[hey mtangelsfan] How Bernie pays for his proposals

[Tank]

We all already know Adam is a really good part time worker.

 

he's the mike napoli of aw.com.

[Tank]

We all already know Adam is a really good part time worker.

 

he's the mike napoli of aw.com.

[Angelsjunky]

We're just going back and forth with the same views, again and again. Clearly we both think the other doesn't "get it," yet at the same time we're not doing anything to convince the other (by "we" I am speaking for myself and the general progressive view on one side, and my usual jousting partners on the other).

 

Rather than going for another round, here's a different angle. If we're not able to convince each other, why is that? Maybe we can think negatively and say that one or the other side is dense, immature, or less evolved, but whether or not this true, it is clearly a fruitless line of inquiry. So what if we look at it more as a cultural and ideological difference? What if it isn't as much about one of us "not getting it" as it is different emphases on what is important? What we value? Which pieces of the puzzle we feel are more or less important, which is also relative to the current context?

 

An example would be this. As I see it, one of the main differences between conservativism and progressivism is that the former emphasizes liberty over equality, and the latter equality over liberty. I personally think both are important, but tend towards liberalism/progressivism/equality because (I think) our current economic system is too far towards liberty/conservativism. In different contexts, I find myself more towards liberty. An example would be the various discourses on college campuses around free speech, which I find appalling skewed towards equality and against liberty. But my point being, all but the most extreme believe that equality and liberty are both important, but different people--and political ideologies--value them in different ways and to different degrees, and sometimes depending upon the context.
 

I think a lot of time is wasted on arguing who is "right" and who is "wrong," as if we're discussing facts, which always boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong." That is a very black and white, myopic view. Political ideologies aren't right or wrong. Rather, they are paradigms that lead to different results. So it might be interesting to take a different approach, where we are discussing the underlying values and why we think they are important in a given context. Of course this might lead to less argumentation, which probably spoils the fun a bit.

 

Another aspect of this endless debate is that there is a kind of unspoken assumption about what is most desirable, as if that is the same thing for all of us -- some kind of utopia or American Dream. But what if we all, as I would argue, have different views on "the good life?" This again feeds into our political ideologies.

 

So here's the thing: maybe we're all arguing for the political ideology that we think is best suited to get us as close as possible to our own vision of "the good life?" So again, it isn't right vs. wrong, but competing ideologies and visions of what is good, true, and beautiful? And how to enact that in the current context we live in?

 

I suspect that these ideologies will continue to clash and war, and hopefully over time there will be a natural evolution and adaptation, with newer--and more inclusive--ideologies emerging that integrate the best of previous ones. One thing I wonder about is how to integrate the best of what we call "socialism" (equality) and "capitalism" (liberty), without eroding the best of the other. I don't think they are mutually exclusive, but just very, very hard to balance.

[halobob]

You are saying all of this as if it's fact and it's already proven. It's not.

 

Those schools are looked at favorably because they're name brand and they cost a lot.

 

I guarantee you not every person would be going to college, hell a lot of people already barely finish high school. There will be no shortage of baristas.

 

There are a lot of people deserving of a college education that would excel, but don't have the opportunity to.

Name 1 and name why they are deserving, why they aren't currently getting that education, and why they don't have the opportunity to receive that education.

Edited February 23, 2016 by halobob

[nate]

The difference AJ is we don't see Socialism as equality.  We see capitalism as equality.

 

In a socialist system, everyone gets the same benefit regardless of their qualities, in a capitalist system everyone is equal and they are rewarded based on their qualities.

 

And that is fine except for the fact that you insist on arguing in a way that is so condescending to others that don't share your point of view.

Edited February 23, 2016 by nate

[halobob]

Good lessons in this piece

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/stefanie-williams-response-to-yelp-employee-talia-jane-2016-2?utm_content=buffer5c01b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I was going to post this same story...phenomenal response to the entitled Jane Talia.  This story goes to your early post about every decision you make having an ROI.  

[nate]

I work like 20 hours/week and vacation about 3 months of the year.

 

god damn lawyers

[halobob]

That's a really good question, and I don't know the answer either. I tend to advocate for following your passion as fully as possible, yet having a back-up plan. Or if you love doing something like painting or playing music, also learn a useful skill that you enjoy or at least can tolerate.

 

You might be interested in Ken Robinson's view - this TED Talk is a classic. His view is that we should all try to find our "element," which he defines as the place where our natural talents and interests meet.

