• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Democrats Have Become Socialists

Jack Hays said:
I assume the remarkably selfish and narrow view you present here does not represent your actual position.
Click to expand...

No. I am just trying to follow your logic.
 
ataraxia said:
No. I am just trying to follow your logic.
Click to expand...

lets expand this a bit. does society have a duty to protect people who engage in risky behavior repeatedly. No, I am not talking about police officers, fire rescue teams, special forces operatives and others who engage in high risk activities that society deems necessary. For example, should the taxpayers constantly pay for heroin addicts who have OD'd several times? or people who live in a flood plain that constantly floods
 
TurtleDude said:
lets expand this a bit. does society have a duty to protect people who engage in risky behavior repeatedly. No, I am not talking about police officers, fire rescue teams, special forces operatives and others who engage in high risk activities that society deems necessary. For example, should the taxpayers constantly pay for heroin addicts who have OD'd several times? or people who live in a flood plain that constantly floods
Click to expand...

So are you saying that or building a rickety house in a known hurricane prone area, which has been repeatedly destroyed in the past, is not "risky behavior repeatedly"?

And now Houston has been flooded by a hurricane combined with poor urban design. There is a reason we have zoning codes and urban design. They were made because of lots of experience. So what is Houston doing to make now sure it's different for the next hurricane, so it's not "risky behavior repeatedly"? Should be withhold aid until they can tell us?
 
ataraxia said:
So are you saying that or building a rickety house in a known hurricane prone area, which has been repeatedly destroyed in the past, is not "risky behavior repeatedly"?

And now Houston has been flooded by a hurricane combined with poor urban design. There is a reason we have zoning codes and urban design. They were made because of lots of experience. So what is Houston doing to make now sure it's different for the next hurricane, so it's not "risky behavior repeatedly"? Should be withhold aid until they can tell us?
Click to expand...

I merely asked you a broad question
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you're on your own here. Your posts have nothing to do with my views.
Click to expand...

Your views are that the federal government should not be responsible for bailing people out every time they get in trouble. Then you are saying that it should, but only those who you deem to be "innocent". You have not clarified why Houston or FL were innocent. They seemed to be grossly negligent to me.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is an important turn of events. Will the Dems profit politically or regret their leap?

The Democrats have become socialists


Bernie Sanders rolled out his Medicare for All plan and was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues.






When Bernie Sanders launched his bid for the Democratic nomination, he was often asked whether he, a democratic socialist, would actually become a Democrat. Now, more than a year after he ignited a movement with his unsuccessful bid, that question is moot. The Democrats have become socialists.
This became official, more or less, Wednesday afternoon, when Sanders rolled out his socialized health-care plan, Medicare for All, and he was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues who signed on as co-sponsors, including the party’s rising stars and potential presidential candidates in 2020: Elizabeth Warren. Cory Booker. Kamala Harris. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Several of them dutifully joined Sanders, who is threatening another presidential run himself, at the rollout event in one of the largest hearing rooms on Capitol Hill and praised the guru of the single-payer movement for government-run universal health care. . . .


Click to expand...

Single payer based on Medicare would be a disaster. Medicare doesn't do enough to control costs. Our HC industry needs to be overhauled to bring costs down. I don't see that happening.
 
ataraxia said:
Your views are that the federal government should not be responsible for bailing people out every time they get in trouble. Then you are saying that it should, but only those who you deem to be "innocent". You have not clarified why Houston or FL were innocent. They seemed to be grossly negligent to me.
Click to expand...

People who live where people have always lived are not necessarily negligent.
 
TurtleDude said:
I merely asked you a broad question
Click to expand...

I assume that question is "For example, should the taxpayers constantly pay for heroin addicts who have OD'd several times? or people who live in a flood plain that constantly floods?"

The answer is yes. You watch out for people. You do rehab. You do what you can to prevent further flooding in that plain. The Dutch live below sea level. And yet they haven't had any flooding, despite severe storms, for over a century. Why? Strong, muscular intervention and preventive strategies by their government. That's called competent governance.

Now, once again, the evening news in the Netherlands shows the suffering in the United States. The Dutch are watching stories narrated by drenched Dutch reporters in Texas, showing elderly Houstonians being evacuated and young families carrying their children and their pets to safety as all their worldly possessions sink in the epic flood brought by Harvey. But beyond having compassion, people here are wondering why it is that Americans seem so reluctant to apply the lessons the Netherlands already learned -- and at such high cost...

Most reports about the disaster include a discussion about why the Netherlands, with much of the country lying below sea level, has managed to avoid a major flood in decades while the United States is suffering yet another catastrophe.

The answer, beyond the precise technical details the experts here provide, is about culture, politics and psychology...

