What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Democratic Socialism (1 Viewer)

IC FBGCav said:
No, you need corporate money out of politics.  70% of Americans want Medicare for all.  The only reason we don't have it now is because of corporate money to both parties.  This is not complex.  It's time to end Corporate Socialism and those who support it.
Click to expand...
Assuming you are correct: In order to get corporate money out you need a majority of Supreme Court justices willing to overturn Citizens United. Which means you need a continual run of Democratic Presidents For the next 10-15 years (yes it’s going to take that long, perhaps longer) plus a Democratic controlled Senate for that time. This does not seem likely to me. 

I think we need to separate what should happen from what likely will happen. Getting rid of corporate money in politics is a nonstarter, IMO. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are 2080 hours in a year for US purposes, 173.33 per month.  Not sure with Denmark so I dont what you are doing, so I will bow out no so gracefully.  :)

 
msommer said:
The gross I mention is correct, based 21 work days per month of 7.5 hours and calculated in DKK before being converted to dollars (120*7,5*21/6,4=2953.125) or $35437.5 per year.

If you are going to correct something, correct something that is wrong.
Click to expand...
It's 21.67 work days per month.

 
timschochet said:
Assuming you are correct: In order to get corporate money out you need a majority of Supreme Court justices willing to overturn Citizens United. Which means you need a continual run of Democratic Presidents For the next 10-15 years (yes it’s going to take that long, perhaps longer) plus a Democratic controlled Senate for that time. This does not seem likely to me. 

I think we need to separate what should happen from what likely will happen. Getting rid of corporate money in politics is a nonstarter, IMO. 
Click to expand...
Well many candidates are going away from corporate money.  People are getting smarter and votes of many will surpass the money of few.  We don't need the SC to get it out to the point where it doesn't matter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IC FBGCav said:
No, you need corporate money out of politics.  70% of Americans want Medicare for all.  The only reason we don't have it now is because of corporate money to both parties.  This is not complex.  It's time to end Corporate Socialism and those who support it.
Click to expand...
While I'd like to see corporate money out of politics and to a large extent public sentiment has been manipulated by that corporate money , the reason we don't have Medicare for All today has more to do with the fact that most Americans opposed it until just a few months ago.     

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
While I'd like to see corporate money out of politics and to a large extent public sentiment has been manipulated by that corporate money , the reason we don't have Medicare for All today has more to do with the fact that most Americans opposed it until just a few months ago.     
Click to expand...
Obama killed single payer.  I voted hIm twice but facts are facts and he stopped it.

 
IC FBGCav said:
Obama killed single payer.  I voted hIm twice but facts are facts and he stopped it.
Click to expand...
Which single payer bill did he veto?  Or thwart by openingly opposing legislation that would have otherwise passed?  

If your argument is that by linking his legacy to ObamaCare he made it impossible for future democrats to push for single payer then the 16 cosponsors in the Senate and 70 in the House for Medicare for All missed the memo.

But since you have the facts please list them since I must really be missing your point since the closest thing I can think of is giving up the fight for the pubic option due to lack of Senate support - but that was not single payer.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Which single payer bill did he veto?  Or thwart by openingly opposing legislation that would have otherwise passed?  

If your argument is that by linking his legacy to ObamaCare he made it impossible for future democrats to push for single payer then the 16 cosponsors in the Senate and 70 in the House for Medicare for All missed the memo.

But since you have the facts please list them since I must really be missing your point since the closest thing I can think of is giving up the fight for the pubic option due to lack of Senate support - but that was not single payer.
Click to expand...
He could have passed single payer the same way he got obamacare passed.  He didn't.  Took it off the table.

 
IC FBGCav said:
He could have passed single payer the same way he got obamacare passed.  He didn't.  Took it off the table.
Click to expand...
He didn't have the votes from his own party. Now I think he could have fought more and I wish he would have but that's not the same as what you're saying here

 
The Commish said:
He didn't have the votes from his own party. Now I think he could have fought more and I wish he would have but that's not the same as what you're saying here
Click to expand...
He had a super majority, now give your excuses why it wasn't done then.  He didn't fight for his SC nomination too.  Why?  Cause HRC was going to win?  Such a joke.  He ran against her.  He proposed a Republican or DINO.  Why?  He doesn't want change.  He talked it but his actions were not the same as his rhetoric.  Look at facts and actions.  Bought and sold.  Don't even get me started on his treasury appointments and how he handled wall street.  He was corporate bought and facts show that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IC FBGCav said:
He had a super majority, now give your excuses why it wasn't done then.  He didn't fight for his SC nomination too.  Why?  
Click to expand...
The 60 Democratic votes Dems had in 2009 included people like Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus who would not vote for even a public option.  Single Payer was not happening.

Also, what would a “fight” for Garland mean exactly?  What should Obama have done to force McConnell to put it to a vote?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
The 60 Democratic votes Dems had in 2009 included people like Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus who would not vote for even a public option.  Single Payer was not happening.

Also, what would a “fight” for Garland mean exactly?  What should Obama have done to force McConnell to put it to a vote?
Click to expand...
Not sign a budget.  