 

 

To your first sentence, yes - but why are things more or less valuable? It is what the market dictates. In some case it is actually skill-based (e.g. Mike Trout), in others it is entirely faddish or trendy (many fashions), in others a combination of talent and trend (e.g. Beyonce). But it is determined by cultural values, and then relative to the market. But the thing is, we just accept this, which in turn drives our culture.

 

I'm not talking about entitlement, but fixing a system that is skewed towards commercial wealth. Our economic system rewards those who can either take money from others or make money for others. On one hand this makes sense, but it has become so skewed that we have the obscene gaps in wealth in this country that we have, that are only getting larger.

 

 

I get it, nate, and have no problem with this view as it is basic common sense. But you miss the mark with the last sentence and clearly don't understand where I'm coming from.

 

Your view--which is basically the traditional American Capitalist ideology: work hard and it will pay off--doesn't take into account various factors and obstacles that different people face, and it is overly simplistic and downright cruel to assume that people who struggle are "parasites" or lazy or lacking in ability or intelligence, etc. Many are lazy and without good education or obvious talents, but many aren't. Actually, some of the most intelligent and talented people I know struggle to pay rent. We can say, "Those faggot artists and dead-beat philosophers should have gotten a real education and gotten a real job in business or law or insurance." But don't we want artists and philosophers? Don't we want our nurses to be able to make a living wage, or a teacher to be able to support his or her family?

 

I think the point Bernie is trying to make is that wealth has been pooling at the top, and it doesn't have to be that way. Part of the reason it is pooling (going to the 1%) is that the country has become more and more oligarchic, especially since Reagan. The wealth hasn't trickled down, it has pooled up. The trends are very clear: Lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy, stagnating wages for the middle and lower classes, and rising cost of living. All of this is connected.

What?  That can easily happen even in a place with as high a cost of living as Orange County.  My sister in law is a nurse and her husband works 2 days a week and they take turns watching their infant son on their days off and each get a day off together a week to spend as a family all day.  My sister and her fiance are both high school teachers and have no problem what so ever supporting themselves and will not have a problem supporting a child or 2 should they choose to have them.  ****, more than half the women in my family/extended family are teachers and none of their family units are having a problem with money.  

[Angelsjunky]

The difference AJ is we don't see Socialism as equality.  We see capitalism as equality.

 

In a socialist system, everyone gets the same benefit regardless of their qualities, in a capitalist system everyone is equal and they are rewarded based on their qualities.

 

And that is fine except for the fact that you insist on arguing in a way that is so condescending to others that don't share your point of view.

 

Nate, let's try to avoid the personal BS. Whether or not I'm condescending, or have been condescending, seems evasive and pointless. Why not discuss the actual content of what I wrote, the ideas presented, instead of making it personal?

 

Now you did say something about capitalism and socialism, which I don't totally disagree with except to say that what you speak of is the ideal of capitalism, not the reality - which involves terrible abuse and exploitation. And no, in our system, not everyone starts out in equality.

 

Further, you are still falling into the black-and-white fallacy of "capitalism good, socialism bad." I see it differently, more like "socialism and capitalism ok but problematic, democratic socialism/socialistic capitalism better."

[nate]

Again you respond in a condescending and pretentious way.

[halobob]

Nate, let's try to avoid the personal BS. Whether or not I'm condescending, or have been condescending, seems evasive and pointless. Why not discuss the actual content of what I wrote, the ideas presented, instead of making it personal?

 

Now you did say something about capitalism and socialism, which I don't totally disagree with except to say that what you speak of is the ideal of capitalism, not the reality - which involves terrible abuse and exploitation. And no, in our system, not everyone starts out in equality.

 

Further, you are still falling into the black-and-white fallacy of "capitalism good, socialism bad." I see it differently, more like "socialism and capitalism ok but problematic, democratic socialism/socialistic capitalism better."

Sorry AJ you're in the socialism ok capitalism bad based on all of your posts.

[Rico]

I like how a bunch of people who have never been in the military are advocating totally ****ing it up with an influx of people it isn't prepared for and doesn't need. Added to the fact that most of those people wouldn't want to be there and would create more problems than they solve.

Great ****ing idea, gents.

What influx?  We simply pointed out a path that is already in place.  The military has ways to weed out people that shouldn't be there.  If you are not down with killing brown people there are paths one can take so you never have to.  In fact my 5 years in the Navy not once did I have to pick up a gun, the pen was my weapon. 

