Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

Democratic Socialism

Recommended Posts

All you old timers can continue to resist the tides of change (including you traditional dems), or you can embrace the inevitability that most of these ideas are going to be the predominant school of thought in another 20-30 years. Your choice. The millennials are coming either way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

All due respect,  but we seem to be getting off track here.  Critics said democratic socialism doesn't work, they were given counterexamples, and then you dismissed the relevance of those counterexamples due to the size of those countries. But why does their relatively small size (largest is 24 million if we eliminate the UK example altogether) invalidate them?  We can't we replicate their model on a larger scale? It seems to me and some other people that we can, and I think the burden is on you to explain why we're wrong about that.

If New York had a law that improved the lives of the average New Yorker, nobody would just dismiss the idea of implementing it nationally due to the size difference. In fact, as I pointed out earlier conservatives used to use this possibility as one of their primary arguments for state's rights. What's changed? Why can't we implement the Nordic Model in America?

I assume the conversation should be more about "How are you going to pay for all of this?!?!" I assume the Nordic countries don't have the defense budget (as a % of total budget) we do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgreen said:

I assume the conversation should be more about "How are you going to pay for all of this?!?!" I assume the Nordic countries don't have the defense budget (as a % of total budget) we do?

Maybe by not having a defense budget that is the equal of the next 14 highest spending countries......... combined? 

Just a thought. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dgreen said:

I assume the conversation should be more about "How are you going to pay for all of this?!?!" I assume the Nordic countries don't have the defense budget (as a % of total budget) we do?

See, now you're talking. That's the conversation to have.

I'm not an expert in democratic socialism so I'd defer to others here.  My guess is the answer is something like: (1) we can probably trim a lot of fat off our defense budget, and (2) Nordic countries also don't have the sort of concentrated wealth in the top 1% that we do (even though they have similar per capita GDP, another indication that this can work without sacrificing growth), which gives us a massive source of revenue not available to them to make up for the extra expenses we have that they don't.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dgreen said:

I assume the conversation should be more about "How are you going to pay for all of this?!?!" I assume the Nordic countries don't have the defense budget (as a % of total budget) we do?

Yep. You’ve hit on one of two things that would have to happen, IMO: 

1. Defense spending has to go down. 

2. Corporate taxation, and taxation on the wealthy, has to go up. 

Is it worth it to do these to achieve the results desired in the OP? That is the question. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

See, now you're talking. That's the conversation to have.

I'm not an expert in democratic socialism so I'd defer to others here.  My guess is the answer is something like: (1) we can probably trim a lot of fat off our defense budget, and (2) Nordic countries also don't have the sort of concentrated wealth in the top 1% that we do (even though they have similar per capita GDP, another indication that this can work without sacrificing growth), which gives us a massive source of revenue not available to them to make up for the extra expenses we have that they don't.

And I assume their taxes are higher?

Raising taxes and lowering the defense budget seems unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Epic Problem said:

Maybe by not having a defense budget that is the equal of the next 14 highest spending countries......... combined? 

Just a thought. 

I don't see that happening, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

All due respect,  but we seem to be getting off track here.  Critics said democratic socialism doesn't work, they were given counterexamples, and then you dismissed the relevance of those counterexamples due to the size of those countries. But why does their relatively small size (largest is 24 million if we eliminate the UK example altogether) invalidate them?  We can't we replicate their model on a larger scale? It seems to be that we can, and I think the burden is on you to explain why we're wrong about that.

If New York had a law that improved the lives of all New Yorkers nobody would just dismiss the idea of implementing it nationally due to the size difference. In fact, as I pointed out earlier conservatives used to use this possibility as one of their primary arguments for state's rights. What's changed? Why can't we implement the Nordic Model in America?

He used UK's Labour Party as an example, when over half the voting population went against them was simply the point I was making. A good portion of them listed immigration and protecting borders as a reason, feels like they disagree with his assertion. 

This is the second post of yours I've read in this thread and both contained this word. You can dismiss this opinion if you want, but I'll be direct about it; both sides are fairly equal in size give/take (Dem/GOP) - I dislike both of them for different reasons, however you need those of us in the middle at times to break ties. Your points are drowned out when you're pointing a finger at the other side, just my :2cents: I disengage quickly when I hear either side pointing a finger, and it feels like 99.9% of these conversations are just that. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Epic Problem said:

Maybe by not having a defense budget that is the equal of the next 14 highest spending countries......... combined? 

