's in place.
Or we can enjoy the perfect system we have...

The "or" part is my main problem with this post. This is not an either or situation. If we don't go to purely public funded elections, we don't absolutely have to keep everything the same as it is now. I agree that the campaign funding system's dicked up as it stands, I'm just not sure that full-on government override is what's necessary, or that it wouldn't hinder the electoral process more than it helped.

The problem I have with the signature idea is this new tactic that the major parties are employing for public initiative measures, where you flood the petitioners with frauds signing fake names and get the samplers to declare that too high a percentage of the signatures are [probably] fake to validate said measure. The best part about this method is that it's all under-the-table. That means you don't have to use "official" campaign funds to pay asswipes to do it. That's the nice thing about basing the legitimacy of the campaign on campaign donations: Monopoly money lends no credence to someone buying ad time.

If you ask me, it would -seem- (I haven't examined this issue nearly thoroughly enough to think that I've got it figured out from all angles, mind you. Pointing out problems with proposed solutions is, sadly, easier than coming up with the correct solution) that a cleaner fix would be getting rid of the corporate personhood bullshit, for one. Easy rule to implement: If you can't vote in said election, you can't donate in said election. General Electric doesn't get a ballot. . . no GE donations. UAW also gets no ballot and thus no donations.

Next, implement a couple rules in light of Citizens United. Pick a time frame, maybe 8 months out from any election, any ad taken out by -anyone- that specifically takes a stand on any candidate (or any of said candidate's policies or their party) on the coming ballot is automatically considered a campaign donation worth the cost of the ad itself, and is subject to all implied limitations.

Last, I suppose I'll concede to the point that I could see partial public funding being a good option. Get this: drastically lower the limit that any individual can donate to a candidate. Since this will drastically lower the amount most candidates have access to, use the public funding end to say, match their donation funds 1:1 to pay for campaigning expenses, but those matching funds -only- kick in when the expenses are verified. This way, nut jobs still wouldn't be able to hit up the public coffers to prop up their soap boxes, yet you could still drastically cut down on the massive advantage that wealthy special interests have in getting their candidates elected.

Once again, this off-the-top-of-my-head solution leaves much to be desired and has more than a few holes in it, I'm sure. My main point is simply that there are alternatives other than the current shoddy system and complete government control over the campaign purse strings.

What an excellent post. It's great to see someone disagree with me so effectively, intelligently and with such well-reasoned supporting positions!
Normally, you just get whackjobs who sling petty insults and then parrrot something they saw on MSNBC or FOX.
I've never thought of what you say about partial public funding and limiting commercials to the degree of donations. Excellent ideas!

Are you two on the correct message board? A smart discussion on one of the most critical issue of our time and IMO the greatest threat to our democratic ideals is money and influence (promises made to elected officials by special interests, jobs for wifey, or child, future jobs, booze and broads, etc.) in the political process. During and after elections.

Grove Norquist has been successful in obtaining a pledge from many members of Congress (and state law makers) not to raise taxes; wouldn't it be nice if someone could entice them to sign a pledge to accept nothing from anyone who has any interest in legislation and agree to change the rules of each chamber to require moral purity?

I'd also like to see a rule which prohibited and former member of Congress from lobbying their former colleagues; any former member doing so would be stripped of his retirement and any benefits s/he is receiving at the time or in the future.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The "or" part is my main problem with this post. This is not an either or situation. If we don't go to purely public funded elections, we don't absolutely have to keep everything the same as it is now. I agree that the campaign funding system's dicked up as it stands, I'm just not sure that full-on government override is what's necessary, or that it wouldn't hinder the electoral process more than it helped.

The problem I have with the signature idea is this new tactic that the major parties are employing for public initiative measures, where you flood the petitioners with frauds signing fake names and get the samplers to declare that too high a percentage of the signatures are [probably] fake to validate said measure. The best part about this method is that it's all under-the-table. That means you don't have to use "official" campaign funds to pay asswipes to do it. That's the nice thing about basing the legitimacy of the campaign on campaign donations: Monopoly money lends no credence to someone buying ad time.

If you ask me, it would -seem- (I haven't examined this issue nearly thoroughly enough to think that I've got it figured out from all angles, mind you. Pointing out problems with proposed solutions is, sadly, easier than coming up with the correct solution) that a cleaner fix would be getting rid of the corporate personhood bullshit, for one. Easy rule to implement: If you can't vote in said election, you can't donate in said election. General Electric doesn't get a ballot. . . no GE donations. UAW also gets no ballot and thus no donations.

