What must be done to Unite the Country

[82_VOL_83]

Ahhh. So you're going to refuse Medicare, Medicaid and your Social Security benefits when you're of age. Good to know.

Our society is filled with basic socialist machinations. They are good things, and benefit our society as a whole.

It's not communism, it's social programs (Read: Socialism). If you think they're a bad idea, I'll gladly receive your benefits that you've actually paid into over the years.

Medicare no, I have paid insurance for medicare my entire career. SS no, I have paid into the ponzi scheme my entire career and plan on getting the maximum amount out. Medicaid I hope to not have to use. Don't dump programs that are paid for by taxpayers as a future benefit into a pile and call it socialism. Doesn't work that way. You are still batting an 0'fer here.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Give me all of my money back that I've paid in for those and yes, I'll gladly refuse them.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[LouderVol]

Your analogy would be more accurate if it said that someone could not fly for the military or airlines because of their race or gender because there are A LOT of people on the Right who may not admit it (although more aren't scared to now), but are completely intimidated and opposed to anyone having an opportunity who doesn't look exactly like them. Just look at the makeup of Trump rallies, if you think I'm wrong.

And when you see black people at Trump rallies, or the VA gun march, they are clearly welcomed and not threatened or hated.

You can make the case that his support is predominately white. But its meaningless because any support from minorities are just as welcome. And it actually grew.

 

[LouderVol]

Ahhh. So you're going to refuse Medicare, Medicaid and your Social Security benefits when you're of age. Good to know.

Our society is filled with basic socialist machinations. They are good things, and benefit our society as a whole.

It's not communism, it's social programs (Read: Socialism). If you think they're a bad idea, I'll gladly receive your benefits that you've actually paid into over the years.

How are they good? Define that? The longer they have been in place, the more people have needed them. It's an addiction making people dependent on the government.

Hard to say you are upholding the liberty of those you have bound to be dependent on the government.

 

[LouderVol]

Give me all of my money back that I've paid in for those and yes, I'll gladly refuse them.

Heck, keep what they've taken and let me keep the rest. Or even keep what they took and let me keep half of the rest, and I come out ahead.

 

[hog88]

Heck, keep what they've taken and let me keep the rest. Or even keep what they took and let me keep half of the rest, and I come out ahead.

I'm older and paid in a bunch more so I want my money back. If I were in my 30s hell yeah I'd take the same deal your proposing.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm older and paid in a bunch more so I want my money back. If I were in my 30s hell yeah I'd take the same deal your proposing.

I was looking at the withholdings for that the other day, we have new HR software, so I was seeing the numbers.

It is shocking how big those numbers are for SS and medicare. I could retire early and live a good life afterwards if I had that money.

I didnt do the full numbers, and its projection based on what I might be getting paid, but it was somewhere in the late 40s where the break even point for keeping half got me more. If I kept the whole amount it was mid 50s.

 

[Sandman 423]

Who is "them" exactly? Also, all this crap you are spewing is pretty easy to say when you are a privileged white person who has never had to worry about these things. When you are a minority or poor in this country, then perspectives may be a little different. Your post is exactly why I will never be a Republican. Not everyone looking for assistance is a "free-loader" or lazy.

^^^^^^^^Sorry dude, but this is crap.^^^^^^^^^^

Also, "them" is the government.

 

[Ashevolle]

Does that include the "fringe" left?

Yes it does

 

[MontyPython]

Medicare no, I have paid insurance for medicare my entire career. SS no, I have paid into the ponzi scheme my entire career and plan on getting the maximum amount out. Medicaid I hope to not have to use. Don't dump programs that are paid for by taxpayers as a future benefit into a pile and call it socialism. Doesn't work that way. You are still batting an 0'fer here.

WOW.

Seriously asinine claim there and 180 degrees from reality. But, hey, don't believe me...

Per Investopedia:

"...Nevertheless, because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system—deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out—it only seems fair to say that Social Security is, in effect, a form of democratic socialism.


The program requires workers and their employers, along with self-employed individuals, to pay into the system throughout their working years. The government controls the money they contribute and decides when and how much they get back after—and if—they reach retirement age. Having such a successful and beloved socialist program at the heart of such a committed capitalistic society is perhaps the ultimate paradox. Or maybe it’s just good common sense."

 

[PointGuard]

My take on what’s required to achieve unity in the U.S.