Just a thought. 

And I believe the school of thought from the right and Trump supporters at the current moment is to reduce our military footprint around globe and start making other countries up their spend on military to pay "their fair share."  If that is the case, then they should agree with reducing our military budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Nordic Countries also have higher individual tax rates.  That's a big part of the challenge of getting this stuff off the ground here.

But they also spend less disposable income on healthcare and education, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, urbanhack said:

And I believe the school of thought from the right and Trump supporters at the current moment is to reduce our military footprint around globe and start making other countries up their spend on military to pay "their fair share."  If that is the case, then they should agree with reducing our military budget.

Maybe they "should" but they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Nordic Countries also have higher individual tax rates.  That's a big part of the challenge of getting this stuff off the ground here.

So let’s be realistic here. Here’s what I predict may happen, based on history: in the next several years, there’s going to be wave of Democratic socialist politicians getting elected in the same way there was a Tea Party Wave in 2010. Like the original Tea Party folks, they will arrive in Washington with idealism. Like the Tea Party folks, they won’t have quite enough votes to get their agenda through: they won’t be able to truly cut defense spending, and they won’t be able to significantly raise taxes on the wealthy. So instead they’ll increase spending, moving us closer to free college and Medicare for all, and worry about who pays for it later (Meaning it will add to the debt.) 

Is this a worthwhile outcome? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

This is the second post of yours I've read in this thread and both contained this word. You can dismiss this opinion if you want, but I'll be direct about it; both sides are fairly equal in size give/take (Dem/GOP) - I dislike both of them for different reasons, however you need those of us in the middle at times to break ties. Your points are drowned out when you're pointing a finger at the other side, just my :2cents: I disengage quickly when I hear either side pointing a finger, and it feels like 99.9% of these conversations are just that. 

:goodposting:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, urbanhack said:

But they also spend less disposable income on healthcare and education, no?

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that a high percentage of people in this country are reflexively anti-taxes and anti-government.  My understanding is that Danish people's views on taxation and the government are very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fantasycurse42 said:

He used UK's Labour Party as an example, when over half the voting population went against them was simply the point I was making. A good portion of them listed immigration and protecting borders as a reason, feels like they disagree with his assertion. 

This is the second post of yours I've read in this thread and both contained this word. You can dismiss this opinion if you want, but I'll be direct about it; both sides are fairly equal in size give/take (Dem/GOP) - I dislike both of them for different reasons, however you need those of us in the middle at times to break ties. Your points are drowned out when you're pointing a finger at the other side, just my :2cents: I disengage quickly when I hear either side pointing a finger, and it feels like 99.9% of these conversations are just that. 

 

Wait, what?  There were a bunch of Democratic Socialists in the Labour Party who backed "Leave" in the Brexit vote.  Dennis Skinner and John Mann both came out heavily in favor of "leave" - and the official Labour position against Brexit was almost entirely based on economics, not their party platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Nordic Countries also have higher individual tax rates.  That's a big part of the challenge of getting this stuff off the ground here.

I was curious, so I just checked, to date, I've pocketed in my bank account 56.4% of my income (included in some of those are contributions to 401k, healthcare, etc.), but still, 43.6% of the income I've earned hasn't landed in my personal bank account... Should I pay more? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

So let’s be realistic here. Here’s what I predict may happen, based on history: in the next several years, there’s going to be wave of Democratic socialist politicians getting elected in the same way there was a Tea Party Wave in 2010. Like the original Tea Party folks, they will arrive in Washington with idealism. Like the Tea Party folks, they won’t have quite enough votes to get their agenda through: they won’t be able to truly cut defense spending, and they won’t be able to significantly raise taxes on the wealthy. So instead they’ll increase spending, moving us closer to free college and Medicare for all, and worry about who pays for it later (Meaning it will add to the debt.) 

Is this a worthwhile outcome? 

This does strike me as a plausible theory about what the future may hold.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dgreen said:

And I assume their taxes are higher?

Raising taxes and lowering the defense budget seems unlikely.

Yes, higher taxes. Roll back the recent tax cut for starters, of course. Combine it with a rate increase for the highest bracket at least back to the 40% we had until 2003. Increase the estate tax bigly (I was under the impression that we wanted America to be a meritocracy). And so on.