 

Yes, many people join the military simply for the GI Bill.  It is the biggest selling point.  Some decide to stick it out and make a career out of it.  Others bounce as soon as they can, and that is fine they earned that GI Bill.  The point is free college will devastate a military that is already undermanned.  It is a bad idea.  (This coming from one of the biggest Bernie supporters)  

[ABC]

What influx?  We simply pointed out a path that is already in place.  The military has ways to weed out people that shouldn't be there.  If you are not down with killing brown people there are paths one can take so you never have to.  In fact my 5 years in the Navy not once did I have to pick up a gun, the pen was my weapon. 

 

Yes, many people join the military simply for the GI Bill.  It is the biggest selling point.  Some decide to stick it out and make a career out of it.  Others bounce as soon as they can, and that is fine they earned that GI Bill.  The point is free college will devastate a military that is already undermanned.  It is a bad idea.  (This coming from one of the biggest Bernie supporters)  

 

What do you mean by "the military is already undermanned"?

[Rico]

The difference AJ is we don't see Socialism as equality.  We see capitalism as equality.

 

In a socialist system, everyone gets the same benefit regardless of their qualities, in a capitalist system everyone is equal and they are rewarded based on their qualities.

 

And that is fine except for the fact that you insist on arguing in a way that is so condescending to others that don't share your point of view.

What I see in our capitalist system is this belief that money trickles down.  In my observations this is completely false.  Money trickles up.  IMO this is why there is a huge disparity right now between the haves and the have nots.  (and even the have just enoughs)

 

Call it socialism if you want but it is my firm belief that our economy does best as a whole when the "have nots" have greater spending power.

[ABC]

What I see in our capitalist system is this belief that money trickles down.  In my observations this is completely false.  Money trickles up.  IMO this is why there is a huge disparity right now between the haves and the have nots.  (and even the have just enoughs)

 

Call it socialism if you want but it is my firm belief that our economy does best as a whole when the "have nots" have greater spending power.

 

Can you share some examples?

[Angelsjunky]

Again you respond in a condescending and pretentious way.

 

Is your ego really that fragile?

[Angelsjunky]

Sorry AJ you're in the socialism ok capitalism bad based on all of your posts.

 

No I'm not. As I said in my above longish post, it depends upon the context. This forum is right-leaning and very rah-rah about capitalism, so I try to bring a different perspective. If I was in a "commie forum," I'd probably be playing the other side.

[Rico]

What do you mean by "the military is already undermanned"?

While the Army and Marines are currently downsizing and blaming it on "budget cuts", we're seeing a huge drop in readiness across all forces.  

[Rico]

Can you share some examples?

I'm no expert by any means.  You're better off googling "Trickle-up economic theory"  

 

But if you really want an example... The 1950's was a time of high economic growth and our middle class was at its strongest.  The wealthiest also had a tax rate of over 90%.  I'm not saying lets go back to 90%!   But 52% for the wealthiest doesn't seem so crazy to me.

[nate]

I think it is clear that my ego is very much intact.

[Stradling]

I'm no expert by any means. You're better off googling "Trickle-up economic theory"

But if you really want an example... The 1950's was a time of high economic growth and our middle class was at its strongest. The wealthiest also had a tax rate of over 90%. I'm not saying lets go back to 90%! But 52% for the wealthiest doesn't seem so crazy to me.

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, 52% is absolutely criminal. So in your mind the federal government taking over 50% of someone's pay isn't crazy. Wow, what kind of country do we live in when this isn't a crazy idea.

[ABC]

I'm no expert by any means.  You're better off googling "Trickle-up economic theory"  

 

But if you really want an example... The 1950's was a time of high economic growth and our middle class was at its strongest.  The wealthiest also had a tax rate of over 90%.  I'm not saying lets go back to 90%!   But 52% for the wealthiest doesn't seem so crazy to me.

 

I asked because you say by your observations. Could you google it and explain since it is your POV?

 

What do you consider "the wealthiest"?

[ABC]

While the Army and Marines are currently downsizing and blaming it on "budget cuts", we're seeing a huge drop in readiness across all forces.  

 

How much military is needed? The US still has a massive and bloated military. Are we prepping for aliens?

[Stradling]

So I'm guessing there's no poverty in socialist countries? Communist countries?

[Spirit]

What do we call the 150 billion we give to Wal-mart and McDonalds to subsidize their employees? Not Free-bees? Or the wall street bail out? Was that earned? Oil companies earn their subsidies? So capitalists are cool with subsidizing their own 401k plans. Hypocrites.

 

This conservative fantasy that we are equal opportunity capitalist and everyones got the same opportunities is pie in the sky asinine. Not everyones as smart as you.

 

Or the car companies?  Detroit!  

 

F**k the auto workers and their unions, am I right, Colt?