In addition to denial, the United States, particularly on the right of the political spectrum, has a generalized aversion to government. Ronald Reagan famously declared "the nine scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

As it happens, there are some burdens only the government is strong enough to carry. The Dutch learned that battling the sea is one of them.

The wake-up call came in 1953, when a massive storm killed more than 1,800 people, flooding much of the country, damaging farmlands, killing farm animals and destroying property...Immediately after, the Netherlands established a commission to decide how to deal with a threat of more storms. The commission devised a plan that was enshrined into law, specifying what level of risk is tolerable...

So instead of waiting for so-called once-in-100-years rainstorms -- which now come more frequently -- the Dutch have lowered the flood risk to what they calculate is one in 4,000 years. The law even requires that authorities hold the risk in some parts of the country to one in 10,000 years.

The systems now include walling off the water and, at the same time, letting it into canals and other bodies of water, where technicians can regulate levels.

The original Delta Works price tag was steep, $5 billion, but a bargain relative to the cost of inaction. Compare it to one storm in the United States, Katrina, with a total cost estimated by FEMA at $108 billion, and immense human suffering. "

www.cnn.com/2017/08/29/opinions/dutch-america-storms-opinion-ghitis/index.html
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
People who live where people have always lived are not necessarily negligent.
Click to expand...

Not according to most liberterians. Here is Ron Paul, from the great state of TX, to explain why we should just get rid of FEMA, negligent or not. It's not constitutional. It's bad economics. It's bad morality. You are coercing people to help.

"Most of the people in my district don't like FEMA, ...because they take over... they dictate."
-Ron Paul
Click to expand...



I wonder if the people in his district still feel the same way.

Do you disagree with his arguments? Why or why not?
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
Well, when capitalism only works for some at the expense of the rest, that's what can happen.
Click to expand...

Capitalism works for those that earn it, it fails for those that sit around waiting for others to do it for them
 
ataraxia said:
Not according to most liberterians. Here is Ron Paul, from the great state of TX, to explain why we should just get rid of FEMA, negligent or not.



Do you disagree with his arguments? Why or why not?
Click to expand...


I'm not a libertarian. I think he's an ignorant crank.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not a libertarian. I think he's an ignorant crank.
Click to expand...

But he is a Texan who is telling everyone that building on the gulf coast is stupid, and others should not be responsible for rebuilding if people still choose to build there. What is wrong with that argument?
 
Renae said:
Capitalism works for those that earn it, it fails for those that sit around waiting for others to do it for them
Click to expand...

So you too are against FEMA aid to the recent hurricane victims in TX?
 
ataraxia said:
But he is a Texan who is telling everyone that building on the gulf coast is stupid, and others should not be responsible for rebuilding if people still choose to build there. What is wrong with that argument?
Click to expand...

It's wrong for the same reason we help flood victims along the Mississippi or tornado victims in Kansas. Almost everyone almost everywhere faces a heightened risk of one form of disaster or another, and we are bound together as a nation to help our fellow citizens. When an earthquake finally levels Los Angeles no one is going to say the inhabitants should not have been there.
 
Renae said:
One day, you'll learn how silly that statement was.
Click to expand...

Who are you talking about? I am asking a question, not making a statement. Ron Paul is making the statement.

I agree with you that his statement is pretty silly. But at least Ron Paul is pretty consistent with his logic. He opposed FEMA for the exact same reason he opposed any kind of federal government involvement in healthcare. It was about personal responsibility. If you didn't have responsibility, too bad. It's not government's job to bail you out if you do stupid things and get in trouble.

Here is how he very logically and eloquently explains his position during the famous "Let Him Die" GOP primary debates:

 
ataraxia said:
Who are you talking about? I am asking a question, not making a statement. Ron Paul is making the statement.

I agree with you that his statement is pretty silly. But at least Ron Paul is pretty consistent with his logic. He opposed FEMA for the exact same reason he opposed any kind of federal government involvement in healthcare. It was about personal responsibility. If you didn't have responsibility, too bad. It's not government's job to bail you out if you do stupid things and get in trouble.

Here is how he very logically and eloquently explains his position during the famous "Let Him Die" GOP primary debates:

Click to expand...


Ron paul has been, and always be an idiot that occasionally said wise things, for that he's famous. Most of his shtick is stupid.
 
Renae said:
Ron paul has been, and always be an idiot that occasionally said wise things, for that he's famous. Most of his shtick is stupid.
Click to expand...

But at least he is thoroughly consistent. If you think government intervention for FEMA is OK and constitutional, but a healthcare safety net for people who may lose their coverage is not, that seems pretty logically inconsistent.
 
Jack hays, Medicare is government administrated basic medical insurance but that's not socialized medicine.
Other than emergency situations and until the patient's stabilized, medical practitioners are not required to accept Medicare patients as ongoing patients; but if they choose to do so, they're required to accept Medicare's published price schedules as the maximum payments they're entitled to receive.