Yeah it's a big ask politically, but these are massive changes we're talking about across the board. Considering the widening gap between the wealthy and the rest of us over the last couple decades, significantly increasing the tax burden on the wealthy doesn't seem like that tough of a sell to everyone but the wealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fantasycurse42 said:

I was curious, so I just checked, to date, I've pocketed in my bank account 56.4% of my income (included in some of those are contributions to 401k, healthcare, etc.), but still, 43.6% of the income I've earned hasn't landed in my personal bank account... Should I pay more? 

I don't know enough about your financial situation to even offer an opinion here.  But in the abstract, sure, I don't have an ideological problem with higher tax rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

I was curious, so I just checked, to date, I've pocketed in my bank account 56.4% of my income (included in some of those are contributions to 401k, healthcare, etc.), but still, 43.6% of the income I've earned hasn't landed in my personal bank account... Should I pay more? 

Contributions to 401k should absolutely be counted as income into your accounts, and healthcare costs would be paid for Medicare for all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I like almost all of her platform.  I'm not sure exactly how the "Universal Jobs Guarantee" works exactly so I might not be in favor of that one.  

I like her platform also, but the "Universal Jobs Guarantee " reminds me of the movie "Dave"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

Yes, higher taxes. Roll back the recent tax cut for starters, of course. Combine it with a rate increase for the highest bracket at least back to the 40% we had until 2003. Increase the estate tax bigly (I was under the impression that we wanted America to be a meritocracy). And so on.

Yeah it's a big ask politically, but these are massive changes we're talking about across the board. Considering the widening gap between the wealthy and the rest of us over the last couple decades, significantly increasing the tax burden on the wealthy doesn't seem like that tough of a sell to everyone but the wealthy.

Or people who think they are more like (or want to be like) the wealthy and thus adopt the same outlook as them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that a high percentage of people in this country are reflexively anti-taxes and anti-government.  My understanding is that Danish people's views on taxation and the government are very different.

I think this is where the Dems have to refine their message.  Its not just a tax increase, its offset by the expenses you WON'T have to pay.  I'll gladly pay 50% more in income taxes if that means I don't have to pay my insurance premium and deductibles.  I still come away with more money in my pocket without the headaches that comes from fighting insurance companies.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Wait, what?  There were a bunch of Democratic Socialists in the Labour Party who backed "Leave" in the Brexit vote.  Dennis Skinner and John Mann both came out heavily in favor of "leave" - and the official Labour position against Brexit was almost entirely based on economics, not their party platform.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39665835

Quote

In short: The Labour Party campaigned against Brexit 

The result is the result.

Just now, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I don't know enough about your financial situation to even offer an opinion here.  But in the abstract, sure, I don't have an ideological problem with higher tax rates.

Well, we'll never agree. Personally, I was against these tax cuts, FWIW. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

You can dismiss this opinion if you want, but I'll be direct about it; both sides are fairly equal in size give/take (Dem/GOP) - I dislike both of them for different reasons, however you need those of us in the middle at times to break ties. 

It’s not just a matter of breaking ties. 

In order to get what the OP wants, we’re going to need at least 2/3rds of the public in favor, plus a House, Senate, and Presidency all firmly controlled by Democratic Socialists or Democrats sympathetic to the cause, plus laws that will survive a conservative SC challenge. 

This seems unlikely even for a growing movement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

It’s not just a matter of breaking ties. 

In order to get what the OP wants, we’re going to need at least 2/3rds of the public in favor, plus a House, Senate, and Presidency all firmly controlled by Democratic Socialists or Democrats sympathetic to the cause, plus laws that will survive a conservative SC challenge. 

This seems unlikely even for a growing movement. 

It'll be like the Tea Party for Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, urbanhack said:

Or people who think they are more like (or want to be like) the wealthy and thus adopt the same outlook as them.

Sure, that's a problem. It's not an easy sell. But it's not as impossible as people seem to think.  Clinton passed a tax increase on the wealthy in 1993.  Then he fought tax cuts proposed by the Contract for America GOP in 1994 and still won reelection easily.  The economy did just fine, too.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fantasycurse42 said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39665835

The result is the result.

Well, we'll never agree. Personally, I was against these tax cuts, FWIW. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36496288

Quote

Many Labour voters don't know the party backs remaining in the EU and it could lead to a Leave vote in the referendum, senior party figures have warned.

