Phi for All

You'll never understand (for some weird reason) that if you don't think these social programs work, it's because people like you choose to elect those who make them weak. Like W Bush coming up with No Child blah blah, and then severely under-funding it. Step on the poor people's necks, then loudly berate them for not getting up. This image doesn't penetrate your mindset. I've worked for some really dumb people. I've seen a lot of startups make mistakes the way you're making them. The stupidest was a high-tech startup with a hot product, so hot they didn't think their salespeople needed training in the technical aspects of it. After the first week, I begged them to bring in some experts (I found them for free from the local utility) to train us for better product knowledge. They said they wanted us out selling, not in a conference room "learning". You remind me of those guys. They could have had something really great, but they cheaped out and shot themselves in the foot. I don't suppose the argument about how great the 50s and 60s were, with the super-tax on the super-rich helping to round out prosperity for so many more, made a dent in your biases? Civil rights, women's rights, everything progressed then. We didn't have the stupidity gridlock we have now. Trump's tax plan is going to add another 35 trillion dollars to our debt over 10 years, more than 3X what W Bush did. He is going to inflame the Middle East with his style of war, with all that religious hatred mixed in. He's going to continue to grow the War on Terror brand, the way he's grown the Trump brand. Terrorism will reach it's height under someone like Trump.

Part of the problem is this attitude. You never invested yourself as a citizen of the USA, never adopted the stance that you're one of the People the Constitution talks about representing. To you, and many with this attitude, the "revenuers" can't do anything right, the government only takes and never gives (or never gives to those who deserve it most), and anything they do is with your personal ruination in mind. You see the gov as a merciless king, or a brutal dictator. And all the time, you ignore the fact that it's People with your attitude that have reduced the effectiveness of government. You're like the driver who complains about traffic, when all can see that it's you that's causing it.

How is it we're the only ones smart enough to want to know the day before the month? Happy Birthday, Uncle Albert.

We have a fantastic example of how high tax rates on the super rich (90% top bracket) did NOT hurt the economy, and it did NOT make people lazy because of all the help the government was able to give. In fact, super high rates on the top bracket also seem to smooth out the boom/bust cycles we've seen so much of when taxes are low. We call it the 50s and 60s, that era that conservatives love for all the wrong reasons. Business boomed, the market boomed, the middle class took off like a rocket. BECAUSE we super-taxed the super-rich, it flooded the economy with jobs, and smart people to work those jobs, and prosperity was more well-rounded, not something reserved for the silver spoons. I wouldn't approach it as an offset to automation taking jobs. It should me a minimum amount of resources so anyone can subsist on it while looking for work. Low-cost housing, healthy food, I guess some sort of basic clothing. If we had universal healthcare, and free access to education up to the college level, those bases are already covered. Nobody homeless, ignorant, sick, or hungry. A level below which a citizen of the USA doesn't have to go. We could have this for basically nothing. Just use the money we spend incarcerating drug-only offenders. Since the way we've "waged" the War on Terror has only caused terrorism to grow, if we could show that diplomatic efforts, like sanctions on countries that allow terrorists to operate within their borders, might work just as well to reduce the risks of attacks on our own soil, I think many might see the wisdom in not giving terrorists such an international stage (which is EXACTLY what they want, right?). Trade sanctions over carpet bombing. Could work, let's try. The whole conservative anti-intellectual movement has left our schools in a shambles. Again, since they want to privatize education with vouchers, profit rather than knowledge becomes the focus. With all the modern technology we have at our disposal, and modern examples from around the world of more effective teaching systems, I think we can make education something to be proud of. The teachers I know are like your wife, Ed, they want to educate in a meaningful way.

Perhaps we need a minimum subsistence standard below which they can't make any more cuts. Then we might be able to weather their insanity until they have no more power.

What are we abandoning? We have a social democracy now. We can choose to enhance the social programs we have now, or let the conservatives continue to destroy them. We have history, and lots of reality-based evidence that shows the conservative way is more costly over time, and doesn't really achieve what they think it does. In the US, we pay more for just about everything, and for some reason this seems to be a point of pride for Trumpets and their ilk. It's unbelievable to me, who grew up with lots of conservative folks, that any American would allow the overcharging that goes on with contractors to our federal government. The corruption there is treasonous, imo. http://theweek.com/articles/449215/does-welfare-make-people-lazy This is a fact about welfare I wish every conservative could know. They fear the safety nets will turn into hammocks, and that's such an easy visual for them to get behind, since this is what they fear is happening. But it's not. Even when welfare benefits have been more generous, they still don't drastically affect the number of job seekers. This is probably one of those confirmation bias points where more evidence to the contrary entrenches the belief that this is happening, but I don't think you'll ever hear this kind of evidence on conservative news sources. Those guys are all about how we shouldn't help anyone unless they can help themselves, or unless they're different, or lazy, or colored.

Oh, that's not Taxachusetts. That's Texasphyxia.

A "ripoff" is a cheat, a scam. California, Ripoffornia. I'm guessing somebody had to pay for an autograph.

I thought it was a big mistake letting the utilities fall under private management. Our Public Service of Colorado grew just fine, matching the population and providing electricity and natural gas at affordable, not-for-profit rates to heat and light the homes of our citizens. Prices went up 40% in the first two years after privatization, and increase as often as they can talk CPUC into it. They've never matched the quality of service for the price that our publicly owned utilities had. A good example where using public funds benefits everyone, rather than the already wealthy. Another Reagan legacy, creating mentally ill homeless people. This sort of mismanagement causes untold costs down the line, which I'm sure exceeds the cost of caring for them. More weirdness from the right, let's stop paying to take care of the crazies (ironic, no?), and instead we'll pay for emergency room visits, police intervention, crime, costs to the legal system, etc. If you have a candidate who's racist, it's doubtful they're going to think much differently about the mentally ill. These are the people we can't get to STOP using the word "retard" to dismiss them. These folks tend to assume somebody in charge is just going to sweep that problem under a rug so they don't have to spend much time being guilty about it. As far as bureaucratic efficiency goes, for me it boils down very simply. If you're Medicare, you get to focus on paying claims and keeping people healthy. If you're United Healthcare, you have to focus on the extra 20% or so you have to charge as profit for your company, so your stockholders and C-suite executives are happy, and only then can you really think about the people you're being paid to keep healthy. When our social programs are funded well, and oversight is by people invested ideologically in those programs, they can be enormously efficient.

For me, capitalism/business is about profit. If I want a venture to grow, I apply a business model. It works very well. But there are some things that people need when they increase population density, like police and fire protection, hospitals because we're more susceptible in greater numbers to disease, roads to get us where we need to be. In these cases, I think it's smarter to use public funds where profit shouldn't be the goal. The goal is having smart, healthy citizens who add to the society in every way. I think it's inhuman to keep people ignorant, poor, and unproductive, and then hate them for it. Not when we can afford to educate everyone as much as we possibly can, so the whole society benefits from a lack of ignorance. I try to keep an eye out for mistakes in business. How smart is it to use business models with our prison system, when we'd rather have fewer criminals? This is the kind of socialism I embrace. Where the People have basic advantages for being productive citizens, and there's no foot on their neck because they were born into below average circumstances.

My goal with this discussion is to dispel the misunderstandings so many conservatives in the US have about any kind of socialism, if they'll bother to read. Rush Limbaugh has them equating it with communism, no matter what form it takes. So how would you express the US social democracy in a less lousy form? One suggestion I liked from another thread is to stop running appropriations for our social programs through the Dept of Defense. That sounds reasonable, not having all those defense contractors swaying votes on what happens to a widowed mother of three.

It had to take a LOT of spin to convince conservatives that a company's profits were more important than making safe products. You'd think that consumer goods NOT hurting people would be in that emotional, fear-wracked wheelhouse they're so proud of. More Republican insanity. It's OK to make children sick as long as the profit is good.

But I gave some parameters, and I did ask for your subjective take on it. I thought it was clear I didn't want to talk in broad terms. Maybe I should change the title? This is why I wanted a discussion. My version of socialism seems to be right in line with a majority of the population, but like you, many seem to be convinced it could never work. I was hoping you could at least tell me why you think it can't work in the US. What makes the socialism in your head unworkable? What could be changed about socialism to make it work in the US? Why do you think the level of socialism we already have is all we can handle?

I started a thread on Socialism here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism What does Socialism mean to you? What are it's strengths and weaknesses? In the US, we're being exposed to the Sanders campaign as a liberal socialist candidate, yet elsewhere he's barely on the left side of the scale. Is Sander's brand of socialism a good step in the right direction, or does he go too far for the US, or not far enough for everyone else?

This probably scales with how much of an impulsive, ignorant loudmouth you are. If you're above 80% on the obnoxious scale (and I'm not saying you are), I think sitting quietly would allow for a pretty deep personality transformation. As long as you remembered how grateful everyone was when you were quiet, it could be long term. If you don't have an obnoxious personality, "deep personality transformation" is a bit vague. What is it you're doing/not doing now that makes you want to meditate, and what exactly do you want to transform into? Are you talking about something like being very nervous around more than one person, and meditation might help you relax in situations with lots of people around? Or are we talking about something else, where you go from being a wallflower to the life of the party? Librarian to stand-up comic, like that? I don't see the harm in meditating to relax, clear your mind, and slow life down for a bit. I don't think it will "transform" you by itself. Maybe as part of a process?

Guess what? You get to hide too, since Nixon took all the bad things associated with the Dems back then, and made them all Republican. It's your history now, and you've done a great job in beefing up all the bad. Such a nice sound byte you've found to dismiss a whole movement. It encapsulates all the ignorance and lack of critical thinking I've come to associate with emotionally-driven pseudo-sociopaths who don't think humans deserve more than just the right to work when they choose to live in such close quarters. You obviously like our socialist/serfdom police and fire departments, probably use the healthcare we've got (since you get disease when you put so many people together in societal environments). You drive the serfdom/socialist roads, use goods that come in via serfdom/socialist ports, and enjoy government incentives to grow your economic base, all in exchange for taxes that you think are unfair because they sometimes help people who aren't like you. I think Trump represents you pretty well.

Always amazing how you think the Dems haven't changed since the Civil War, like the name is the important thing, that once named a Democrat you're a part of everything the party has ever done. You crack me up. Equally amazing is how far off the mark you always are when it comes to your interpretations of what others say. You misrepresent anyone who isn't like you, and force them into the nice box you made for them LOOOOOONG ago. You are a really good representation of what liberals think is wrong with your party. You're going to be voting for Trump, despite the fact that we can tell he makes your skin crawl. I think that says it all.

! Moderator Note This link takes us to this discussion. Please fix it.

I always thought it was a much stronger argument to base your morals on what is right, rather than how badly you'll be punished if you do wrong. I asked a religious friend once if his god didn't exist, would he feel free to do bad things, and he said of course not, in the end it's about doing the right thing because it's the right thing. I told him that's exactly the way I felt, I just didn't need to remove god from the equation. He wasn't there to begin with.

In the US, testimony you give to the police can NEVER help you. It can only be used AGAINST you. If your lawyer tried to put the police on the stand at your trial, to corroborate something you told them, the prosecutor can have it thrown out as hearsay. If they need to use it against you, however, your testimony to the police is ironclad. People who exercise their right to silence, and get a lawyer to speak for them, are usually the ones who's cases are dropped, or who win their cases. People who tell all because they have nothing to hide often go to jail because they're the only ones who talked.

Enough so that they don't listen when anyone points out that Trump's "tax plan" deficit spends three times what W deficit spent. Even though balancing the budget has been an ultra conservative talking point for years, they don't propose to do it in a responsible way. Let's keep all the stuff that makes rich folks richer, and just cut the social stuff the rich never get involved with. I wonder if they've thought about how much more money Drumpf will want when he finds out Mexico doesn't have to pay for his wall?

They're the car-racing, beach-bunnying, tax-dodging, gambling branch of the Vatican.

! Moderator Note Ta-da! And we're done here. No more threads like this, PLEASE. This was 5 pages of people telling you what you finally posted here.

Pick a small country, and there should be fewer religious people. Vatican City is the smallest country... OK, how about Monaco? I doubt the millionaires who make up the country's population allow much door-to-door Bible-thumping.