US Politics VIII

[Danny Boy]

I haven't been keeping up. How's the "Be Best" campaign going?

 

[iron yuppie]

I think there is a lot of compelling evidence out there for the power of market economies (which I think is a better term than "capitalism"), like the significant reduction in extreme poverty around the globe as markets have taken firmer hold.


That said, I agree with Ruckman that industries essential to basic survival and opportunity, like healthcare, food, housing, and education, should not be left entirely to the whims of the free market. Just the last decade has seen significant market failures in housing and education, for example, with healthcare probably just around the corner if it's not there already.

 

[Danny Boy]

Just the last decade has seen significant market failures in housing and education, for example, with healthcare probably just around the corner if it's not there already.

Just yesterday I saw a child who hasn't been taking prescribed medications for several months because the family has been without insurance. It's been a few years since I've seen a child without access to health insurance, but there you are.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Trump is flipping his wig over NFL kneeling again

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I haven't been keeping up. How's the "Be Best" campaign going?

Lol. Well Melania's parents became citizens a few days ago. Before SIL changes the rules.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Trump is flipping his wig over NFL kneeling again

The NFL at large really should tell him point blank to get his stupid mouth out of this debate already. Maybe remind him that he's not exactly the best guy to be ranting about patriotism, either, considering the way he's letting Russia screw over the U.S. right now.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The NFL at large really should tell him point blank to get his stupid mouth out of this debate already. Maybe remind him that he's not exactly the best guy to be ranting about patriotism, either, considering the way he's letting Russia screw over the U.S. right now.

No.

They should just ignore him and not react to anything he says or does.

 

[BVS]

Once you take competition out of any industry, the quality suffers. We have the best medical care on earth, because talented people become doctors, because they can make a good living. if you take away the competitive portion of private medicine, the quality goes down.

No, healthcare is a perfect example of where capitalism fails; have you ever wondered why we have viagra but no real cure for diabetes?

 

[DaveC]

Seriously, the United States is the richest nation in the world, in SPITE of our government's attempts to bankrupt us over the years. It's the richest nation in the world because of capitalism. People want to come here, because of capitalism.

which i guess is why canada is experiencing a record number of americans claiming asylum at our borders right now.

People are FLEEING socialist nations, because they like to eat.

yes socialist shitholes such as norway, sweden, and denmark are experiencing such massive famines right now and people definitely don't want to be in those countries.

and before you say venezuela, what's happening there is the result of an authoritarian regime desperate to cling to power ruling a command economy, which is completely independent of socialist thought and which nobody wants to implement in north america. oppression and starvation happens in dictatorships both left and right and i can give you many examples of right-wing dictatorships that were much worse than venezuela.

Once you take competition out of any industry, the quality suffers. We have the best medical care on earth,

lmao not even close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000

because talented people become doctors, because they can make a good living. if you take away the competitive portion of private medicine, the quality goes down.

that explains why the US is #37 on that list and cuba is #39 i guess. and all those countries with socialized healthcare like france, the UK, and canada are so much lower on that list too.

wait a sec, they're actually #1, #18, and #30. let's just call it "conflicting data" so that we don't have to actually talk about that in any meaningful way.

the best cancer research and treatment centre in the world is in toronto, btw.

The government's involvement in healthcare, and public education, are complete failures and disasters. We need LESS government, not more.

I am not wealthy, I am probably low middle class as far as income. But I like the idea that I can work my way up, and that mu children can get into any field they like, and be rewarded, not punished if they are successful.

yes, i hope your children get very lucky and have good connections in addition to a strong work ethic, so that they can be successful, and that they don't get sick and become bankrupted by hospital bills, or get hopelessly hooked on opioid painkillers by a doctor's prescription, or get hit by a car and left with scars that prevent them from working, or any of the other myriad ways people can become destitute and impoverished through no fault whatsoever of their own.

it's a nice thought that the world works like a machine that you insert 5 work tokens into and get 20 success units back but that's not even remotely close to reality and it's pretty weird that you seem to think it does as a grown adult.

The people that benefit from socialism, are usually not contributing much to society to begin with. That's why government aid, should not be a lifestyle choice.

all of canada is not contributing much to society because we as a society benefit from universal healthcare?

if i had to pay out of pocket for medical expenses i would be dead right now because i wouldn't have been able to afford to get treatment for my depression, and i would almost certainly have killed myself 10 years ago.

Again, I challenge all of you who are "Pro Socialism", how much money would it take out of your pocket if socialism were furthered in this country?

My guess is many of you either pay very little in taxes, or get it all back (and maybe more) in a tax return. So you would be impacted very little.

i pay nearly 45% off my paycheque to taxes and would happily pay more if it meant that more poor kids get a chance at a higher education, or their parents don't have to make a choice between buying them food or buying them school supplies because they can't afford both.

But it's easier to spend OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, i.e "the government", i.e. "taxpapers", than your own to help those that you consider "less fortunate".

the amount of money i personally have to spare would accomplish absolutely nothing real for the "less fortunate". sure i can buy lunch for a homeless guy but that doesn't help him get a job, get off drugs, save up rent for an apartment, write a resume, or get clothes to wear to an interview. the amount i have would do nothing to really benefit that person in any way without bankrupting myself to accomplish it. but the amount the state already has definitely could. surely you're aware that pooling resources allows for more effective use of those resources, it's a big part of why people get married after all - everything is cheaper to you as an individual if you share expenses.

a million people giving $10 each to random homeless people isn't going to do anything to address the problem of homelessness, but pool that $10,000,000 together and you could do something to make things genuinely better.

Wealth redistribution ideas are purely out of greed and jealousy. Why do YOU or ANYONE else deserve to have money given to YOU, that was taken from someone else?

wanting the society i live in to be healthier and for us all to live longer lives and be better educated and happier and more productive is a sign of greed and jealousy? and somehow "what's mine is mine, screw you get your own" is not pure greed?

your notion of socialism is completely fucked. nobody is going to come to your house and take all your stuff in a socialist system. if you build a table in your home workshop nobody is coming to take it from you and give it for free to someone who doesn't have a table. socialism is that you can sell your table to the poor family that doesn't have one for a price that they can afford, because profit isn't the primary focus of every transaction. and that family can also now afford to put food on their new table, because they don't have to spend every penny they earn buying insulin to keep their diabetic child alive.

what exactly is so inherently horrid about that?

 

[Irvine511]

There's no conflicting data. There's facts, and not.

A lot of people leave NYC at a high rate, largely due to price. But more people move in than move out, by a decent clip.

Ayup.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Don Jr is an endless source of amusement

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...in-a-doctored-poll-graphic-shared-by-his-son/

 

[BoMac]

People are FLEEING socialist nations, because they like to eat.

Yes, there is a large influx of people fleeing Norway and Denmark.

Again, I challenge all of you who are "Pro Socialism", how much money would it take out of your pocket if socialism were furthered in this country?

Given the choice between living in a democratic socialist state like Norway or the United States in its current incarnation, I’d choose the former. As it stands, I’m perfectly comfortable here in Canada.

I’m currently unemployed, and went back to school to get additional skills. But guess what, while I’m looking for work, I don’t have to worry about paying expensive health care if I get sick, because we have universal health care. I can thank a lifetime of paying taxes for that. Is our health care perfect? No it isn’t. But I’d gladly pay more if it means we get a better system.

The point is, sometimes life happens. And people living in countries with a strong social safety are better equipped to deal with those challenges.

So, yeah, I’d happily pay more out of pocket to help as many people as possible. Imagine breaking the cycle of poverty in families by helping deal with wage inequality, for example. It might be more out of pocket for me initially, but in the end we’d all be better off because there would be savings (i.e. less strain on social and health care systems) and economic gains down the road.

 

[anitram]

I am not wealthy, I am probably low middle class as far as income. But I like the idea that I can work my way up, and that mu children can get into any field they like, and be rewarded, not punished if they are successful.



The people that benefit from socialism, are usually not contributing much to society to begin with. That's why government aid, should not be a lifestyle choice.