Unity will not be achieved without setting it as a goal to be achieved. A target date needs to be set too so progress can be tracked. At least two respondents have stated they have zero interest in unity. IMO, Unity is the best alternative to all other choices. Others have wisely said we need a “cause” to bind us together - - for example 911. We’ve just experienced an internal 911. Isn’t that a sufficient cause to make a serious effort to unite us? To those who might say we can’t achieve unity? I say “you’re right”. When I’ve got a basketball in my hands if I don’t think I can make that 3 point shot, I don’t make it. If I say I can’t I’m always correct. A can do attitude will be required to succeed at unity

Second and equally important is the need for TRUTH – truth is one required foundation for achieving unity. Stated a different way the telling of non-truths must cease. Who speaks non-truths ? Politicians, segments of news media, parents. In-turn their children (and in turn their children), special interest’s groups as a few pf the more important examples of a bigger list. The belief of non-truths as truths by differing factions fractures unity.

Separation of church and state. We broke from England with this as one cause. Religious zeal has found too much space within the power of politics. To those who said “one size does not fit all. I feel you’re right. But that includes religion, too.

Live and let live (within rules and laws). In my personal life I like to thank those who take time from their busy schedule of minding their own business to try to mind mine. Thanks, but I’ll ask for your help if I need it. Weed your own garden, I’ll tend to mine.

Re-access our laws. Each year we add more laws. Each year we excel at applying them non uniformly. Laws that are not applied uniformly to ALL are one key underpinning to dividing our society. Pare the list of federal laws down to key fundamentals that will be enforced to ALL, uniformly. A smaller less intrusive federal government would be more than helpful

Conservatives stated they feel disenfranchised. It seems You are not alone. Many segments of society feel the same. Does each disenfranchised segment recognize the same feelings exist in other segments? Yes FEELZ! If someone feels rejected by society do they fill their need to be part of something (the need of belonging) another way? Is disenfranchisement not a breeding ground for radicalization? We need to listen better and with more empathy to each other. Break down barriers of hate (a major project of its’ own) so that we actually hear and empathize with others. The feeling of being disenfranchised is probably the single most important issue. IMO

Term limits for politicians should be mandatory. (Defining what is necessary to achieve unity does not imply that each component is achievable) Politicians need to be incentivized for Term Limits. Yeah I know.

All public service jobs should require a “Mental fitness” exam. This would include politicians and police. Those with a predisposition to abusing their power should not be hired/elected

Society needs a collective 12 Step program. Mental health issues need to cease being shunned.

I submit these few thoughts with the hope this thread can get back on track.

 

[hog88]

My take on what’s required to achieve unity in the U.S.

Unity will not be achieved without setting it as a goal to be achieved. A target date needs to be set too so progress can be tracked. At least two respondents have stated they have zero interest in unity. IMO, Unity is the best alternative to all other choices. Others have wisely said we need a “cause” to bind us together - - for example 911. We’ve just experienced an internal 911. Isn’t that a sufficient cause to make a serious effort to unite us? To those who might say we can’t achieve unity? I say “you’re right”. When I’ve got a basketball in my hands if I don’t think I can make that 3 point shot, I don’t make it. If I say I can’t I’m always correct. A can do attitude will be required to succeed at unity

Second and equally important is the need for TRUTH – truth is one required foundation for achieving unity. Stated a different way the telling of non-truths must cease. Who speaks non-truths ? Politicians, segments of news media, parents. In-turn their children (and in turn their children), special interest’s groups as a few pf the more important examples of a bigger list. The belief of non-truths as truths by differing factions fractures unity.

Separation of church and state. We broke from England with this as one cause. Religious zeal has found too much space within the power of politics. To those who said “one size does not fit all. I feel you’re right. But that includes religion, too.

Live and let live (within rules and laws). In my personal life I like to thank those who take time from their busy schedule of minding their own business to try to mind mine. Thanks, but I’ll ask for your help if I need it. Weed your own garden, I’ll tend to mine.

Re-access our laws. Each year we add more laws. Each year we excel at applying them non uniformly. Laws that are not applied uniformly to ALL are one key underpinning to dividing our society. Pare the list of federal laws down to key fundamentals that will be enforced to ALL, uniformly. A smaller less intrusive federal government would be more than helpful

Conservatives stated they feel disenfranchised. It seems You are not alone. Many segments of society feel the same. Does each disenfranchised segment recognize the same feelings exist in other segments? Yes FEELZ! If someone feels rejected by society do they fill their need to be part of something (the need of belonging) another way? Is disenfranchisement not a breeding ground for radicalization? We need to listen better and with more empathy to each other. Break down barriers of hate (a major project of its’ own) so that we actually hear and empathize with others. The feeling of being disenfranchised is probably the single most important issue. IMO

Term limits for politicians should be mandatory. (Defining what is necessary to achieve unity does not imply that each component is achievable) Politicians need to be incentivized for Term Limits. Yeah I know.

All public service jobs should require a “Mental fitness” exam. This would include politicians and police. Those with a predisposition to abusing their power should not be hired/elected

Society needs a collective 12 Step program. Mental health issues need to cease being shunned.

