Re: 2020 Presidential Election Thread presents: The Aftermath (Part 2)
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:09 pm
well, color me shot... i mean, shocked.
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2035053
fleet wrote:Fat Kat wrote:
I read that you can drink under age 21 in Wisconsin only under parental supervision
Jeff Van Gully wrote:stuporman wrote:Jeff Van Gully wrote:
not arguing against democratic socialism here. i supported bernie and elizabeth warren in the primaries. just pointing out that those are not good comparisons for our context. much smaller and far more homogenous societies at play. much easier to manage and apply the tenets there. the US is a true unwieldy monster. i'd love to see some detailed proposals on how it would look for us that go beyond the ideology, which i like.
This critique is disingenuous when you consider how many countries across the world have varying degrees of social democracy and social programs with a wide array of demographics. Besides, the US had it's most robust economic growth and expansion of individual wealth in the 'socialist' new deal era of it's history.
It only has been eroded away through decades of incremental legislation and a dedicated effort to demonize the words socialism/communism. So anytime there is something that they don't want the media and politicians who are in their pocket just scream socialism. The truth is we are already in a social democracy in the US it's just that the media and politicians don't call it that.
The problem is the social programs go to corporations and the wealthy. They get the tax breaks, the subsidies, the loan programs and loan forgiveness, bloated government contracts and most of the public money benefits without a second thought and framed as 'capitalist'. Any scraps tossed to the average people are framed as evil socialism and constantly asked how are we going to pay for this.
I won't even get into how much of a lie it is when they ask how do we pay for it because it's a complicated explanation I have given in previous 'presidential election' threads. A robust social safety net and programs that help everyone would actually elevate the whole society lifting the 'floor' of every citizen and raising the potential 'ceiling' of them as well to use a sports analogy.
But your demographic point is addressed in why there is so much resistance to it now even though it worked so well in the new deal era. The wealthy in the US are predominantly white and many are racists who don't want to help communities that aren't white. Let's not forget how racist the new deal was even if it was beneficial, anyone who wasn't white was excluded from the benefits of it.
So when people whine about how it won't work in the US because of the wide demographics are consciously or unconsciously using the racist reasoning against it. It's not that it won't work because of the demographics, it would work and does around the world, it's that they don't want to do it because of demographics, they don't want to help minorities.
I'm not accusing you of being racist for bringing that up...I'm just pointing out the source and reasoning of the argument against it and how much nonsense it is so you may prefer to expose it and not employ it. The diversity in colors of skin or cultural and ethnic backgrounds in no way prevents something that works in every corner of the world from working in the US.
To be fair, socialism isn't the government doing stuff, socialism is workers owning the means of production. It's worker co-ops, employee owned businesses, worker unions, employee profit sharing corporations, employee share compensation...things like that. The conflation of socialism and government social programs to mean the same thing is actually an erroneous one.
That was another thing the propaganda campaign did, misinform about what these things are and also convince the average person that to educate themselves about it is evil elitist indoctrination. What these words really mean, the ideas they represent and application of them in the market and society around us has been so obscured it's virtually impossible to have any discourse about it.
Strong worker protections and programs in the marketplace aren't in the interest of capitalists, they don't want to work for their money, they want others to work for their money and do it for very little money. Capitalists even prefer to have everyone who isn't them on a week to week basis of survival because it puts them in peril every moment and they can exploit it.
The social programs we are talking about actually put a buffer between the worker and this peril and that isn't something the wealthy want. They want a desperate worker not one that has any power at all. If the worker has health care without the dictates of the employer or they can get an education without having to be in debt for decades then the worker is less desperate.
The capitalists own the media and politicians so they get to create the dominant narrative about these social programs and they will do everything they can to keep them from coming to be. It's only been the advent of the internet that the discourse has been freed up to explore these ideas outside of the control of the wealthy, the corporations and the politicians.
I'm here discussing these things with you and you can present these points to others then them to even more with very little interference from those that don't want us to share or understand them. Then we need to elect people who represent these concepts and policies so they can become a reality for us.
thanks for the discussion. i appreciate it. it's helpful to arm me when i end up in these kinds of conversations in which i am clearly outside of my depth. again, as i think you get, it's something i want. i also agree that the demographics shouldn't matter as much we we say. i believe in the main point very firmly, but have been down rabbit holes i couldn't find my way out of -- especially in the context of healthcare.
Fat Kat wrote:fleet wrote:Fat Kat wrote:
I read that you can drink under age 21 in Wisconsin only under parental supervision
Great. I guess there's nothing to see here
Fat Kat wrote:fleet wrote:Fat Kat wrote:
I read that you can drink under age 21 in Wisconsin only under parental supervision
Great. I guess there's nothing to see here
rammagen wrote:Fat Kat wrote:fleet wrote:I read that you can drink under age 21 in Wisconsin only under parental supervision
Great. I guess there's nothing to see here
except he does not live in Wisconsin he lives in Illinois
A 17-year-old Illinois resident connected to an overnight shooting during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was taken into custody Wednesday morning, according to police in Antioch, Illinois. Wisconsin authorities issued an arrest warrant charging Kyle Rittenhouse with first-degree intentional homicide, Antioch Police said.
Pointgod wrote:Jeff Van Gully wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:
1. Nordic Democratic Socialist countries are great. Check.
not arguing against democratic socialism here. i supported bernie and elizabeth warren in the primaries. just pointing out that those are not good comparisons for our context. much smaller and far more homogenous societies at play. much easier to manage and apply the tenets there. the US is a true unwieldy monster. i'd love to see some detailed proposals on how it would look for us that go beyond the ideology, which i like./quote]
Yes and no. I’ve heard this argument made before it’s essentially saying Americans are too racist and self serving to implement social programs... hmm maybe the argument has merit. Seriously though, you can look at Canada as a country that has a similar racial makeup as the US but has built a model similar to the Nordic Countries. You can even look at India and Brazil as examples of countries with huge diverse populations that have implemented social programs, even if they’re limited.
On the other hand it must be stated and restated. The Nordic Countries aren’t Socialist, they’re capitalistic, free market societies with social safety nets and guard rails. And they’re even having problems with sustainability of their social programs. And I agree with you in one point, the US might as well be 50 different countries and that will be the biggest hurdle in implementation. There is no Central planning of the government and the States have an enormous amount of power
rammagen wrote:Fat Kat wrote:fleet wrote:I read that you can drink under age 21 in Wisconsin only under parental supervision
Great. I guess there's nothing to see here
except he does not live in Wisconsin he lives in Illinois
A 17-year-old Illinois resident connected to an overnight shooting during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was taken into custody Wednesday morning, according to police in Antioch, Illinois. Wisconsin authorities issued an arrest warrant charging Kyle Rittenhouse with first-degree intentional homicide, Antioch Police said.
CharlesOakley wrote:rammagen wrote:Fat Kat wrote:
Great. I guess there's nothing to see here
except he does not live in Wisconsin he lives in Illinois
A 17-year-old Illinois resident connected to an overnight shooting during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was taken into custody Wednesday morning, according to police in Antioch, Illinois. Wisconsin authorities issued an arrest warrant charging Kyle Rittenhouse with first-degree intentional homicide, Antioch Police said.
His parents must be so proud.
stuporman wrote:Spoiler:
The easiest way to explain medicare for all or the public option is when someone argues against it tell them it's just like private insurance. Except it will cost them less in premiums, there are no deductibles or co-pays, they'll have a bigger network so no or few denials on specialists and can keep their doctor or switch if they want, no surprise billing, no denials on FDA approved treatments them and their doctor agree on and possible exceptions for experimental treatments plus they won't lose health care if they lose their job.
Or they can just keep going with the private insurance continue to pay more and have none of those advantages if they want I guess...
Obviously some aspects of it may be fluid depending on how it is implemented but the general benefits of it at the core of the program will be felt by the average person making less than $450k a year per household which is 98% of the population. This is based on Bernie's plan with the average yearly family health care costs but those wealthy 2% that would pay a little more on average lobby politicians to help them instead the rest of America. Not to mention it would reduce health care costs overall and even employers and health care providers would realize cost benefits with many orgs working on their behalf support it.
I've had quite a bit of success in educating people about how it would actually effect their lives directly and many are surprised by this realizing they have been lied to about it.
Jeff Van Gully wrote:stuporman wrote:Spoiler:
The easiest way to explain medicare for all or the public option is when someone argues against it tell them it's just like private insurance. Except it will cost them less in premiums, there are no deductibles or co-pays, they'll have a bigger network so no or few denials on specialists and can keep their doctor or switch if they want, no surprise billing, no denials on FDA approved treatments them and their doctor agree on and possible exceptions for experimental treatments plus they won't lose health care if they lose their job.
Or they can just keep going with the private insurance continue to pay more and have none of those advantages if they want I guess...
Obviously some aspects of it may be fluid depending on how it is implemented but the general benefits of it at the core of the program will be felt by the average person making less than $450k a year per household which is 98% of the population. This is based on Bernie's plan with the average yearly family health care costs but those wealthy 2% that would pay a little more on average lobby politicians to help them instead the rest of America. Not to mention it would reduce health care costs overall and even employers and health care providers would realize cost benefits with many orgs working on their behalf support it.
I've had quite a bit of success in educating people about how it would actually effect their lives directly and many are surprised by this realizing they have been lied to about it.
not to derail into a healthcare economics discussion, but are you aware of the extent to which the united states for-profit (evil) system also basically subsidises access to medication and devices for the rest of the world? basically, we bear the entire brunt of most of the research and development. then our prices reflect the need to cover that. other nations are then able to obtain the resources at much lower cost.
just wondering what we could do about that problem that seems to also fortify the ills of the for-profit system.
again, we can talk more about it in a PM or something.