Potential Democrat nitemare scenario coming up?

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice try, dissipate. so, uhh, where would you put laws requiring emergency medical care for the indigent? Truth in Lending? The SEC? Anti-trust? Collective Bargaining? Workplace safety and Workmen's comp? Unemployment insurance? Mandatory auto insurance?

It's not so simple when you consider the well-being and productivity of American workers as a form of infrastructure, perhaps the most important of all.

The period from 1945 to 1980 might be viewed as a period of time when we achieved the best balance between capitalism and socialism. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of deception and self-righteous greed has broken the social contract of good corporate citizenship and self restraint by the truly wealthy.

Those examples were basically off the top of my head. One of the primary functions of modern government is to shape and redirect income, investment and industry to serve the common good. Those on the far right claim that supply side trickle down models accomplish that. Given the current state of affairs and our jobless so-called recovery, with lower wages and benefits in new jobs vs old jobs, I'd label that as malarkey...

People like you have been on the wrong side of economic discussions for centuries.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thank you, Dari, for the Ad Hom- it's generally the last refuge of the hopelessly outclassed...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Uhhhh.... Dean not appealing the the leftist on the Democrat side?

Heres a nice Washinton Post article on that.
link

Lots of info in Diary of a Dean-o-phobe
Please don't automatically dismiss it as biased...

If you're talking about my response to Dari, he claimed the Democratic Party is "pandering to the extreme left." That is a far cry from Dean appealing to the left.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Uh, let's see here. Socialism involves having the government provide more than infrastructure and involves government taking on the role of income redistribution. Almost all of the things you list are infrastructure that even libertarians agree government should provide. Let's see.

Sidewalks: infrastructure
Environmental protection: infrastructure
Fire department: classic example of infrastructure
Sanitation: infrastructure
Regulation of food: infrastructure

Social security: socialism
Minimum wage laws: attempted socialism

Even the far right winged libertarians agree that the items listed above should be provided by government. They are certainly not socialist budget items. I think you need to redo your list.

Is this an assumption on your part, or can you back it up? While I don't follow Libertarianism as closely as I once did, the Libertarian Party platform used to reject almost, if not all of your list. They were opposed to environmental and food regulation, for example. I don't remember if it was part of the party platform, but I know they suggested that services like sanitation, education, and even fire fighting should be turned over to the private sector. Sidewalks, in fact, are already often provided by the private sector and paid for by property owners, not government.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Thank you, Dari, for the Ad Hom- it's generally the last refuge of the hopelessly outclassed...

I think "pinko" is his new word for today. He used it in another thread today too.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice try, dissipate. so, uhh, where would you put laws requiring emergency medical care for the indigent? Truth in Lending? The SEC? Anti-trust? Collective Bargaining? Workplace safety and Workmen's comp? Unemployment insurance? Mandatory auto insurance?

It's not so simple when you consider the well-being and productivity of American workers as a form of infrastructure, perhaps the most important of all.

The period from 1945 to 1980 might be viewed as a period of time when we achieved the best balance between capitalism and socialism. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of deception and self-righteous greed has broken the social contract of good corporate citizenship and self restraint by the truly wealthy.

Those examples were basically off the top of my head. One of the primary functions of modern government is to shape and redirect income, investment and industry to serve the common good. Those on the far right claim that supply side trickle down models accomplish that. Given the current state of affairs and our jobless so-called recovery, with lower wages and benefits in new jobs vs old jobs, I'd label that as malarkey...

So far as the actual subject of this thread is concerned, it all depends on whose voters turn out for the caucuses... Dean supporters may not be the majority of potential voters, which is what the polls measure, but their commitment and energy level indicate they'll have a solid turnout. There's plenty of time to deal with Dubya, anyway- he'll play hell campaigning to the middle, as in 2000, and it's good to remember he's a minority president in the first place...