Next, implement a couple rules in light of Citizens United. Pick a time frame, maybe 8 months out from any election, any ad taken out by -anyone- that specifically takes a stand on any candidate (or any of said candidate's policies or their party) on the coming ballot is automatically considered a campaign donation worth the cost of the ad itself, and is subject to all implied limitations.

Last, I suppose I'll concede to the point that I could see partial public funding being a good option. Get this: drastically lower the limit that any individual can donate to a candidate. Since this will drastically lower the amount most candidates have access to, use the public funding end to say, match their donation funds 1:1 to pay for campaigning expenses, but those matching funds -only- kick in when the expenses are verified. This way, nut jobs still wouldn't be able to hit up the public coffers to prop up their soap boxes, yet you could still drastically cut down on the massive advantage that wealthy special interests have in getting their candidates elected.

Once again, this off-the-top-of-my-head solution leaves much to be desired and has more than a few holes in it, I'm sure. My main point is simply that there are alternatives other than the current shoddy system and complete government control over the campaign purse strings.

What an excellent post. It's great to see someone disagree with me so effectively, intelligently and with such well-reasoned supporting positions!
Normally, you just get whackjobs who sling petty insults and then parrrot something they saw on MSNBC or FOX.
I've never thought of what you say about partial public funding and limiting commercials to the degree of donations. Excellent ideas!

Are you two on the correct message board? A smart discussion on one of the most critical issue of our time and IMO the greatest threat to our democratic ideals is money and influence (promises made to elected officials by special interests, jobs for wifey, or child, future jobs, booze and broads, etc.) in the political process. During and after elections.

Grove Norquist has been successful in obtaining a pledge from many members of Congress (and state law makers) not to raise taxes; wouldn't it be nice if someone could entice them to sign a pledge to accept nothing from anyone who has any interest in legislation and agree to change the rules of each chamber to require moral purity?

I'd also like to see a rule which prohibited and former member of Congress from lobbying their former colleagues; any former member doing so would be stripped of his retirement and any benefits s/he is receiving at the time or in the future.

Wow. Another intelligent post. Yes, one of the things that REALLY has me pissed off at Obama was breaking his promise to shut the revolving door of lobbyists. And now we have that situation exacerbated exponentially by Citizen's United. Might as well put out a sign that says
"Country for Sale! Get it here, get it while it's hot!"

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

OK,,,,try these links, they all paint a pretty consistent picture.

U.S. Health Care Spending In An International Context

List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France - The Washington Post

We can go make a main topic post and I'm sure I can get plenty of Republican types and plenty of Libertarian types to drop all sorts of links to experts on their side of the issue with their own analysis of the causality of the health care situation as it stands, as well as their own take on what the "obvious" solutions are. Then you could probably drop some links to articles where experts who support your ideals make some pretty persuasive arguments on why the experts who disagree are bought and paid for, or aren't real experts, or are easily marginalized for whatever reason. Then we could make another topic where the Republicans and then the Libertarians link their own experts making their own persuasive arguments on why your experts are bought and paid for, or aren't real experts, or are easily marginalized for this reason or that. . .

See the pattern emerging, here? Does it smell like the global warming argument, yet? Or the supply-side-demand-side argument, yet?

Sadly, it probably doesn't. One thing most people seem to have in common is that they're utterly convinced that their experts are the right experts, and as much as I'd be willing to bet that you're far from certain of that, I'd also be willing to bet that you'll claim to be -quite- sure.

Find me one unbiased economist that doesn't think that the cost of healthcare in this country isn't a threat to the US economy in the long run,,just one.

Please refer to my last post that you quoted. The economists that disagree with the assessment you've expressed are biased? Shocker.

 

[Vidi]

Public funding would be a horrible way to do it. You'd end up having to make an ugly choice:

1. Let any crazy who wants to run have that funding and force taxpayers to pay for a lot of whack jobs to pretend they have half a clue or any chance at swaying anyone to vote for their psychotic BS

2. Implement some sort of bureaucratic body to decide who is and who isn't a serious candidate. If you can't imagine what the potential problems would be with either political party getting hold of -that- control panel, then I'm not sure what sort of reasoning led you to believe campaign finance reform is a necessity in the first place.

So that's the choice it boils down to if you publicly fund elections. Either blast exorbitant amounts of the government's budget on a whole lot of stupid, or accept the eventuality that we'll go from a 2 party to a 1 party system. No thanks.

