There ain't gonna be any middle anymore...

BrinkofForever

Last week, the 20/20 State of the Union special got me thinking about how divided we as a people actually are. :Video
In a study, they showed that unlike the 50's, 60's and 70's, groups of like-minded individuals are more likely now to navigate to an extreme viewpoint rather than towards a moderate or centrist viewpoint. The study went as far as to point out that like minded liberals and conservatives actually went as far as considering the political consensus of a community before moving into one. Another issue brought up was the effect of news bias and the influence it has over manipulating opinions one way or another.
So my question is this. Is there a real middle anymore? I used to consider myself a centrist in every sense of the term. On one hand, I want little government interfierence in my everyday life, lower taxes, fiscal responsiblitly at every level. On the other hand, I want social freedoms to be protected, our environment to be cared for..and accountablility when it comes to big-business. I believe that social programs that work should be maintained, but the ones that don't should be either reexamined or terminated.
Over the past few years, however, I've found myself moving farther and farther to the left in my thinking. Then again, I wonder if I'm the one moving or does the middle simply not exist anymore? Does it feel like we are being forced to pick sides like children playing dodgeball? This cannot be good for the country as a whole and I wonder where it will lead to in the end.

Discuss.

mammasan

Brink wrote:

Last week, the 20/20 State of the Union special got me thinking about how divided we as a people actually are. :Video
In a study, they showed that unlike the 50's, 60's and 70's, groups of like-minded individuals are more likely now to navigate to an extreme viewpoint rather than towards a moderate or centrist viewpoint. The study went as far as to point out that like minded liberals and conservatives actually went as far as considering the political consensus of a community before moving into one. Another issue brought up was the effect of news bias and the influence it has over manipulating opinions one way or another.
So my question is this. Is there a real middle anymore? I used to consider myself a centrist in every sense of the term. On one hand, I want little government interfierence in my everyday life, lower taxes, fiscal responsiblitly at every level. On the other hand, I want social freedoms to be protected, our environment to be cared for..and accountablility when it comes to big-business. I believe that social programs that work should be maintained, but the ones that don't should be either reexamined or terminated.
Over the past few years, however, I've found myself moving farther and farther to the left in my thinking. Then again, I wonder if I'm the one moving or does the middle simply not exist anymore? Does it feel like we are being forced to pick sides like children playing dodgeball? This cannot be good for the country as a whole and I wonder where it will lead to in the end.

Discuss.

I still believe that there is a middle in the political arena. It may seem as if has completely disappeared by I believe it's just because the far right and the far left are just more vocal and better organized.

jamestr1

Brink wrote:

Does it feel like we are being forced to pick sides like children playing dodgeball?

Choose me!

It feels exactly that way, like we can't have a little of both anymore. I think the current administration has done a good job of pushing us to choose with the issues they pressed against us - War, Abortion, Gay Marriage. They pushed those to the front to cover up for their lack of fiscal responsibility.

BrinkofForever

mammasan wrote:

I still believe that there is a middle in the political arena. It may seem as if has completely disappeared by I believe it's just because the far right and the far left are just more vocal and better organized.

It's hard to see that. In the last 30 years, our Congress has been voting more and more down party lines. They are afraid to vote honestly because their constituants will turn their backs on them. And when you have the House of Reps members in a constant reelection campaign (I believe the incumbancy rate is somewhere near 98%), you have to wonder what actual good that body is doing for the country.

Abuskedti

This could be the day

BrinkofForever

jamestr wrote:

Choose me!

It feels exactly that way, like we can't have a little of both anymore. I think the current administration has done a good job of pushing us to choose with the issues they pressed against us - War, Abortion, Gay Marriage. They pushed those to the front to cover up for their lack of fiscal responsibility.

Personally, it saddens me. My dad used to be very centered politically. Then he started listening to Rush Limbaugh in the 90's..and then became glued to Fox News. Now it's difficult to discuss politics with him because even if I approach things from a moderate view point, he becomes very close minded and extreme with his rebuttles.

mammasan

Brink wrote:

It's hard to see that. In the last 30 years, our Congress has been voting more and more down party lines. They are afraid to vote honestly because their constituants will turn their backs on them. And when you have the House of Reps members in a constant reelection campaign (I believe the incumbancy rate is somewhere near 98%), you have to wonder what actual good that body is doing for the country.