I'm not going to spend my entire day classifying every government program, bureau and function for you. I think you ought to be intelligent enough to figure it out for yourself. As for the primary functions of modern government to shape and redirect income to serve the common good. This statement is true. The problem is yourself and others have chosen to define wealth redistribution as one of these functions of government. Taking my income or someone else's and giving it to someone else is not part of the "common good", it only serves those who receive these funds while sidewalks, fire departments, and national defense serves everyone.

I think that France would be a better place for you to live, there are more people there who agree with your views.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Uh, let's see here. Socialism involves having the government provide more than infrastructure and involves government taking on the role of income redistribution. Almost all of the things you list are infrastructure that even libertarians agree government should provide. Let's see.

Sidewalks: infrastructure
Environmental protection: infrastructure
Fire department: classic example of infrastructure
Sanitation: infrastructure
Regulation of food: infrastructure

Social security: socialism
Minimum wage laws: attempted socialism

Even the far right winged libertarians agree that the items listed above should be provided by government. They are certainly not socialist budget items. I think you need to redo your list.

Is this an assumption on your part, or can you back it up? While I don't follow Libertarianism as closely as I once did, the Libertarian Party platform used to reject almost, if not all of your list. They were opposed to environmental and food regulation, for example. I don't remember if it was part of the party platform, but I know they suggested that services like sanitation, education, and even fire fighting should be turned over to the private sector. Sidewalks, in fact, are already often provided by the private sector and paid for by property owners, not government.

Regardless of the fact of whether or not libertarians believe these items should be provided by government, these items serve everyone, not just a group of people. Everyone benefits from sanitation, sidewalks and fire departments. Socialism is about taking wealth from one group of individuals (almost always the "wealthy") and giving it to the "poor". This does not serve everyone, it serves a particular group, therefore it is not infrastructure it is socialism.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hot Damn! I must be on a roll! I've been bestowed the honor of the French-smear Ad Hom!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Hot Damn! I must be on a roll! I've been bestowed the honor of the French-smear Ad Hom!

No smear. I am merely pointing out the fact that France's government is more in tune with your views, thus you may enjoy living there.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Is this an assumption on your part, or can you back it up? While I don't follow Libertarianism as closely as I once did, the Libertarian Party platform used to reject almost, if not all of your list. They were opposed to environmental and food regulation, for example. I don't remember if it was part of the party platform, but I know they suggested that services like sanitation, education, and even fire fighting should be turned over to the private sector. Sidewalks, in fact, are already often provided by the private sector and paid for by property owners, not government.

Regardless of the fact of whether or not libertarians believe these items should be provided by government, these items serve everyone, not just a group of people. Everyone benefits from sanitation, sidewalks and fire departments. Socialism is about taking wealth from one group of individuals (almost always the "wealthy") and giving it to the "poor". This does not serve everyone, it serves a particular group, therefore it is not infrastructure it is socialism.

Actually, that's not accurate either. I'm pretty sure I've never used your sidewalk, nor have most of the people in your town. Many people make almost no use of sidewalks. On the other hand, children, walkers, and runners may use them extensively. Perhaps for fairness, sidewalks should be funded on a toll basis, paid for only by those people walking on them.

The same could be said for sanitation. Many people have septic tanks instead of public sanitation. They are not served by public sanitation systems.

I can't think of anything government does that serves all people equally. Some things are used more and are of more value to lower income people, e.g., food stamps and subsidized services. Others are of most value to the wealthy, e.g., public safety protection (they have the most valuable assets), our financial infrastructure and court system (used far more by the wealthy than average Americans), the FAA/airposts, etc.

Our "socialist" infrastructure facilitates the opportunities that let the wealthy make and maintain their fabulous wealth. That's why they insist on staying here and bitching about their taxes instead of relocating to Guatemala. They want that expensive infrastructure as much as anyone. They just don't want to pay for it.