Again, I challenge all of you who are "Pro Socialism", how much money would it take out of your pocket if socialism were furthered in this country?



My guess is many of you either pay very little in taxes, or get it all back (and maybe more) in a tax return. So you would be impacted very little.



But it's easier to spend OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, i.e "the government", i.e. "taxpapers", than your own to help those that you consider "less fortunate".



Wealth redistribution ideas are purely out of greed and jealousy. Why do YOU or ANYONE else deserve to have money given to YOU, that was taken from someone else?

I hope that you can recognize the cognitive dissonance in the above.

According to your own world view, you are freeloading off people like me. You are lower middle class and by definition pay VERY little in taxes. Low income taxes (close to if not lowest in western world), your purchasing power is probably low which means you’re paying little in terms of consumption taxes, you likely also pay very little in terms of property taxes.

I on the other hand pay the highest marginal rate and by a lot. Same for my husband. We pay 6 figures in income taxes every year. To say nothing of property taxes, consumption taxes, capital gains. Yes we work very hard but we also benefit from being in well compensated roles. Why do you deserve to benefit from social services paid for by people like me?

 

[Irvine511]

Nevermind

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I guess here's the questions I have for Gzusfrk: why do you keep assuming that people who are relying on government aid simply "aren't working hard enough"? Why do you automatically assume that wanting to make the economic system better for everyone is a result of people simply being "greedy" or "jealous"?

When my dad was ill nearly ten years ago, our family found ourselves at the point where we had to choose between paying rent and heat and food, and my parents went bankrupt due to my dad's medical bills. We had to go through a LOT of red tape to even get a smidgen of government aid to help us, and it sure as hell wasn't enough to take care of all our problems for us. That government aid was not a "lifestyle choice" for us. We didn't want or choose to live that way, believe you me. I support changing our system because I don't want other people to go through what my family went through back then. Care to explain how on earth that makes me greedy or jealous?

I've said it before and I will say it again: your assumptions about people who receive government aid are wrong. Very wrong. Please stop with that argument already.

 

[iron yuppie]

I wonder if there are stats out there about the percentage of people who are on government aid as a result of some kind of unexpected or catastrophic medical event. Having a state-sponsored health system with minimal or no possibility of bankrupting those who use it would help with so many of these issues.

 

[dazzledbylight]

I've seen you say this stuff for a while, and it leaves me scratching my head. I'm speaking specifically of stuff like "They're capitalists, and that's right wing economics no matter how much kvetching they do about the social issues". Are we to take this to mean that you support getting rid of capitalism altogether? And if so, what would you replace it with?

I can, with little to no qualification, say that I support single-payer healthcare, making the minimum wage a living wage, free public college tuition(indeed, anything to improve the quality and accessibility of public education), that I think there are certain industries that should never be for-profit(like healthcare, education, there are probably one or two others), and that if there is any action that can be taken to close the wealth gap and create a fairer economic playing field, we should take said action. All of this would act to create a more limited, more regulated capitalism with more redistribution, but it would still be capitalism, in which people still get to pursue private ownership of property and in which the means of production are still owned privately, i.e. that's what Democratic Socialism is, a capitalist dish with socialist spices mixed in. Are you suggesting that you wouldn't support such a system? That you insist on capitalism being gone altogether? That is what it sounds like when you say that all capitalism is right-wing economics. It's very extreme.

If this is the case, I can say that I would not be able to support such a thing, as I don't really see how you can get rid of capitalism altogether and replace it with pure socialism or whatever else you'd propose replacing it with, without losing democracy. Because I just don't think you're ever going to get enough people to buy into it democratically, and you'll end up having to force a whole lot of people into it, and then that's it, now we're an authoritarian society.

Maybe this isn't what you're suggesting at all, but sometimes it sounds like it. And if that's the case(again, if it's not, just say so), it's a problem for me.