No, not at all. You simply require anyone who wants to run, to obtain "X" number of signatures and that weeds out the whackjobs. We already have states that use clean elections. We just need to look at it again, with an open mind and see if we can improve what's in place.
Or we can enjoy the perfect system we have...

The "or" part is my main problem with this post. This is not an either or situation. If we don't go to purely public funded elections, we don't absolutely have to keep everything the same as it is now. I agree that the campaign funding system's dicked up as it stands, I'm just not sure that full-on government override is what's necessary, or that it wouldn't hinder the electoral process more than it helped.

The problem I have with the signature idea is this new tactic that the major parties are employing for public initiative measures, where you flood the petitioners with frauds signing fake names and get the samplers to declare that too high a percentage of the signatures are [probably] fake to validate said measure. The best part about this method is that it's all under-the-table. That means you don't have to use "official" campaign funds to pay asswipes to do it. That's the nice thing about basing the legitimacy of the campaign on campaign donations: Monopoly money lends no credence to someone buying ad time.

If you ask me, it would -seem- (I haven't examined this issue nearly thoroughly enough to think that I've got it figured out from all angles, mind you. Pointing out problems with proposed solutions is, sadly, easier than coming up with the correct solution) that a cleaner fix would be getting rid of the corporate personhood bullshit, for one. Easy rule to implement: If you can't vote in said election, you can't donate in said election. General Electric doesn't get a ballot. . . no GE donations. UAW also gets no ballot and thus no donations.

Next, implement a couple rules in light of Citizens United. Pick a time frame, maybe 8 months out from any election, any ad taken out by -anyone- that specifically takes a stand on any candidate (or any of said candidate's policies or their party) on the coming ballot is automatically considered a campaign donation worth the cost of the ad itself, and is subject to all implied limitations.

Last, I suppose I'll concede to the point that I could see partial public funding being a good option. Get this: drastically lower the limit that any individual can donate to a candidate. Since this will drastically lower the amount most candidates have access to, use the public funding end to say, match their donation funds 1:1 to pay for campaigning expenses, but those matching funds -only- kick in when the expenses are verified. This way, nut jobs still wouldn't be able to hit up the public coffers to prop up their soap boxes, yet you could still drastically cut down on the massive advantage that wealthy special interests have in getting their candidates elected.

Once again, this off-the-top-of-my-head solution leaves much to be desired and has more than a few holes in it, I'm sure. My main point is simply that there are alternatives other than the current shoddy system and complete government control over the campaign purse strings.

I just want to say I read this again and again and I can find nothing to argue with in this post. You make clear concise points and have really won me over.

Amazingly good post.

 

[saveliberty]

Economists are wrong almost as often as meterologists.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Seriously, though, I don't think anybody would argue that the current health care system is f'ed up. Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians, aside from liberals and democrats, all have ideas that they believe would be the best fix. My point was never that I don't agree that there's major problems with it, simply that having the government "negotiate" health care costs isn't the singular, definitive answer to those problems. It's not an either-or question, current system or government price control. There's a lot of "solutions" floating around out there that, again, are backed by folks with actual education and credentials that I don't have (Economics degrees, that sort of thing). What I'm getting at is that it seems silly for people who don't have education or credentials in the relevant fields to claim to know which actual accredited experts are biased and which are pure and correct. It's also very suspicious that, in my experience, 99 times out of 100 the experts that people claim to know to be the correct experts are the experts that support the rhetoric of the party those same people support. Is it coincidence that the scientists and economists most people believe just -happen- to be the ones that share their world views?

 

[Vidi]

Seriously, though, I don't think anybody would argue that the current health care system is f'ed up. Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians, aside from liberals and democrats, all have ideas that they believe would be the best fix. My point was never that I don't agree that there's major problems with it, simply that having the government "negotiate" health care costs isn't the singular, definitive answer to those problems. It's not an either-or question, current system or government price control. There's a lot of "solutions" floating around out there that, again, are backed by folks with actual education and credentials that I don't have (Economics degrees, that sort of thing). What I'm getting at is that it seems silly for people who don't have education or credentials in the relevant fields to claim to know which actual accredited experts are biased and which are pure and correct. It's also very suspicious that, in my experience, 99 times out of 100 the experts that people claim to know to be the correct experts are the experts that support the rhetoric of the party those same people support. Is it coincidence that the scientists and economists most people believe just -happen- to be the ones that share their world views?