 

[UltraQuiet]

One of the primary functions of modern government is to shape and redirect income, investment and industry to serve the common good.

No that is what leftist, socialist, democrats, such as yourself, think the government is supposed to do. Thankfully it is a minority opinion and although there is already too much of it, it could be worse.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well, the most obvious example is how most candidates have taken up the anti-warrior banner.

Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun anti-war, anti-occupation.
Dean anti-war, wax/wane occupation.
Kerry, Edwards, Clark pro-intervention but allegedly not the Bush version.
Leiberman . . . "we should have invaded in '98!"

The second is the support Dean is getting (from establishment figures) because of his anti-warrior stance.

Seems like most of the "establishment" . . . if you believe the talking heads . . . is trying its best to draft Hilary . . . who signed Congress' BS abdication of their Constitutional responsibilities.

Third, protectionism

Hmm . . . steel tariffs? Hmm . . . Farm Bill?

They want to repeal the Bush tax cuts to finance health welfare and other un-American pet projects of the Democratic party.

Bush advocated tax cuts AND tremendous expansions in federal spending for education, healthcare, and most recently . . . $1.5B for marriage. Those damn Democrats . . . even when they are out of power they cost us money.

This is the same extreme left that has advocated a soft/weak American foreign policy for decades.

I don't know why anyone would brag about it . . . FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ all presided over significant international conflicts. Reagan ran from Lebanon but invaded Grenada :Q. We built up a stash of weapons that we had no intention of ever actually using. We fought multiple conflicts by proxy (Afghanistan, El Salvador, Honduras) but more often than not we talked the talk but rarely walked the walk. Arguably a lot of that policy was soft, weak, AND stupid. Fortunately, freedom lovers throughout the world liberated themselves and the USSR went broke.

Despite his lack of enthusiasm for serving or respecting the military, Clinton launched more cruise missiles than he did unsolicited requests for service from ugly, overweight women . . . as you can imagine that's a lot of cruise missiles. In fact, the US/UK barrage on Iraq likely facilitated Saddam's abandonment of an extensive WMD program.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

One of the primary functions of modern government is to shape and redirect income, investment and industry to serve the common good.

What do you think the $500B+ going through DOD is doing other than redirecting income, investment, and industry to serve the alleged common good? Of course, that's not socialism either. Curiously, none of the people talking about Socialism has a clue about what Socialism entails.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Is this an assumption on your part, or can you back it up? While I don't follow Libertarianism as closely as I once did, the Libertarian Party platform used to reject almost, if not all of your list. They were opposed to environmental and food regulation, for example. I don't remember if it was part of the party platform, but I know they suggested that services like sanitation, education, and even fire fighting should be turned over to the private sector. Sidewalks, in fact, are already often provided by the private sector and paid for by property owners, not government.

Regardless of the fact of whether or not libertarians believe these items should be provided by government, these items serve everyone, not just a group of people. Everyone benefits from sanitation, sidewalks and fire departments. Socialism is about taking wealth from one group of individuals (almost always the "wealthy") and giving it to the "poor". This does not serve everyone, it serves a particular group, therefore it is not infrastructure it is socialism.

Actually, that's not accurate either. I'm pretty sure I've never used your sidewalk, nor have most of the people in your town. Many people make almost no use of sidewalks. On the other hand, children, walkers, and runners may use them extensively. Perhaps for fairness, sidewalks should be funded on a toll basis, paid for only by those people walking on them.

The same could be said for sanitation. Many people have septic tanks instead of public sanitation. They are not served by public sanitation systems.

I can't think of anything government does that serves all people equally. Some things are used more and are of more value to lower income people, e.g., food stamps and subsidized services. Others are of most value to the wealthy, e.g., public safety protection (they have the most valuable assets), our financial infrastructure and court system (used far more by the wealthy than average Americans), the FAA/airposts, etc.

