2020 Field

nsacpi said:
So I take it that your answer is no to the five items I listed.
Click to expand...

Those are 5 things I’d love to either privatize, eliminate, or reform in some way that reduces the scope of government involvement. I’m not sure whether they would fall under whatever democratic socialism’s definition is. Why don’t you ask 57 as he posted the tweet?

My whole point is it’s difficult to roll back a government program (whether it’s a democratic socialism program or not) once people start receiving benefits so I disagree with the notion that we can have some national experiment and simply undo it in a few years, as 57’s posted tweet argued.
 
Wouldn't reform in some way require governmental oversight? Or more simply put, oversight by elected officials.
Operative term, elected officials.
And isnt this government you are railing against in fact put in place by elected officials

And those without the means to buy into this education for profit-system you espouse-are they simply left behind?
Blah blah blah bootstraps ?
 
Last edited:
I have a sinking feeling the 21st century GOP is working towards an appointed government of their choosing.
The signs are all there.
Packing of the courts -- thinning out voter registrants -- for profit institutions where they were once public --- gerrymandered voting districts to insure victory --- turning their gaze from autocratic rule --- even so far as defining weather to suit their purposes

Oh, I cant think of the word .... perhaps some of our resident (R) can help me out
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
Wouldn't reform in some way require governmental oversight? Or more simply put, oversight by elected officials.
Operative term, elected officials.
And isnt this government you are railing against in fact put in place by elected officials

And those without the means to buy into this education for profit-system you espouse-are they simply left behind?
Blah blah blah bootstraps ?
Click to expand...

None of this has anything to do with the tweet you posted and I responded to
 
acesfull86 said:
Those are 5 things I’d love to either privatize, eliminate, or reform in some way that reduces the scope of government involvement. I’m not sure whether they would fall under whatever democratic socialism’s definition is. Why don’t you ask 57 as he posted the tweet?

My whole point is it’s difficult to roll back a government program (whether it’s a democratic socialism program or not) once people start receiving benefits so I disagree with the notion that we can have some national experiment and simply undo it in a few years, as 57’s posted tweet argued.
Click to expand...

I don't think your point holds up. I cited a number of countries (much further along the democratic socialism spectrum than we are) who have enacted reforms. I mentioned that Reagan reduced domestic discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP. Social security has been reformed in terms of retirement age and indexation for inflation. There was a substantial reform of the welfare program under Clinton to toughen up the work requirements.

Your position basically is one that would result in the status quo being frozen. But society's needs are not static. We need to adjust with the times. In some cases this will involve less government involvement and in others more. It aint as simple as socialism bad capitalism good. Life isn't a bumper sticker.

You may remember that Obama and Boehner discussed a "grand bargain" that would curb the growth of entitlement spending. These sorts of things are in the realm of possibility. But they require mature politicians and mature voters who have respect for the art of the possible.

I would put much of what Sanders and Warren are proposing in the same category as certain promises made in the last campaign to the effect that Mexico was going to pay for the wall or that China would be cut down in size. Sounds good. But it is pie in the sky. People can vote for it if they want. But it aint happening.
 
Last edited:
This list/goals of Sanders --- I am curious thinking in terms of bang for the buck --- how much more health care one could get for the money than what one gets today. Remember the tale of hundreds of dollar insulin and bankruptcies due to catastrophic illness.
For a secong imagine that insulin costing say $10.
The other hundreds or so being put back into the economy
Not even mentioning easing the burden of the diabetic


WE are fast lagging behind the world in everything but drive up coffee service --- why on earth would we not want free college available to those deserving ?
Why are we crippling young people with college debt even before they don the cap and gown ?

I see Sen Sanders goals worthy.
And you see ... over reaching government. Whatever on earth that means
Do we still take off our shoes in airports ?
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
I don't think your point holds up. I cited a number of countries (much further along the democratic socialism spectrum than we are) who have enacted reforms. I mentioned that Reagan reduced domestic discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP. Social security has been reformed in terms of retirement age and indexation for inflation. There was a substantial reform of the welfare program under Clinton to toughen up the work requirements.

Your position basically is one that would result in the status quo being frozen. But society's needs are not static. We need to adjust with the times. In some cases this will involve less government involvement and in others more. It aint as simple as socialism bad capitalism good. Life isn't a bumper sticker.
Click to expand...

I guess I’ll agree to disagree. I think we need to be way more thoughtful and deliberate before adding new social programs than “hey let’s try it and if it doesn’t work we can just get rid of it.” (Not your words). “Let’s just try” isn’t a convincing argument to me...I think it greatly understates the risk
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
This list/goals of Sanders --- I am curious thinking in terms of bang for the buck --- how much more health care one could get for the money than what one gets today. Remember the tale of hundreds of dollar insulin and bankruptcies due to catastrophic illness.
For a secong imagine that insulin costing say $10.
The other hundreds or so being put back into the economy
Not even mentioning easing the burden of the diabetic


WE are fast lagging behind the world in everything but drive up coffee service --- why on earth would we not want free college available to those deserving ?
Why are we crippling young people with college debt even before they don the cap and gown ?

I see Sen Sanders goals worthy.
And you see ... over reaching government. Whatever on earth that means
Do we still take off our shoes in airports ?
Click to expand...

I think the problem with many of the proposals Sanders and Warren and others are putting out is a lack of serious attempt to control the growth of administrative costs in education and healthcare. If you compare our education and healthcare systems with other developed countries our administrative costs are through the roof. Control that and you can get better bang for your buck. But that's a lot less sexy that "single payer" or "free college." In their own ways, there is a lack of seriousness about Sanders and Warren. It is as pie in the sky as Mexico paying for the wall.
 
some guy on the internet tweets hey what we are doing isnt working lets "try" something else. It is repeated on a baseball forum and you see dogma :)
I never viewed it as an argument per se until you brought it up.
actually, having progressive/humanitarian goals to shoot for really isnt such a bad idea.
Recent polling says same

Which is why SS, Medicare, public schools and let me add ACA have all become entrenched

Do you remember when Bush43 opined he had a mandate to slash SS ?
Was kinda the beginning of the end. Brought on a (D) Congress and the subsequent election of Obama
Because ---- it was what the voters wanted
 
nsacpi said:
I think the problem with many of the proposals Sanders and Warren and others are putting out is a lack of serious attempt to control the growth of administrative costs in education and healthcare. If you compare our education and healthcare systems with other developed countries our administrative costs are through the roof. Control that and you can get better bang for your buck. But that's a lot less sexy that "single payer" or "free college." In their own ways, there is a lack of seriousness about Sanders and Warren. It is as pie in the sky as Mexico paying for the wall.
Click to expand...

"one campaigns in poetry and governs in prose"

but as goals --- why not
 
57Brave said:
"one campaigns in poetry and governs in prose"

but as goals --- why not
Click to expand...

sure...do either of them have any record in the Senate of serious legislating...the hard slog of putting together a coalition...it is an important skill...LBJ had it for better or worse...Sanders and Warren do not
 
sturg33 said:
It's sad how ignorant people are.

If democratic socialism gets "implemented"... it would be forced upon me as it is not voluntary at all.

Unlike capitalism, which is voluntary and you are free to not participate if you wish not to.

Got it?
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on that a bit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top