It's just disconcerting to me when someone is trying to put forth a political paradigm where I can be in favor of single payer healthcare, higher minimum wage, free public college tuition, etc etc, and still be made to feel like I'm not progressive enough, like I'm too centrist, etc. Even if that's not what you're doing, enough others(not here, necessarily) have done it that I felt like I had to get it off my chest.

Pretty much agree with this, though I'm still thinking through more stuff on capitalism. I

this is right on the money. i feel like this is where much, but not all, of the democratic party is, and in some ways it's a credit to the democratic socialists who, in just 2 years, have made progress by working within the Democratic Party and pulled the overall platform to the left, similar to what the Tea Party did to the GOP in 2010. this is how it works in a two party system. generally, i support the goals of the democratic socialists. "medicare for all" is now a real platfor. good. i would locate myself a half step to the left of HRC and Obama, but i'm aware that they may need to present themselves as further to the right of me in order to win elections. this is something Democrats are actually very good at doing on the presidential level. since 1988, they have won the popular vote in every single election except for 2004, where W squeaked out a victory. reasons for losses in 2000 and 2016 come down to a combination of third party idiocy, Russians, and the structural issues inherent to our system where rural votes count more than urban votes.

what the Democrats do need to do is grow a spine and fight back harder, we all agree on that. and they need to fight as dirty as the Republicans do.

however, all this does is underscore the importance of voting D no matter what, unless you're talking local elections in like San Francisco or New York. if you don't have Democrats you get nothing progressive. it's absolute garbage to say "i'm not voting for you because you're not doing enough" when actual Nazis are gathering in DC this weekend and there's a lunatic in the white house. it's also absurd to think that people in the center don't vote for socalists because they've never heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or because all her candidates (who all lost on Tuesday) were somehow kneecapped by the "establishment." it is not self-evident to everyone that socialism is the only moral form of government. in fact, it's not self-evident. if you believe in a platform, make the argument and do the right, hard, slow work of pulling the the party closest to you in your direction.

i'd rather pull the centrists who actually vote to the left rather than think that saying "free college!" is going to motivate people who don't vote to actually vote, because i don't think there's any platform that's going to motivate them to vote. what would make a difference in participation would be to, say, put election day on a Saturday. or make it a national holiday. or not purge voting rolls. and you know how you do that? you get Democrats elected however you can.

the single most successful social movement of the 21st century was same-sex marriage. look how that was done. it took activists and argument and judges and elections and making the moral case to the middle that it was the right thing to do. and now it's basically settled law.

and if a bunch of fucksticks who sat on their hands in November 2016 and are willing to do so again because they aren't getting a free lollipop with their votes enable this monstrous party to remain in power and they strip my rights as a citizen, then they have a special place in hell alongside the people they are keeping in power via pouting instead of voting.

THIS.

I pretty much agree with everything you've written. The Two Party system that we are stuck with at the moment, means the Dems and the GOP are really coalitions. So it's up to the party to work out differences. That's why you get pro-life Dems and pro-marriage equality GOPers. I'm definitely further left than most mainstream Dems, but I also understand we have to work within the system we have right now to try to get control of Congress because if the Dems fail I truly fear for this country.

THIS.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I wonder if there are stats out there about the percentage of people who are on government aid as a result of some kind of unexpected or catastrophic medical event.

Wouldn't surprise me if there was. I too would be interested in those kinds of statistics, along with statistics on the other reasons people use government aid and how those compare against the medical-related reasons.

 

[anitram]

Wouldn't surprise me if there was. I too would be interested in those kinds of statistics, along with statistics on the other reasons people use government aid and how those compare against the medical-related reasons.

The other thing is that posters like Gzusfrk seem to think that "government aid" equals welfare for lazy people. When in fact our tax dollars collectively contribute to all kinds of social spending, from civil infrastructure like roads, pipelines, bridges and dams to social infrastructure like schools, courthouses, universities, to education, to military, to park rangers, to first responders services, etc.

That's where the bulk of the $ goes for heaven's sake, not to the racist image of the "Welfare Queen" driving around in a Benz.