Our "socialist" infrastructure facilitates the opportunities that let the wealthy make and maintain their fabulous wealth. That's why they insist on staying here and bitching about their taxes instead of relocating to Guatemala. They want that expensive infrastructure as much as anyone. They just don't want to pay for it.

Regardless of who uses these goods and how much they use them the fact of the matter is that these goods are public, so if someone wants to use them they can. If you have ever travelled to another town I am sure you would be most displeased if there was no sanitation and no sidewalks.

As for court systems, everyone benefits from these because it allows people to settle their disputes in a civilized manner. Last time I checked poor people were not excluded from using court systems. Furthermore, the corporations that employ millions of lower income people use these courts to protect intellectual property, real estate and settle disputes everyday. Joe Six pack's company gets ripped off to the tune of millions of dollars, no court system? Looks like he is out of a job.

Want to see an example of a country that has a dysfunctional court system? Russia. Guess the only people there who got the shaft on that one were rich people (yeah right).

Welfare, food stamps, social security, these are not public goods. They are income redistributions that benefit only the people who receive them. Social security being the biggest of them all.

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Bush will be re-elected easily.

The country has not suffered enough yet for a lot of people to wake up.

Unfortunate, but true.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actually, that's not accurate either. I'm pretty sure I've never used your sidewalk, nor have most of the people in your town. Many people make almost no use of sidewalks. On the other hand, children, walkers, and runners may use them extensively. Perhaps for fairness, sidewalks should be funded on a toll basis, paid for only by those people walking on them.

The same could be said for sanitation. Many people have septic tanks instead of public sanitation. They are not served by public sanitation systems.

I can't think of anything government does that serves all people equally. Some things are used more and are of more value to lower income people, e.g., food stamps and subsidized services. Others are of most value to the wealthy, e.g., public safety protection (they have the most valuable assets), our financial infrastructure and court system (used far more by the wealthy than average Americans), the FAA/airposts, etc.

Our "socialist" infrastructure facilitates the opportunities that let the wealthy make and maintain their fabulous wealth. That's why they insist on staying here and bitching about their taxes instead of relocating to Guatemala. They want that expensive infrastructure as much as anyone. They just don't want to pay for it.

Regardless of who uses these goods and how much they use them the fact of the matter is that these goods are public, so if someone wants to use them they can. If you have ever travelled to another town I am sure you would be most displeased if there was no sanitation and no sidewalks.

As for court systems, everyone benefits from these because it allows people to settle their disputes in a civilized manner. Last time I checked poor people were not excluded from using court systems. Furthermore, the corporations that employ millions of lower income people use these courts to protect intellectual property, real estate and settle disputes everyday. Joe Six pack's company gets ripped off to the tune of millions of dollars, no court system? Looks like he is out of a job.
[ ... ]
Welfare, food stamps, social security, these are not public goods. They are income redistributions that benefit only the people who receive them. Social security being the biggest of them all.

Nonsense. You contradict yourself and deny reality. "Welfare", food stamps, and social security are just as public as sidewalks and courts. Social Security, in particular, is for the use of almost everyone who has ever collected a paycheck. Re. the rest of your examples, wealthy citizens are no more excluded from "welfare" and food stamps than the poor are excluded from the services I listed. We can both construct unlikely scenarios where a millionaire will use food stamps or a Wal-Mart worker will use our appellate court system. Neither is particularly likely.

Since you avoided it the first time, I'll say it again. Our "socialist" infrastructure facilitates the opportunities that let the wealthy make and maintain their fabulous wealth. That's why they insist on staying here and bitching about their taxes instead of relocating to Guatemala. They want that expensive infrastructure as much as anyone. They just don't want to pay for it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actually, that's not accurate either. I'm pretty sure I've never used your sidewalk, nor have most of the people in your town. Many people make almost no use of sidewalks. On the other hand, children, walkers, and runners may use them extensively. Perhaps for fairness, sidewalks should be funded on a toll basis, paid for only by those people walking on them.