I submit these few thoughts with the hope this thread can get back on track.

So to be succinct the only path to unity is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

 

[82_VOL_83]

WOW.

Seriously asinine claim there and 180 degrees from reality. But, hey, don't believe me...

Per Investopedia:

"...Nevertheless, because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system—deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out—it only seems fair to say that Social Security is, in effect, a form of democratic socialism.


The program requires workers and their employers, along with self-employed individuals, to pay into the system throughout their working years. The government controls the money they contribute and decides when and how much they get back after—and if—they reach retirement age. Having such a successful and beloved socialist program at the heart of such a committed capitalistic society is perhaps the ultimate paradox. Or maybe it’s just good common sense."

I see you are moving goalposts again. The two programs that you mention appear socialist on the surface but if you get past your progressive lenses, they are programs for which I have paid into specifically and are not the classic wealth redistribution programs that you try to make them out to be. You give me back what I have put into those two programs as earmarked withdrawals from my checks and those programs can go to hell. The Constitution DOES NOT guarantee me either of those programs. It does allow congress to tax me for them. You may say participation in them is earned during your employment. And yes, it is regulated but not to the extent you are trying to portray. You and your ilk resisted privatization of SS like it was the plague. Why? Is it because you wish, in true socialist fashion, to take more than you make.


Like I said, it is now the takers vs. the makers and the makers are more and more outnumbered each day and the likes of you cheer this **** on as hard as you can go. You let hate for a man override your sense of what was good or bad for this country. You put 2 shitheads in the white house that will sink us as sure as 3 torpedoes. I can't understand how ANYONE that actually has to pay in and support this government and it's massive vote buying handouts could have put those two in as POTUS and VPOTUS. It's rather sickening.

 

[82_VOL_83]

So to be succinct the only path to unity is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

/thread

Your 4th point is very important and not following it is the very foundation of the leftist, i.e., more and more laws that aren't enforced and more and more rights restricted. Until everyone can agree to leave each other the **** alone, there will be NO unity.

 

[MontyPython]

I see you are moving goalposts again. The two programs that you mention appear socialist on the surface but if you get past your progressive lenses, they are programs for which I have paid into specifically and are not the classic wealth redistribution programs that you try to make them out to be. You give me back what I have put into those two programs as earmarked withdrawals from my checks and those programs can go to hell. The Constitution DOES NOT guarantee me either of those programs. It does allow congress to tax me for them. You may say participation in them is earned during your employment. And yes, it is regulated but not to the extent you are trying to portray. You and your ilk resisted privatization of SS like it was the plague. Why? Is it because you wish, in true socialist fashion, to take more than you make.


Like I said, it is now the takers vs. the makers and the makers are more and more outnumbered each day and the likes of you cheer this **** on as hard as you can go. You let hate for a man override your sense of what was good or bad for this country. You put 2 shitheads in the white house that will sink us as sure as 3 torpedoes. I can't understand how ANYONE that actually has to pay in and support this government and it's massive vote buying handouts could have put those two in as POTUS and VPOTUS. It's rather sickening.

A douchbradodbag says what?

 

[82_VOL_83]

A first start for unity? Get rid of ALL mail in ballots except for those specifically applied for by persons going to be absent and deployed military. It is a states rights issue but the Fed should establish minimum standards for federal elections. NO VOTES will be counted after a certain time on the night of the day of voting unless being cast by persons still in line at the polls. ID MUST be required for all in person voting and for absentee ballots. More strict adherence to polling over sight practices. No leaving and returning to count later, etc. Get it done on one day and be done with it. No same day registration. You register 6 months ahead as a citizen of the state or you vote in the state you moved from. Unity can start by each side believing that the vote was fair and not rigged or stolen by fraudulent ballots produced after polls closed. Once those ballots are in the system, there is no way to show them invalid. Continuing to counting invalid votes leads to the same outcome.


Yes, I believe there was fraud and abuse of the so called mail in system this time. I believe the fix was in the day it was approved. Just my two cents.

 

[Serene]

My take on what’s required to achieve unity in the U.S.

Unity will not be achieved without setting it as a goal to be achieved. A target date needs to be set too so progress can be tracked. At least two respondents have stated they have zero interest in unity. IMO, Unity is the best alternative to all other choices. Others have wisely said we need a “cause” to bind us together - - for example 911. We’ve just experienced an internal 911. Isn’t that a sufficient cause to make a serious effort to unite us? To those who might say we can’t achieve unity? I say “you’re right”. When I’ve got a basketball in my hands if I don’t think I can make that 3 point shot, I don’t make it. If I say I can’t I’m always correct. A can do attitude will be required to succeed at unity

Second and equally important is the need for TRUTH – truth is one required foundation for achieving unity. Stated a different way the telling of non-truths must cease. Who speaks non-truths ? Politicians, segments of news media, parents. In-turn their children (and in turn their children), special interest’s groups as a few pf the more important examples of a bigger list. The belief of non-truths as truths by differing factions fractures unity.