Well that is because these politicians are playing to their base. Like I said the far right and the far left are much more organized than the moderates. Just think how many organizations out there like MoveOn or People for the American Way there are for the extreme portion of the political spectrum. Now try to name the same type of organizations that represent the moderates. I can't think of any. Politicians will vote in favor of those that fund their campaigns simple as that. So untill the middle organizes itself and, unfortunte as this sounds, starts pumping some money into politics our voices will not be heard or represented in government.

1970RR

Brink wrote:

Last week, the 20/20 State of the Union special got me thinking about how divided we as a people actually are. :Video
In a study, they showed that unlike the 50's, 60's and 70's, groups of like-minded individuals are more likely now to navigate to an extreme viewpoint rather than towards a moderate or centrist viewpoint. The study went as far as to point out that like minded liberals and conservatives actually went as far as considering the political consensus of a community before moving into one. Another issue brought up was the effect of news bias and the influence it has over manipulating opinions one way or another.
So my question is this. Is there a real middle anymore? I used to consider myself a centrist in every sense of the term. On one hand, I want little government interfierence in my everyday life, lower taxes, fiscal responsiblitly at every level. On the other hand, I want social freedoms to be protected, our environment to be cared for..and accountablility when it comes to big-business. I believe that social programs that work should be maintained, but the ones that don't should be either reexamined or terminated.
Over the past few years, however, I've found myself moving farther and farther to the left in my thinking. Then again, I wonder if I'm the one moving or does the middle simply not exist anymore? Does it feel like we are being forced to pick sides like children playing dodgeball? This cannot be good for the country as a whole and I wonder where it will lead to in the end.

Discuss.

I think this is a caused by the abundance of information, particularly via the internet. The easy access for almost everyone to vast numbers of websites/blogs, as well as cable television, radio, etc have allowed people to surround themselves with views they agree with and insulate themselves from views they disagree with. In my opinion, this is leading to a more polarized political environment with little middle ground.

BrinkofForever

1970RR wrote:

I think this is a caused by the abundance of information, particularly via the internet. The easy access for almost everyone to vast numbers of websites/blogs, as well as cable television, radio, etc have allowed people to surround themselves with views they agree with and insulate themselves from views they disagree with. In my opinion, this is leading to a more polarized political environment with little middle ground.

Good point. I got pretty heavy into blogging last year. My viewpoints and articles started out fairly moderate, but as I made friends and connections in the blogosphere (possibly the worst term since Jamily), what I wrote became more and more liberal in their context. Looking back, I wonder if I have lost that middle ground thinking myself.

know1

Personally, I've got views at both ends and across the spectrum. I'm probably the exception, however.

ryan198

i used to be centrist, perhaps even a bit right (hey...it was the crazy, roaring 90s), but watching what Clinton and Bush II have done to our and other countries has made me disillusioned with this brand of "sham"ocracy that politically, lawfully, and ideologically runs this country. The people have no say, the state really doesn't have a say, in the end it's the billions of dollars of corporate money and interests that runs this country and this world ... it's a shame that economics and the good of the few uber-rich have come to mean more than the literacy, health, and general welfare of the many.

Do I want communism? Probably not...but there has to be something out there better than what we have today no? Lower taxes? How about we go back to the 50's when taxes were similar for the upper/middle/lower classes and very high for the super rich!?!? IF we actually want a society where social mobility is achievable wouldn't his make sense? I don't know there's a few ideas, and no concrete answers or Truth's with a capital T, just my truth and my answers (which I would argue is ok b/c my answer would and should be differrent than everyone elses in this country - that's democratic consensus).

know1

ryan198 wrote:

i used to be centrist, perhaps even a bit right (hey...it was the crazy, roaring 90s), but watching what Clinton and Bush II have done to our and other countries has made me disillusioned with this brand of "sham"ocracy that politically, lawfully, and ideologically runs this country. The people have no say, the state really doesn't have a say, in the end it's the billions of dollars of corporate money and interests that runs this country and this world ... it's a shame that economics and the good of the few uber-rich have come to mean more than the literacy, health, and general welfare of the many.

Do I want communism? Probably not...but there has to be something out there better than what we have today no? Lower taxes? How about we go back to the 50's when taxes were similar for the upper/middle/lower classes and very high for the super rich!?!? IF we actually want a society where social mobility is achievable wouldn't his make sense? I don't know there's a few ideas, and no concrete answers or Truth's with a capital T, just my truth and my answers (which I would argue is ok b/c my answer would and should be differrent than everyone elses in this country - that's democratic consensus).

Why should taxes be higher for the super rich? I think we should all pay a similar rate.

thankyougrandma

know1 wrote:

Why should taxes be higher for the super rich? I think we should all pay a similar rate.

That's called redistribution of the wealth, without it the gap between the rich and the poor would already be bigger than it is. I assume it's in your constitution somewhere (could be wrong), i think it's in the canadian one (could also be wrong)...

edit: in the utopic world that we would all want, it wouldn't be needed cause redistribution would be done by the company or rich persons themselves, too bad humans need govt. incencitive (even laws) to make it a reality...

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

Personally, I've got views at both ends and across the spectrum. I'm probably the exception, however.

...
From what I can gather... based upon the bulk of your opinions expressed in this specific web bulletin board... I don't think that Right and Right of Center covers the full spectrum.

1970RR

thankyougrandma wrote:

That's called redistribution of the wealth, without it the gap between the rich and the poor would already be bigger than it is. I assume it's in your constitution somewhere (could be wrong), i think it's in the canadian one (could also be wrong)...

edit: in the utopic world that we would all want, it wouldn't be needed cause redistribution would be done by the company or rich persons themselves, too bad humans need govt. incencitive (even laws) to make it a reality...

Yes, its in there (16th amendment). However, it says nothing about taxing people at different rates.

thankyougrandma

1970RR wrote:

Yes, its in there (16th amendment). However, it says nothing about taxing people at different rates.

(thanks for the info)

but the constitution doesn't tell you how to achieve all the points, it tells you to do it, so taxing higher rates for richer peoples is the policy they apply to make the 16th amendment possible.

Cosmo

The problem is not taxes... it's WASTEFUL SPENDING.
An example being the lost millions and counting that's going on in Iraq. We are pouring BILLIONS into fucking Iraq, yet, the HMMWVs still have Hillbilly up armouring. Why is that and why the fuck does it continue?
And as for the rich... we're not talking about the Upper Middle Class renovating their kitchens in Laguna Nigel... we're talking about the Strato-Rich multi-Billionaires out there. You know, a lot of those people are so rich because they're stingy and/or cheap. A 'Fair Tax' system allows for them to run their accounts through loopholes, such as charities setup and run by themselves to keep the money in their hands.
And please, don't bring up the Bill Gates/Warren Buffet charitable contributions... for every one of them... there are hundreds of their rich peers who don't give dime one for 'little people'.
...
I hope Paris Hilton takes a big fucking hit in her inheritance tax because there are a lot of those heirs out there that look at the world the same way that they do... it belongs to them.

ryan198

during the time when taxes were highest for the super rich and lowest for the poor we actually had our closest gap between rich/poor ... now that we are all being taxed relatively similarly look at what's going down.

Cosmo

ryan198 wrote:

during the time when taxes were highest for the super rich and lowest for the poor we actually had our closest gap between rich/poor ... now that we are all being taxed relatively similarly look at what's going down.

...
Like compare my salary... which I'm not complaining about... I get paid well for relatively easy work... compare my salary to the C.E.O. of my company. It's fucking ridiculous. And seriously... how much does one individual really need?

know1

Cosmo wrote:

...
From what I can gather... based upon the bulk of your opinions expressed in this specific web bulletin board... I don't think that Right and Right of Center covers the full spectrum.

Really? I'm very much anti-war and anti-death penalty. I believe gun control would be a very good thing and I'm not against gay marriage....

know1

ryan198 wrote:

during the time when taxes were highest for the super rich and lowest for the poor we actually had our closest gap between rich/poor ... now that we are all being taxed relatively similarly look at what's going down.

But is taxing the rich unfairly the answer to that gap?

So you take from the rich, but how much does it really help the poor? Are their lives better, or is it just that the rich now have less money with which to buy things, start companies, employ people, etc. - all of which redistributes wealth.

From what I've seen, taxing just gives more money to the government to spend.

(and please do not kid yourself that everyone is being taxed similarly. The rich are taxed at much higher rates which is unfair, in my opinion)

BrinkofForever

know1 wrote:

But is taxing the rich unfairly the answer to that gap?