The U.S. Congress and president had determined that Medicare was necessary because for a long time USA's non-government insurers have been unable to forefill our nation's elderly population's medical insurance needs. Although Medicare does not completely remedy the medical insurance shortfalls of our elderly, it has definitely improved their aggregate financial conditions and thus net contributed toward improvement of our economy.

Medicare is compatible with existing and likely future non-government insurance that augments Medicare's benefits.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
Jack hays, Medicare is government administrated basic medical insurance but that's not socialized medicine.
Other than emergency situations and until the patient's stabilized, medical practitioners are not required to accept Medicare patients as ongoing patients; but if they choose to do so, they're required to accept Medicare's published price schedules as the maximum payments they're entitled to receive.

The U.S. Congress and president had determined that Medicare was necessary because for a long time USA's non-government insurers have been unable to forefill our nation's elderly population's medical insurance needs. Although Medicare does not completely remedy the medical insurance shortfalls of our elderly, it has definitely improved their aggregate financial conditions and thus net contributed toward improvement of our economy.

Medicare is compatible with existing and likely future non-government insurance that augments Medicare's benefits.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Yes, and . . . ? What did you think I would disagree with?
 
Jack Hays said:
This is an important turn of events. Will the Dems profit politically or regret their leap?

The Democrats have become socialists


Bernie Sanders rolled out his Medicare for All plan and was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues.






When Bernie Sanders launched his bid for the Democratic nomination, he was often asked whether he, a democratic socialist, would actually become a Democrat. Now, more than a year after he ignited a movement with his unsuccessful bid, that question is moot. The Democrats have become socialists.
This became official, more or less, Wednesday afternoon, when Sanders rolled out his socialized health-care plan, Medicare for All, and he was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues who signed on as co-sponsors, including the party’s rising stars and potential presidential candidates in 2020: Elizabeth Warren. Cory Booker. Kamala Harris. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Several of them dutifully joined Sanders, who is threatening another presidential run himself, at the rollout event in one of the largest hearing rooms on Capitol Hill and praised the guru of the single-payer movement for government-run universal health care. . . .


Click to expand...
Jack Hays, if not all, almost all, effectively all Democrats support the concepts of our nation's federal Social Security retirement, minimum wage rate, and medical insurance policies. Somewhat lesser, but I suppose a proportionally great plurality of registered Democrats prefer that our nation should expand upon these policies.

Many, such as Bernard Sanders and myself are not Registered Democrats but we fully agree with that proportionally great plurality of registered Democrats.
I'm a populist, and Bernard Sanders is a socialist. I am not, and he is a proponent of entirely federally socialized medical practice. I suppose a significant portion, but not a majority of registered Democrats concur with Bernard Sanders.

Judging from your thread's title and original post, my impression was you concurred with whatever the Republicans can agree upon in regard to these afore mentioned topics.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
Jack Hays, if not all, almost all, effectively all Democrats support the concepts of our nation's federal Social Security retirement, minimum wage rate, and medical insurance policies. Somewhat lesser, but I suppose a proportionally great plurality of registered Democrats prefer that our nation should expand upon these policies.

Many, such as Bernard Sanders and myself are not Registered Democrats but we fully agree with that proportionally great plurality of registered Democrats.
I'm a populist, and Bernard Sanders is a socialist. I am not, and he is a proponent of entirely federally socialized medical practice. I suppose a significant portion, but not a majority of registered Democrats concur with Bernard Sanders.

Judging from your thread's title and original post, my impression was you concurred with whatever the Republicans can agree upon in regard to these afore mentioned topics.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Your impression is incorrect. My interest is purely in how the issue will be managed politically by all sides.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is an important turn of events. Will the Dems profit politically or regret their leap?

The Democrats have become socialists


Bernie Sanders rolled out his Medicare for All plan and was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues.






When Bernie Sanders launched his bid for the Democratic nomination, he was often asked whether he, a democratic socialist, would actually become a Democrat. Now, more than a year after he ignited a movement with his unsuccessful bid, that question is moot. The Democrats have become socialists.
This became official, more or less, Wednesday afternoon, when Sanders rolled out his socialized health-care plan, Medicare for All, and he was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues who signed on as co-sponsors, including the party’s rising stars and potential presidential candidates in 2020: Elizabeth Warren. Cory Booker. Kamala Harris. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Several of them dutifully joined Sanders, who is threatening another presidential run himself, at the rollout event in one of the largest hearing rooms on Capitol Hill and praised the guru of the single-payer movement for government-run universal health care. . . .


Click to expand...

I had no idea you've hated the past 100 years of America's values so much.

I also had no idea that 17 democratic senators speak for all other democrats. This is really an eye opening analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom