Time to cut military spending significantly

Well stated comrade.

 

Actually, those others aren't really socialist either. Socialism is really about who controls the means of production (ie, not of services). If the government controlled the building of fire trucks, that would be 'socialism'.

it's a very misused term all around.

In its more commonly used definition currently--Socialism focuses especially on the economic system and its main objective is to distribute resources--the above aren't really examples of it. More about government performing basic services, which has always been government's role.

If the argument is that some of the other things that the 'left' is proposing are also something that could be basic services, then yes, one can have that discussion. Which is really the 'distinction'. Countries that are considered 'socialist' currently usually just provide a broader base of services.

 

I don't really disagree with that. it's a matter of degree. A more objective discussion would focus on what degree is best.

But politicians abhor nuances like that.

 

Convince the public, more accurately boomers, that they won’t get their entitlements.

Medicare and SSN are the big money pits.

 

It’s a function of mixed market. It’s the conservatives who seem ignorant about how modern America developed and which they had to misuse terms in order to promote fear.

 

Well one side has consistently thought “the government is the problem.”

Every American is a capitalist until your job gets outsourced or automated away.

 

yes, and no. The only real group that adheres to that anymore are true libertarians, and maybe tea partiers. For the rest, it's more about where government spends the money, not whether it spends it or not.

Probably true for many...indicating they weren't true capitalists.

For myself, I'm not really for or against government spending. I would prefer that it be controlled more locally...but that ship, sadly, has long since sailed. So, I focus on whether it's productive spending...are we getting good value for the money spent? Far too often, no...nor are most government programs even set up to monitor themselves on value produced, much less manage themselves to achieve it. Carter tried doing this, with zero based budgeting...and we saw how long he lasted.

For infrastructure, then...I'm open to it...but want to see the plan, and see if it is being spent productively.

The last time we did this (the 'main street bailout'), we mostly got bumpkiss in return. Infrastructure spending should be value creating...better roads improve transportation, better internet improve web productivity, etc etc. As such, even if we just borrowed the money to pay for it, it should pay for itself over time.

Maybe that's the way to do it...have the government take out an actual loan. Not just deficit spending, but an actual loan.

 

All three and more in his case certainly.


I wouldn't say however that the US is already socialist. I don't think even most actual socialists want pure socialism in the United States, they want a more blended economy. A better and more effective capitalism where the benefits are felt by the masses rather than the elite and socialist programs that provide a better safety net for essential services and needs throughout society.

Interesting story, I have a friend who works with a lady that on vacation in Germany of all places with her family. One night her baby became ill and the hotel actually called a doctor to come to the hotel and treat the child. No charge. But yeah, America is great, GREAT!

 

Yes. All Western countries are, as is Japan.

The difference is broader than universal healthcare, but that's certainly the biggest one. It's really more perceptual. Here in the U.S. there are many who are resistant to government run...anything. For health care, there are certainly valid reasons for this...as there are valid reasons for saying it should be universal and provided by the government. I wish we could skip over all the political BS, and focus on whether whatever plan anyone puts forward would work or not. Here is where the rhetoric switches. I think many on the left are resistant to any health care solution that isn't run by the government.

You and I often agree on things, let me ask you straight out: Would you be in favor of some 'private' solutions/changes to health care if they seemed like they would help/work? Or would any solution that isn't 'universal/govt run' a non starter for you?

 

IMHO, Sanders and others proclaiming to be supporters of socialism aren't doing the cause of universal healthcare any favors, when even Lars Løkke Rasmussen had to give a speech at Harvard to explain that the Nordic Model is not "socialism" and that saying otherwise is offensive to Danes. If you'll recall, in the debate against Bernie, Clinton bent his comments on socialism to her advantage by saying "the US isn't Denmark" to imply that universal healthcare is somehow anti-American because of the s-word. It's too easy to use it deceptively, especially to the US electorate, to mean basic services by some, and a planned economy by others to suit a political argument, and lends itself too well to crush any discussion of changing the status quo on medical care.

The better talking point in America, especially since the audience you need to actually convince is ostensibly from the traditional Right, is to say you support an "Israeli model for healthcare" so you can use that in the same Clintonian way -- to imply that anyone that has a problem with that is an anti-Semite who doesn't support Israel, doesn't love Jesus, probably doesn't even Support Our Troops, Remember September 11th, and secretly Wants the Terrorists to Win -- all without having to actually say those things because US politics are all about shibboleths.

You'd also preemptively prevent any argument of why NHS or Canadian or some other health system is flawed, fundamentally anti-American, and Just Can't Work Here besides forcing the ZOA and AIPAC to choose between pressuring their US political allies into supporting it or having to say something bad about the Israeli government.

And I'll add that Copenhagen is the most elegant city I've ever seen. I'd happily live there, 60% marginal tax rate besides.

 

What Bernie actually supports, if you look at his policies, is called social democracy. Which is exactly what the nordic model is.

Bernie uses the technically incorrect term of democratic socialism, which them people flip on him and call him a socialist, which he doesn't even fight against anymore, which I agree is unfortunate, but political terms are ever-changing at the same time.

 

Well, sure. He evokes FDR even more than he does the Laws of Jante, but that's drowned out by the reactions to the unfortunate and unnecessary use of the s-word by our media class and others that are used against him to depict him as some sort of dime store Fidel Castro.

I don't think political terms change as much as they are used to manipulate and become meaningless as they develop their own context. I think this is specifically a problem for writers, who should purposely choose more meaningful words to describe politics if they aren't intending to be duplicitous.

A "liberal" to most Americans in 2019 is effectively someone who lives on one of the coasts, or in a college town or major city, shops at an upscale grocery store, has never had a job that requires a uniform, doesn't listen to country music, and has a strong leaning towards voting for the US Democratic Party. Or a way to signal to others "not a conservative" or these days, "not a socialist commie or a [whatever]-phobic deplorable."

None of these are in any meaningful way related to the present dictionary definition which is someone open to new ideas, an advocate of personal liberty, British Enlightenment philosophy generally in the case of Liberalism, or a supporter of a Liberal party. in any country with a political party with "Liberal" in the name, it is a party that advocates personal liberty and capitalism as principles, none of which, other than maybe the first definition is mutually exclusive of "conservative." It gets even more confusing when you talk about someone historically, like JFK, who both self-professed US liberals and everyone else would agree was a liberal by their own understanding of the word.

I wouldn't be wrong to write, for example, Ron Paul is liberal, Gerry Adams is republican, Joe Biden is conservative, or that Donald Trump is or Robert Mugabe was none of those things. When I worked as a financial journalist in Israel, with readers mostly in India, Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, no one would have blinked if I wrote that.

Outside the context of US politics, any reasonably educated person who can read English and who knows who those people are would be unlikely to disagree, but my US-based editor would never let me get away with that, and for good reason, but it forced me to use ways of describing these things that wouldn't be misunderstood by anyone and to be mindful of it.

In the same vein, to anyone that lives in a country with a socialist party left of even minor significance, a "socialist" is an advocate of state-owned means of production and a centrally planned economy, generally against capitalism in practice, most likely against private ownership of property, and not someone that wants to raise taxes to build infrastructure and expand the welfare state...like Bernie Sanders or FDR or Dwight Eisenhower or JFK, or Richard Nixon, which is why it's a problem, because all of this ultimately prevents an honest public policy debate.

 

They are entitlements. However they have all contributed through out their entire life. So yes, I would say they are entitled.

And yes, you make an excellent point. Medicare and SS are massive money pits ... because the government has grossly mishandled them. It will be no different with any other socialistic program.

 

And that justified war? lmao

 

Simple Start:
1. Incorporate Vet benefits and care into the Military budget.
2. Cancel any contract where the company exceeds 15% of their bid.
3. Any company that goes over 25% of their bid shall be suspended for 5 yrs
4. Any company that goes over 50% shall be banned.
5. Any Individuals that are showing favortism or recieving money from any of these companies - Shall be banned and lose they pensions
6. Corruption will be penalized to the maximum extent of the law - including prison
7. Any company that provides faulty non-working equipment or machines shall be banned from future bids
8. We have to clean up the whole Military /Industrial Complex
9. No Contract can exceed Retail price.

Rocket River
No More 500$ Hammers