Quote

 

Mr Mann said Labour voters disagreed with the party leadership on the EU issue and a "people's revolution is underway".

Labour MP John Mann to vote for Brexit


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

It’s not just a matter of breaking ties. 

In order to get what the OP wants, we’re going to need at least 2/3rds of the public in favor, plus a House, Senate, and Presidency all firmly controlled by Democratic Socialists or Democrats sympathetic to the cause, plus laws that will survive a conservative SC challenge. 

This seems unlikely even for a growing movement. 

Did you just refer to yourself in the 3rd person, or did you just pull a Kevin Durant?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amused to Death said:

I think this is where the Dems have to refine their message.  Its not just a tax increase, its offset by the expenses you WON'T have to pay.  I'll gladly pay 50% more in income taxes if that means I don't have to pay my insurance premium and deductibles.  I still come away with more money in my pocket without the headaches that comes from fighting insurance companies.

Right, I understand the argument but the messaging is not easy.  A large percentage of people in the U.S. intensely mistrust the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fantasycurse42 said:

It'll be like the Tea Party for Democrats.

Which is what I’m afraid of. But another part of me agrees with Shamrock that this is what’s coming, like it or not, and best get out of the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShamrockPride said:

Did you just refer to yourself in the 3rd person, or did you just pull a Kevin Durant?

The platform in the OP is what Ocasio-Cortez and the Democratic Socialists want. I offered my own views in the 2nd post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice timing on this thread.

Yesterday a supporter of the Democratic Socialists of America threatened on Twitter to shoot up an event at the Trump Hotel in DC.

Sounds like a great group.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

increase on the wealthy

Here’s the problem for me . Very slippery slope from “ wealthy” to working man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Which is what I’m afraid of. But another part of me agrees with Shamrock that this is what’s coming, like it or not, and best get out of the way. 

And let this generation of entitled babies destroy us? 

These tax cuts are already going to drive us into an insane deficit and therefore overall debt. They try pulling this off, nobody will buy our TBills (which they prob won't anyways in 20-30 years when we're choking in debt we can't pay), we won't be able to borrow, and our economy will implode. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NFL2DF said:

Nice timing on this thread.

Yesterday a supporter of the Democratic Socialists of America threatened on Twitter to shoot up an event at the Trump Hotel in DC.

Sounds like a great group.

You think that violence is representative of this movement? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Right, I understand the argument but the messaging is not easy.  A large percentage of people in the U.S. intensely mistrust the government.

I understand that part of it too.  But our current system is horrible and getting worse.  They need a good PR campaign to sell it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s not just a matter of breaking ties. 

In order to get what the OP wants, 

:lmao:

What a jabroni

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got this great idea, we're drowning in debt, let's spend more. 

Both parties are guilty (and stupid) of this point. Furthermore, everyone is aware your universal free healthcare leads to lower quality practitioners. 

Edited by fantasycurse42
I'm not saying healthcare doesn't need an overhaul, and everyone should have access to it, but there has to be a better way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

Did you just refer to yourself in the 3rd person, or did you just pull a Kevin Durant?

Winston Churchill or someone else was going to be making an appearance in the thread

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

And let this generation of entitled babies destroy us? 

 

27 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Your points are drowned out when you're pointing a finger at the other side,

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ShamrockPride said:

 

 

Point taken.

With that, I was referring to left/right, I happen to be classified in this generation of entitled babies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Point taken.

With that, I was referring to left/right, I happen to be classified in this generation of entitled babies. 

Are they entitled or just want more for their tax money besides endless wars and tax breaks for billionaires?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

Are they entitled or just want more for their tax money besides endless wars and tax breaks for billionaires?

Entitled 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Entitled 

Interesting.  I wonder what else we could have done with $5.5 trillion.  Probably best to throw it in the desert halfway around the world.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Interesting.  I wonder what else we could have done with $5.5 trillion.  Probably best to throw it in the desert halfway around the world.

In this very thread, I said I was against these tax cuts, go read through it. 

A ≠ B

Carry on though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

In this very thread, I said I was against these tax cuts, go read through it. 

A ≠ B

Carry on though.

Hmmm, you called a person is entitled if they'd rather get more for their taxes than pay for an endless war.   I pointed out we've spent over $5.5 trillion for a war.  I'd rather get something else for my money, even if that makes me entitled in your eyes.

Edited by Amused to Death
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.