Make them vote against single payer, isn't that good politics?  They passed Ocare with 51, why not do that?  

 
IC FBGCav said:
Not sign a budget.  

Make them vote against single payer, isn't that good politics?  They passed Ocare with 51, why not do that?  
Click to expand...
The Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with a vote of 60-39.   A second bill, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 was later passed 56-43 in the Senate with select amendments.   The public option was believed to be no where near 60 votes or even 51.  So basically the facts are facts!  They just don't in any way support your assertion.  

 
IC FBGCav said:
He had a super majority, now give your excuses why it wasn't done then.
Click to expand...
His "super majority" included two independents who would NOT vote for a public option.  I'm not defending him by any means.  I feel like he could have pushed harder and turned up the heat, but let's be as accurate as possible with the details.  This isn't two Trump supporter honks spouting crazy nonsense.

ETA:  Nevermind...BFS and FG covered it.....carry on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with a vote of 60-39.   A second bill, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 was later passed 56-43 in the Senate with select amendments.   The public option was believed to be no where near 60 votes or even 51.  So basically the facts are facts!  They just don't in any way support your assertion.  
Click to expand...
So democrats were no where near passing a single payer plan.  Is that your stance?  That's your point?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
His "super majority" included two independents who would NOT vote for a public option.  I'm not defending him by any means.  I feel like he could have pushed harder and turned up the heat, but let's be as accurate as possible with the details.  This isn't two Trump supporter honks spouting crazy nonsense.

ETA:  Nevermind...BFS and FG covered it.....carry on.
Click to expand...
All excuses, ask why?

 
The Commish said:
His "super majority" included two independents who would NOT vote for a public option.  I'm not defending him by any means.  I feel like he could have pushed harder and turned up the heat, but let's be as accurate as possible with the details.  This isn't two Trump supporter honks spouting crazy nonsense.

ETA:  Nevermind...BFS and FG covered it.....carry on.
Click to expand...
How many times did he address the public for single payer or SC?

He had great approval, 60%

But I guess it takes less approval to get things done.

 
The Commish said:
His "super majority" included two independents who would NOT vote for a public option.  I'm not defending him by any means.  I feel like he could have pushed harder and turned up the heat, but let's be as accurate as possible with the details.  This isn't two Trump supporter honks spouting crazy nonsense.

ETA:  Nevermind...BFS and FG covered it.....carry on.
Click to expand...
When I am out of this storm, I will address this 100%.

 
IC FBGCav said:
He could have passed single payer the same way he got obamacare passed.  He didn't.  Took it off the table.
Click to expand...
You do realize that in 2009 and 2010 I was the poster that complained that Obama was letting a good crisis go to waste by "making tiny course adjustments on lots of things" rather than "shooting for the moon".  So I get the sense that there was a lost opportunity to make one or two drastic changes for the better,   Obama had a broader set of goals and was unwilling to spend all of his political capital on a long shot such as single payer.  I'm not sure that I don't agree with you especially with the political price Democrats paid anyway in 2010 that Obama shouldn't have went big, but going big might have gotten single payer but I don't think it would have resembled HR 676 but instead have been more along the lines of vouchers to go buy coverage on an exchange. Support for Medicare for All in the House based on cosponsors existed to some degree in 2009 in the House but not in the Senate. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
You do realize that in 2009 and 2010 I was the poster that complained that Obama was letting a good crisis go to waste by "making tiny course adjustments on lots of things" rather than "shooting for the moon".  So I get the sense that there was a lost opportunity to make one or two drastic changes for the better,   Obama had a broader set of goals and was unwilling to spend all of his political capital on a long shot such as single payer.  I'm not sure that I don't agree with you especially with the political price Democrats paid anyway in 2010 that Obama shouldn't have went big, but going big might have gotten single payer but I don't think it would have resembled HR 676 but instead have been more along the lines of vouchers to go buy coverage on an exchange. Support for Medicare for All in the House based on cosponsors existed to some degree in 2009 in the House but not in the Senate. 
Click to expand...
What did he spend that political capital on?  How did he help working people?

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Norway/Finland each have a population of 5MM, this works differently on massive scale.
Click to expand...
Weeks ago I met a guy from Denmark while playing poker  at Harrah's. The topic of Democratic socialism came up, he said it works in his country, but it would never work here in the USA. He said the USA is much larger and more complex. He also said he wishes he could move here, but it is very hard to become a citizen. It made me think how unfair it is for people to immigrate legally.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
You do realize that in 2009 and 2010 I was the poster that complained that Obama was letting a good crisis go to waste by "making tiny course adjustments on lots of things" rather than "shooting for the moon".  So I get the sense that there was a lost opportunity to make one or two drastic changes for the better,   Obama had a broader set of goals and was unwilling to spend all of his political capital on a long shot such as single payer.  I'm not sure that I don't agree with you especially with the political price Democrats paid anyway in 2010 that Obama shouldn't have went big, but going big might have gotten single payer but I don't think it would have resembled HR 676 but instead have been more along the lines of vouchers to go buy coverage on an exchange. Support for Medicare for All in the House based on cosponsors existed to some degree in 2009 in the House but not in the Senate. 
Click to expand...
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/473924

Is this wrong?