The same could be said for sanitation. Many people have septic tanks instead of public sanitation. They are not served by public sanitation systems.

I can't think of anything government does that serves all people equally. Some things are used more and are of more value to lower income people, e.g., food stamps and subsidized services. Others are of most value to the wealthy, e.g., public safety protection (they have the most valuable assets), our financial infrastructure and court system (used far more by the wealthy than average Americans), the FAA/airposts, etc.

Our "socialist" infrastructure facilitates the opportunities that let the wealthy make and maintain their fabulous wealth. That's why they insist on staying here and bitching about their taxes instead of relocating to Guatemala. They want that expensive infrastructure as much as anyone. They just don't want to pay for it.

Regardless of who uses these goods and how much they use them the fact of the matter is that these goods are public, so if someone wants to use them they can. If you have ever travelled to another town I am sure you would be most displeased if there was no sanitation and no sidewalks.

As for court systems, everyone benefits from these because it allows people to settle their disputes in a civilized manner. Last time I checked poor people were not excluded from using court systems. Furthermore, the corporations that employ millions of lower income people use these courts to protect intellectual property, real estate and settle disputes everyday. Joe Six pack's company gets ripped off to the tune of millions of dollars, no court system? Looks like he is out of a job.
[ ... ]
Welfare, food stamps, social security, these are not public goods. They are income redistributions that benefit only the people who receive them. Social security being the biggest of them all.

Nonsense. You contradict yourself and deny reality. "Welfare", food stamps, and social security are just as public as sidewalks and courts. Social Security, in particular, is for the use of almost everyone who has ever collected a paycheck. Re. the rest of your examples, wealthy citizens are no more excluded from "welfare" and food stamps than the poor are excluded from the services I listed. We can both construct unlikely scenarios where a millionaire will use food stamps or a Wal-Mart worker will use our appellate court system. Neither is particularly likely.

Since you avoided it the first time, I'll say it again. Our "socialist" infrastructure facilitates the opportunities that let the wealthy make and maintain their fabulous wealth. That's why they insist on staying here and bitching about their taxes instead of relocating to Guatemala. They want that expensive infrastructure as much as anyone. They just don't want to pay for it.

Experts say that an 18 year old entering the workforce today will pay FAR more into social security than he/she will ever get out of it in their lifetime. Once again, social security is not a public good. Wealthy people are excluded from welfare, what the heck are you talking about? No millionaire I have heard of has qualified for welfare payments. That is the nature of income redistribution, only a particular group is allowed to receive the funds.

Wealthy people maintain their fabulous wealth because they are good at managing money and investing. This is no mystery and it certainly isn't rocket science to understand. Poor people who have suddenly become rich because of the lottery or some other windfall often blow their winnings within a few years. Rodney King being a perfect example. Here is a guy who became a millionaire from the famous Rodney King beating trial. Last time I heard the guy was broke because he spent all his money on drugs.

Have you ever had 40% of your income paid to the government in taxes? I haven't and I certainly feel sorry for ANYONE who does. As far as I am concerned the progressive tax system is unfair and should be abolished. As for who is paying for the government, let's look at the statistics. The top 10% of earners pay HALF the tax revenue. I am not in this 10% but I can understand someone who was complaining about it. These top earners are paying through the NOSE for their wonderful infrastructure that everyone else enjoys.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

One of the primary functions of modern government is to shape and redirect income, investment and industry to serve the common good.

What do you think the $500B+ going through DOD is doing other than redirecting income, investment, and industry to serve the alleged common good? Of course, that's not socialism either. Curiously, none of the people talking about Socialism has a clue about what Socialism entails.

It's called providing for the common defense. Refer to the US Constitution for more details. I know that every dime that goes to the DoD chaps your ass Doc and I know you'd much rather see it go to a some health care program that will let you pump up your fees.

Thats what Hillary and Gore are hoping for, so they can ride to the rescue, and won't have to raise any money to do it.