So you take from the rich, but how much does it really help the poor? Are their lives better, or is it just that the rich now have less money with which to buy things, start companies, employ people, etc. - all of which redistributes wealth.

From what I've seen, taxing just gives more money to the government to spend.

(and please do not kid yourself that everyone is being taxed similarly. The rich are taxed at much higher rates which is unfair, in my opinion)

I have no problem with reducing the rich's tax burden as long as mine is either not effected or goes down as well. And... you can guarantee me that there will not be a shortfall in tax reciepts to cover the nation's budget. Decreasing military spending would be a wonderful start, as that comprises nearly half the budget..along with interest payments on previous U.S. wars.

keeponrockin

The extremists are running this country because the moderates have shit to do.

ryan198

know1 wrote:

But is taxing the rich unfairly the answer to that gap?

So you take from the rich, but how much does it really help the poor? Are their lives better, or is it just that the rich now have less money with which to buy things, start companies, employ people, etc. - all of which redistributes wealth.

From what I've seen, taxing just gives more money to the government to spend.

(and please do not kid yourself that everyone is being taxed similarly. The rich are taxed at much higher rates which is unfair, in my opinion)

Actually, your argument is what this country and many others have operated under for the last 40 years...during that time the gap between the rich and the poor has widened! Say what you want about the government being corrupt or something, but at least they gave some money back. To leave it to individual philanthropy has NOT EVER worked.

know1

ryan198 wrote:

Actually, your argument is what this country and many others have operated under for the last 40 years...during that time the gap between the rich and the poor has widened! Say what you want about the government being corrupt or something, but at least they gave some money back. To leave it to individual philanthropy has NOT EVER worked.

I'm saying that the problem is not the GAP itself. It's the fact that people are poor. It doesn't have anything to do with rich people or the gap.

If the problem is that there are people living in poverty, the answer should be to help them rise out of it. The answer should not be to make the rich less wealthy.

thankyougrandma

know1 wrote:

I'm saying that the problem is not the GAP itself. It's the fact that people are poor. It doesn't have anything to do with rich people or the gap.

If the problem is that there are people living in poverty, the answer should be to help them rise out of it. The answer should not be to make the rich less wealthy.

There's that much money available, when some take more, some others have less.

In fact you might be right, the problem is not the gap itself, but the poverty problem, but then what cause poverty, why some people are working all their life and have nothing to hand to their children while others hand 12 houses, 23 cars and 2 Bombardier jets to their decendents, that's where the gap hurts i think...

ryan198

know1 wrote:

I'm saying that the problem is not the GAP itself. It's the fact that people are poor. It doesn't have anything to do with rich people or the gap.

If the problem is that there are people living in poverty, the answer should be to help them rise out of it. The answer should not be to make the rich less wealthy.

there are other methods of doing this like raising min wage, etc. but that's only caused companies to look overseas for cheap labor. the only way it has worked is to tax the fuck out of the rich.

know1

ryan198 wrote:

there are other methods of doing this like raising min wage, etc. but that's only caused companies to look overseas for cheap labor. the only way it has worked is to tax the fuck out of the rich.

But why? Is that fair? Why is it the problem of the rich that there are poor people? Shouldn't we raise the tax equally on all people above the poverty level (assuming raising taxes is the answer, which I disagree with)

What percentage of our tax dollars actually go toward helping the poor? I'll bet it's very small. So you have to raise the tax on the rich a gigantic amount to even make a dent in the poverty problem.

The answer is not taking money from people. The answer is finding effective ways to help people rise out of poverty.

ryan198

what if it's actually the rich who are taking from the poor in the first place? given the fact that min wage hasn't risen in years while CEO pay has gone up to 431:1 or something like that is not cool. also part of getting out of poverty in a capitalist system is to have the resources (capital) to be able to afford those things that the very rich have (food/housing/clothing/school/etc.). It's not as if the poor aren't working 67% of all families on welfare have at least one parent working full time.

jamestr1

keeponrockin wrote:

The extremists are running this country because the moderates have shit to do.

exactly right, for fuck's sake!

SoonForgotten2

Here's the thing- the "far left" in the US is actually typical left for the rest of the western world. The US has slid so far to the right that the middle now seems likes the left and the actual left seems like extreme liberalism. Comaped to my friends and family in the States I'm a pretty radical liberal. In Europe I'm just normal. The US makes the UK look incredibly progressive.