I see what youre saying and I agree a great many people seek out data to support their already established opinions.

However, couldnt one argue that with an open mind your world view would be shaped by those very same experts?

Then theres also the "guilty by association" mindset. If one group is the proponent of a world view that the individual feels isnt supported by facts, they are then less likely to believe that group has a grasp on facts about other issues as well and that the group they agree with on one issue might just be the group who has the answer on another issue.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Seriously, though, I don't think anybody would argue that the current health care system is f'ed up. Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians, aside from liberals and democrats, all have ideas that they believe would be the best fix. My point was never that I don't agree that there's major problems with it, simply that having the government "negotiate" health care costs isn't the singular, definitive answer to those problems. It's not an either-or question, current system or government price control. There's a lot of "solutions" floating around out there that, again, are backed by folks with actual education and credentials that I don't have (Economics degrees, that sort of thing). What I'm getting at is that it seems silly for people who don't have education or credentials in the relevant fields to claim to know which actual accredited experts are biased and which are pure and correct. It's also very suspicious that, in my experience, 99 times out of 100 the experts that people claim to know to be the correct experts are the experts that support the rhetoric of the party those same people support. Is it coincidence that the scientists and economists most people believe just -happen- to be the ones that share their world views?

I see what youre saying and I agree a great many people seek out data to support their already established opinions.

However, couldnt one argue that with an open mind your world view would be shaped by those very same experts?

One could make that argument, certainly. I would respond by arguing that with a truly open mind, one would look upon issues where many experts have opinions that contradict each other and be forced to admit to one's self that one's level of knowledge is severely inadequate to accomplish the task of deciding which of those experts are correct and which are not.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe, though. If you find someone's explanation compelling, then you do, and that's fine by me. I'm also not telling anyone to keep those beliefs to themselves. Just stating, in this case, that there's very little chance that you could be anywhere near certain of the truth of that belief without being an expert in economics, the health care industry, or both

Then theres also the "guilty by association" mindset. If one group is the proponent of a world view that the individual feels isnt supported by facts, they are then less likely to believe that group has a grasp on facts about other issues as well and that the group they agree with on one issue might just be the group who has the answer on another issue.

It's certainly a normal thing for humans to do, but unfortunately it amounts to attributing a monopoly on philosophical truth to some person or group, which is potentially quite harmful. Again, purely up to you. For some people, taking, on faith, what someone says to be definitively true without indisputable logic or proof is an ability in which one should take pride. For me, however, it amounts to a degree of gullibility. Any time I catch a hint of gullibility in my thinking I cut it out of my thought processes like a tumor.

Only my own brain is ever acknowledged as the final arbiter of what I believe to be true.

 

[saveliberty]

I usually like to wait for awhile before posting a source. Way more fun watching the lefties dig a huge hole first. Besides, they will just deny the facts and deflect per SOP.

 

[regent]

Do corporations contribute campaign funds to politicians that compromise?

 

[Vidi]

Seriously, though, I don't think anybody would argue that the current health care system is f'ed up. Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians, aside from liberals and democrats, all have ideas that they believe would be the best fix. My point was never that I don't agree that there's major problems with it, simply that having the government "negotiate" health care costs isn't the singular, definitive answer to those problems. It's not an either-or question, current system or government price control. There's a lot of "solutions" floating around out there that, again, are backed by folks with actual education and credentials that I don't have (Economics degrees, that sort of thing). What I'm getting at is that it seems silly for people who don't have education or credentials in the relevant fields to claim to know which actual accredited experts are biased and which are pure and correct. It's also very suspicious that, in my experience, 99 times out of 100 the experts that people claim to know to be the correct experts are the experts that support the rhetoric of the party those same people support. Is it coincidence that the scientists and economists most people believe just -happen- to be the ones that share their world views?

I see what youre saying and I agree a great many people seek out data to support their already established opinions.

However, couldnt one argue that with an open mind your world view would be shaped by those very same experts?

One could make that argument, certainly. I would respond by arguing that with a truly open mind, one would look upon issues where many experts have opinions that contradict each other and be forced to admit to one's self that one's level of knowledge is severely inadequate to accomplish the task of deciding which of those experts are correct and which are not.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe, though. If you find someone's explanation compelling, then you do, and that's fine by me. I'm also not telling anyone to keep those beliefs to themselves. Just stating, in this case, that there's very little chance that you could be anywhere near certain of the truth of that belief without being an expert in economics, the health care industry, or both

Then theres also the "guilty by association" mindset. If one group is the proponent of a world view that the individual feels isnt supported by facts, they are then less likely to believe that group has a grasp on facts about other issues as well and that the group they agree with on one issue might just be the group who has the answer on another issue.