 
The Commish said:
It could be 100% correct and it still doesn't negate that he didn't have the votes for the public option.  People were so fearful of the "slippery slope" the public option would bring, for the two independents, any mention of a public option was a nonstarter even if the term was toothless once the legislation was written.
Click to expand...
And the DCCC has followed suit.

 
IC FBGCav said:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/473924

Is this wrong?
Click to expand...
I believe that

  • “Behind the scenes, however, Mr. Obama and advisors have been...negotiating deals with a degree of cold-eyed political realism potentially at odds with the president’s rhetoric.” 
was absolutely a characteristic of Obama's eight years.  Usually it was a necessary evil, maybe it was one here also but I can't help but to think that Obama's desire to not spend all of his political capital on healthcare resulted in much of that political capital expiring when Scott Brown was elected.  So in many ways I'm on your side.  But  the "public option" was not "single payer" which is not necessarily "Medicare for All".   Obama negotiated away the "public option" where there were not the votes to pass anyway - true.  But that did not thwart the passage of Medicare for All in 2010.  Obama might had have the ability to go all in on "single payer" and get some form of it, but there was no chance that it would have looked like Medicare for All in 2010 because the idea of government takeover of healthcare was a winning argument against the relatively trivial changes that were ObamaCare until just recently.

Now the thing is that while I was highly critical of Obama being an incrementalist in 2009-2010, I'm not so certain that we are not much closer to Medicare for All today than we would have been if Obama went all in at the time.  To me ObamaCare and the GOP sabotage of the ACA and the fact that the positive "bend the curve" results from the ACA were never going to be enough look like necessary stepping stones to bring the masses away from the "you want the same people running the DMV handling your healthcare" arguments.  If that 70% holds and becomes motivated this impossible dream of a decade ago might just be a reality soon enough.  

Ultimately those on the left have the same end goals.  Some insist that we can just  jump to the end goals while others insist that we need to painstakingly get there two steps forward and one step back.  Both as absolutes are wrong.   Most change is frustratingly slow incrementalism, but major change tends to happen overnight.  Only a few "crazies" would have believed during the roaring twenties that Social Security was right around the corner.  As the population was freaking out about gay marriage and voting shamefully to outlaw in state constitutions who would have thought we could have evolve so quickly.   Similarly a decade ago only a handful of "nuts" thought Medicare for All was a good idea yet alone possible anytime soon.  Hopefully the moment for one of these big changes has arrived.  And hopefully we don't squander it with petty fights among those with the same goals but different beliefs on how to get there.  Most years the incrementalist are correct, we just need to be ready to pounce on those exceptional years.  (Says someone who has watch BIG support go from 3 guys occasionally mentioning it to - dare I say - being supported by pretty much a healthy cross section of this forums political spectrum.)

 
IC FBGCav said:
Thank you, look at the elephant graph by Mark Blyth.
Click to expand...
That is the argument that globalization raised the standard of living for everyone except the middle class American worker?  Don't think I need to see it as I am old enough and grew up and have lived my entire life around it,  We were a better country when it was more expensive to cash out profits.  No doubt.  

 
The Commish said:
It could be 100% correct and it still doesn't negate that he didn't have the votes for the public option.  People were so fearful of the "slippery slope" the public option would bring, for the two independents, any mention of a public option was a nonstarter even if the term was toothless once the legislation was written.
Click to expand...
You are correct sir but, if i remember correctly, single payer was out by his first June in office, almost a year before ACA was signed, so it's not like he tried everything & finally gave in.

And the biggest thing for me is that he didn't try. He didn't do the FDR thing, the Kennedy thing, the Reagan thing of gathering America around its TV sets and saying, "We need this, you know it, i know it, let's bring democratic power to bear and get this mutha DONE". He had the excuse of the Republican blockade, but he didn't put his job (and, thereby, his opponents' jobs) on the line for this or anything. He never used his unprecedentedness presidentially, which makes him the worst Democratic president of my lifetime, and that's sayin sum'n

 
wikkidpissah said:
You are correct sir but, if i remember correctly, single payer was out by his first June in office, almost a year before ACA was signed, so it's not like he tried everything & finally gave in.

And the biggest thing for me is that he didn't try. He didn't do the FDR thing, the Kennedy thing, the Reagan thing of gathering America around its TV sets and saying, "We need this, you know it, i know it, let's bring democratic power to bear and get this mutha DONE". He had the excuse of the Republican blockade, but he didn't put his job (and, thereby, his opponents' jobs) on the line for this or anything. He never used his unprecedentedness presidentially, which makes him the worst Democratic president of my lifetime, and that's sayin sum'n
Click to expand...
Correct....that's why I mentioned in my previous posts that I was upset that he didn't try harder.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
E
Separate but Equal, Again - Neo-Segregation in American Higher Education
2 3
Replies
125
Views
3K
ekbeats
E
GordonGekko
(Media Optics Analysis) Georgia Senate Debate - Raphael Warnock Vs Herschel Walker (10/16/22 17:07 PST)
Replies
4
Views
369
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top