 

[dazzledbylight]

As someone who agrees with PhilsFan, my economic philosophy is syndicalism, which is democratic ownership of businesses. Essentially every business would be a co-op, democratically run by the workers. You'd still have markets but some industries would be nationalized.

I sometimes patronize a craft and art supply company- that sometimes has a bit higher prices on some things (I'm on the poor side), because it is worker owned.

I think there is a lot of compelling evidence out there for the power of market economies (which I think is a better term than "capitalism"), like the significant reduction in extreme poverty around the globe as markets have taken firmer hold.


That said, I agree with Ruckman that industries essential to basic survival and opportunity, like healthcare, food, housing, and education, should not be left entirely to the whims of the free market. Just the last decade has seen significant market failures in housing and education, for example, with healthcare probably just around the corner if it's not there already.

This last paragraph, yes.
Hmm, interesting to consider the choice words of capitalism vs market economies.

Yes, there is a large influx of people fleeing Norway and Denmark.

Given the choice between living in a democratic socialist state like Norway or the United States in its current incarnation, I’d choose the former. As it stands, I’m perfectly comfortable here in Canada.

I’m currently unemployed, and went back to school to get additional skills. But guess what, while I’m looking for work, I don’t have to worry about paying expensive health care if I get sick, because we have universal health care. I can thank a lifetime of paying taxes for that. Is our health care perfect? No it isn’t. But I’d gladly pay more if it means we get a better system.

The point is, sometimes life happens. And people living in countries with a strong social safety are better equipped to deal with those challenges.

So, yeah, I’d happily pay more out of pocket to help as many people as possible. Imagine breaking the cycle of poverty in families by helping deal with wage inequality, for example. It might be more out of pocket for me initially, but in the end we’d all be better off because there would be savings (i.e. less strain on social and health care systems) and economic gains down the road.

Very much agree with this.
So (oh) Canada- is it considered a socialist country, or a mixed economy (yes, sounding dumb, here)?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

The other thing is that posters like Gzusfrk seem to think that "government aid" equals welfare for lazy people. When in fact our tax dollars collectively contribute to all kinds of social spending, from civil infrastructure like roads, pipelines, bridges and dams to social infrastructure like schools, courthouses, universities, to education, to military, to park rangers, to first responders services, etc.

That's where the bulk of the $ goes for heaven's sake, not to the racist image of the "Welfare Queen" driving around in a Benz.

YES. Exactly.

 

[dazzledbylight]

The other thing is that posters like Gzusfrk seem to think that "government aid" equals welfare for lazy people. When in fact our tax dollars collectively contribute to all kinds of social spending, from civil infrastructure like roads, pipelines, bridges and dams to social infrastructure like schools, courthouses, universities, to education, to military, to park rangers, to first responders services, etc.

That's where the bulk of the $ goes for heaven's sake, not to the racist image of the "Welfare Queen" driving around in a Benz.

This!
And government can do some of the biggest things because it's getting a lot of money then to do things that would be way more difficult, or (?) impossible for smaller groups to accomplish.

 

[Gzusfrk]

The other thing is that posters like Gzusfrk seem to think that "government aid" equals welfare for lazy people. When in fact our tax dollars collectively contribute to all kinds of social spending, from civil infrastructure like roads, pipelines, bridges and dams to social infrastructure like schools, courthouses, universities, to education, to military, to park rangers, to first responders services, etc.

That's where the bulk of the $ goes for heaven's sake, not to the racist image of the "Welfare Queen" driving around in a Benz.

I am fully aware what tax dollars pay for. I also understand that before 1913, there was NO income tax, yet we still had roads, schools, etc. The Federal Government has been allowed to infiltrate every aspect of our lives which was NEVER our Founders intentions.

I've said this before, but if the Fed government was smaller, and we had LESS taxes, then people would take home more money, and take care of family members, and give to the organizations that they supporr. Unfortunately most Democrats don't support this because they would rather virtue signal and say " I'm compassionate, I support the GOVERNMENT paying for healthcare, education, etc, rather than giving the money themselves.

Studies do show that more conservatives give to charity than liberals, so this view doesn't surprise me.