Separation of church and state. We broke from England with this as one cause. Religious zeal has found too much space within the power of politics. To those who said “one size does not fit all. I feel you’re right. But that includes religion, too.

Live and let live (within rules and laws). In my personal life I like to thank those who take time from their busy schedule of minding their own business to try to mind mine. Thanks, but I’ll ask for your help if I need it. Weed your own garden, I’ll tend to mine.

Re-access our laws. Each year we add more laws. Each year we excel at applying them non uniformly. Laws that are not applied uniformly to ALL are one key underpinning to dividing our society. Pare the list of federal laws down to key fundamentals that will be enforced to ALL, uniformly. A smaller less intrusive federal government would be more than helpful

Conservatives stated they feel disenfranchised. It seems You are not alone. Many segments of society feel the same. Does each disenfranchised segment recognize the same feelings exist in other segments? Yes FEELZ! If someone feels rejected by society do they fill their need to be part of something (the need of belonging) another way? Is disenfranchisement not a breeding ground for radicalization? We need to listen better and with more empathy to each other. Break down barriers of hate (a major project of its’ own) so that we actually hear and empathize with others. The feeling of being disenfranchised is probably the single most important issue. IMO

Term limits for politicians should be mandatory. (Defining what is necessary to achieve unity does not imply that each component is achievable) Politicians need to be incentivized for Term Limits. Yeah I know.

All public service jobs should require a “Mental fitness” exam. This would include politicians and police. Those with a predisposition to abusing their power should not be hired/elected

Society needs a collective 12 Step program. Mental health issues need to cease being shunned.

I submit these few thoughts with the hope this thread can get back on track.

I appreciate the optimism and agree with most of the actual policy ideas, but I'm afraid it's not really enough. The problem is tribalism, and it's a problem hardwired into all of our brains. We just have this innate instinct to want to be a part of an "us" and to dislike a "them". That's why external threats are usually such good uniting events--it doesn't defeat the tribalism, it just changes who the "us" and "them" are. Since the events at the Capitol are not really an external threat and doesn't change the "us" versus "them" calculus for a lot of people, I don't think it will be as helpful in uniting the country as, say, Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Without a way to "disable" or guard against tribalism, I just don't see any solution that will work long term. It's a really tough problem to tackle. Education helps, but we're just inexorably drawn to it. Hell, we're sitting on a sports forum that's basically dedicated to tribalism.

 

[tvolsfan]

So based on this thread, it looks like the answer to "how do we unite the country?" is "do whatever I personally want."

 

[82_VOL_83]

A douchbradodbag says what?

If you don't believe welfare, food stamps and other handouts by the government don't by votes you are sadly ignorant.

 

[PointGuard]

So to be succinct the only path to unity is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

No!

 

[82_VOL_83]

I appreciate the optimism and agree with most of the actual policy ideas, but I'm afraid it's not really enough. The problem is tribalism, and it's a problem hardwired into all of our brains. We just have this innate instinct to want to be a part of an "us" and to dislike a "them". That's why external threats are usually such good uniting events--it doesn't defeat the tribalism, it just changes who the "us" and "them" are. Since the events at the Capitol are not really an external threat and doesn't change the "us" versus "them" calculus for a lot of people, I don't think it will be as helpful in uniting the country as, say, Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Without a way to "disable" or guard against tribalism, I just don't see any solution that will work long term. It's a really tough problem to tackle. Education helps, but we're just inexorably drawn to it. Hell, we're sitting on a sports forum that's basically dedicated to tribalism.

One tribe tends to make and the other tends to take. Until both tribes make and then have to decide how the fruits of labor are used, there will be no unity. Right now the takers are approx. 51% and makers are approx. 49%. That divide is growning.

51% of Americans Pay No Federal Income Taxes

 

[82_VOL_83]

No!

and you were doing so well.

 

[hog88]

No!

Yes! If the federal government had little to no impact on the lives of the average citizen would we care enough to argue and fight over what they do?

 

[tvolsfan]

Yes! If the federal government had little to no impact on the lives of the average citizen would we care enough to argue and fight over what they do?

Except the problem is you keep citing a "pre-civil war" level of involvement, and that famously didn't unite the country.

 

[hog88]

Except the problem is you keep citing a "pre-civil war" level of involvement, and that famously didn't unite the country.

Because Lincoln swore to expand the power and scope of the federal government. See the correlation? We almost had a civil war in 1829/1830 over the Tariff of 1828 which was a major expansion of federal government power that ended up being rescinded.