You don't see the Clintons because they do not want a Democrat to win this year. That would put Hillary in the position of having to run against a sitting Democrat President, one who may actually be sucessful. No, the Clinton's plans are to run against whatever Republican gets annoited to succeed GW. I personally don't think it matters what the Clinton's do. I don't think Hillary can win anyway and she certainly can't beat Guilliani.

 

[Jhhnn]

No that is what leftist, socialist, democrats, such as yourself, think the government is supposed to do. Thankfully it is a minority opinion and although there is already too much of it, it could be worse.

So, pardon me, but if it's a minority opinion, how did we end up with those aspects of government and society that I've mentioned?

Because they're the will of the people, of the majority. because we had the means and the will to create them, because we had the benefit of some past leaders whose vision of prosperity encompassed the American people as a whole, rather than just the country club elite. Because that elite also shared that vision for their own selfish reasons- they'd seen what happens in societies where the distribution of wealth becomes too lopsided, where the populace feels cheated and abused. Recently, however, those at the top have become entirely too arrogant, given the success of their new-right propaganda efforts. They seem to think that they'll remain safe in an America having the wealth distribution of brazil, and that they've completely indoctrinated the public with the notion that they, too, will be rich someday, if they just work hard enough and make the right moves... Which is, of course, pure pie in the sky malarkey...

Hopefully, we can achieve some sort of awakening of that egalitarian sense of community, that we're all interconnected, and that our great wealth can be distributed in a way so that some equality of results will come from an equality of effort, and that those truly unable to contribute are humanely provided for...

We can start by ousting Dubya from the Whitehouse. Lest anybody forget, he IS a minority prez, it won't take too many votes to kiss him buh-bye...

 

[mfs378]

If subsidizing prescription drugs for low-income seniors is such an extremist issue, why did Bush propose it? If expanding health coverage to the uninsured is so leftist, why is this administration supporting it? The problem is that Bush thinks he can do these things while reducing the government's revenue. How's that for being on the wrong side of the economic facts?

If you see a family with two children making $40,000 and paying 10% of that in taxes, and you see another earning $2,000,000 and paying 40% - and you feel sorry for the 40% family, then you are misguided. The real world could teach you a thing or two.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
We can start by ousting Dubya from the Whitehouse. Lest anybody forget, he IS a minority prez, it won't take too many votes to kiss him buh-bye...

Can you name the last President with a Majority vote? I can, and infact I can name the last 4.

mfs378 - I think alot of Republicans and Conservatives are not too happy with the Prescription drug thing.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

How much you guys wanna bet Bush will propose universal healthcare in his SotU on Tuesday -- or some similar healthcare plan for the poor and downtrodden in Amerika? Tune in Tuesday @ 6PM PST when he does. And then I want to hear Dari call him a "Commie Pinko" and we can all pretend we're living in the McCarthy era once again . . .

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

mfs378 - I think alot of Republicans and Conservatives are not too happy with the Prescription drug thing.

CkG

That wasn't the point. I agree that conservatives are likely to be opposed, but it certainly shows that it is a mainstream issue and not just some leftist exteme position, doesn't it.

By the way, I wouldn't worry too much, I'm sure that the basis of the prescription drug plan involves lots of tax breaks to drug companies.

 

[nutxo]

I think we should all be thankful there are 2 extreme and opposing political forces to keep a balance.

Lest the whole country end up like California was .

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you guys wanna bet Bush will propose universal healthcare in his SotU on Tuesday -- or some similar healthcare plan for the poor and downtrodden in Amerika? Tune in Tuesday @ 6PM PST when he does. And then I want to hear Dari call him a "Commie Pinko" and we can all pretend we're living in the McCarthy era once again . . .

If he does that - he won't have my support and he won't have many Conservative votes. Prescription drugs was bad enough but UHC would be disasterous for him.

CkG