 

[Irvine511]

I am fully aware what tax dollars pay for. I also understand that before 1913, there was NO income tax, yet we still had roads, schools, etc. The Federal Government has been allowed to infiltrate every aspect of our lives which was NEVER our Founders intentions.



I've said this before, but if the Fed government was smaller, and we had LESS taxes, then people would take home more money, and take care of family members, and give to the organizations that they supporr. Unfortunately most Democrats don't support this because they would rather virtue signal and say " I'm compassionate, I support the GOVERNMENT paying for healthcare, education, etc, rather than giving the money themselves.



Studies do show that more conservatives give to charity than liberals, so this view doesn't surprise me.

You want to go back to 1913? Really? Do you know what the average lifespan was in 1913? The poverty rate? The education level of the average person? Really?















(How about we go back to the 50s when taxes on the wealthy were much, much higher than today)

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Total silence from Trump about Charlottesville anniversary. I'm sure that will continue unless someone convinces him to put some half hearted statement on Twitter while he's golfing.

Strangely enough he has much more to say about NFL kneeling. Not so strangely.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You want to go back to 1913? Really? Do you know what the average lifespan was in 1913? The poverty rate? The education level of the average person? Really?















(How about we go back to the 50s when taxes on the wealthy were much, much higher than today)

If you're concerned about the lower and middle classes getting smashed with taxes, why wouldn't you prefer a policy period without artificial credit expansion (inflation is the sneakiest tax of all) to fill the pockets of well-connected fat cats at our expense?

(Notice I didn't say the primitive technology of 1913 is preferable. You build on the shoulders of your inheritance.)

The poverty rate tends to decline as private innovation makes way and capital goods advance. Time doesn't rewind this. Taxes are not confined long term to one group. You and I end up getting passed the buck for taxes "on the rich."

Also, taxation of the 1950s came with a lot of loopholes. As long as you had favorable status in the eyes of policy-makers, you were off the hook while someone else in your tax bracket gets whipped.

The 16th Amendment pretty much gave way to the modern warfare empire and gave the feds the resources to circumvent the Constitution and weaken the Bill of Rights as long as SCOTUS rubber stamps it.

 

[BVS]

I am fully aware what tax dollars pay for. I also understand that before 1913, there was NO income tax, yet we still had roads, schools, etc. The Federal Government has been allowed to infiltrate every aspect of our lives which was NEVER our Founders intentions.



I've said this before, but if the Fed government was smaller, and we had LESS taxes, then people would take home more money, and take care of family members, and give to the organizations that they supporr. Unfortunately most Democrats don't support this because they would rather virtue signal and say " I'm compassionate, I support the GOVERNMENT paying for healthcare, education, etc, rather than giving the money themselves.

We also had shit like polio.

Studies do show that more conservatives give to charity than liberals, so this view doesn't surprise me.

Sounds like sound science [emoji52]

 

[DaveC]

I am fully aware what tax dollars pay for. I also understand that before 1913, there was NO income tax, yet we still had roads, schools, etc. The Federal Government has been allowed to infiltrate every aspect of our lives which was NEVER our Founders intentions.

I've said this before, but if the Fed government was smaller, and we had LESS taxes, then people would take home more money, and take care of family members, and give to the organizations that they supporr. Unfortunately most Democrats don't support this because they would rather virtue signal and say " I'm compassionate, I support the GOVERNMENT paying for healthcare, education, etc, rather than giving the money themselves.

Studies do show that more conservatives give to charity than liberals, so this view doesn't surprise me.

man do i ever love writing long, thoughtful posts that get completely ignored.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

man do i ever love writing long, thoughtful posts that get completely ignored.

That's what you get for thinking before you post

 

[DaveC]

he whines constantly that we don't discuss exactly what he thinks we should be discussing in the exact way he thinks we should be discussing it, but when someone genuinely tries to continue a conversation he started it gets crickets in response. i honestly don't know why i even bothered, i knew this would happen

this guy's making me miss nick, and that's saying something. at least nick would reply to the actual words people said and wasn't just a walking strawman factory.