It's certainly a normal thing for humans to do, but unfortunately it amounts to attributing a monopoly on philosophical truth to some person or group, which is potentially quite harmful. Again, purely up to you. For some people, taking, on faith, what someone says to be definitively true without indisputable logic or proof is an ability in which one should take pride. For me, however, it amounts to a degree of gullibility. Any time I catch a hint of gullibility in my thinking I cut it out of my thought processes like a tumor.

Only my own brain is ever acknowledged as the final arbiter of what I believe to be true.

All excellent points but don't we HAVE to be adequate in distinguishing which experts to believe?

As voters, if we are unable to make that distinction, then we are unable to cast a vote based on correct data. So isnt it incumbent upon us to discover which experts are reliable and which ones are not?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I see what youre saying and I agree a great many people seek out data to support their already established opinions.

However, couldnt one argue that with an open mind your world view would be shaped by those very same experts?

One could make that argument, certainly. I would respond by arguing that with a truly open mind, one would look upon issues where many experts have opinions that contradict each other and be forced to admit to one's self that one's level of knowledge is severely inadequate to accomplish the task of deciding which of those experts are correct and which are not.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe, though. If you find someone's explanation compelling, then you do, and that's fine by me. I'm also not telling anyone to keep those beliefs to themselves. Just stating, in this case, that there's very little chance that you could be anywhere near certain of the truth of that belief without being an expert in economics, the health care industry, or both

Then theres also the "guilty by association" mindset. If one group is the proponent of a world view that the individual feels isnt supported by facts, they are then less likely to believe that group has a grasp on facts about other issues as well and that the group they agree with on one issue might just be the group who has the answer on another issue.

It's certainly a normal thing for humans to do, but unfortunately it amounts to attributing a monopoly on philosophical truth to some person or group, which is potentially quite harmful. Again, purely up to you. For some people, taking, on faith, what someone says to be definitively true without indisputable logic or proof is an ability in which one should take pride. For me, however, it amounts to a degree of gullibility. Any time I catch a hint of gullibility in my thinking I cut it out of my thought processes like a tumor.

Only my own brain is ever acknowledged as the final arbiter of what I believe to be true.

All excellent points but don't we HAVE to be adequate in distinguishing which experts to believe?

As voters, if we are unable to make that distinction, then we are unable to cast a vote based on correct data. So isnt it incumbent upon us to discover which experts are reliable and which ones are not?

Sometimes people truly are knowledgeable enough in an area, despite not being an accredited expert, to make an educated stab at which set of experts is correct, but I would argue that this is often not the case. In these matters I apply Socratic principle, personally. When I have information that isn't, by my standards, sufficiently plentiful for making a call one way or another on an issue, I simply admit that I don't have enough information to make an informed decision. . . and then I don't. Where it appears on the ballet, I leave a blank box. It's this philosophy that's led me to despise the "Get Out the Vote" campaign on MTV. I wanna start my own campaign. . . "Uninformed? Stay Home in November!"

"I don't know the answer to that" is really something that more Americans need to allow into their vocabulary.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Do corporations contribute campaign funds to politicians that compromise?

Politicians that compromise gave us such corporatist favorites as NAFTA and GATT. I would venture to guess that the corporations grasping for puppet strings on both sides of the isle contribute campaign funds -especially- to politicians that compromise.

 

[whitehall]

Politicians do not serve in a vacuum. They represent constituencies and they listen to lobbyists of which we all are in some way or about an issue we care about. They (at least most of them) have core values and moral standards that influence their vote. "Compromise" is a word losers use when the vote doesn't turn out their way. The most ironic quote in history came out of the 1992 riots when an obviously shaken Rodney King got on TV and said "can't we all just get along" while the city was in flames and thousands were assaulted and 54 people lay dead because people were disappointed about the verdict in a trial.

 

[regent]

A democracy seldom devises a bill that is even close to what it should be. The bill, and soon the law, is a bundle of compromises with lots of cooks each adding their portion. The result-a law that almost works, but then as time passes the law is improved, added to, changed and so on, but never perfected. Add to that, other factors change, the population, the economy, needs and the law is altered again to meet those changes. How many times has Social Security been altered since 1935, and it still needs revision? What would a health care bill look like, it it was only written to take care of America's health care needs?