Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Is that another word for a progressive Democrat?What if I said the sky was green?
Is that another word for a progressive Democrat?What if I said the sky was green?
Which word?Don't Noonan said:Is that another word for a progressive Democrat?
What big crash are you referring too? There were two decades of economic prosperity after Reagan restructured the tax code. Probably the longest and largest econimic growth period ever.bicycle_seat_sniffer said:just like the Regan years......its all built on a house of cards.....big crash coming....
The majority of Democrats are not on board with the Socialism push.https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/warren-buffett-embraces-capitalism-rejects-socialism-at-berkshire-annual-meeting-155617708.html
Buffett not on board with the Socialism push, in common sense news.
I'm not so sure about that. The majority of Democrats support a single payer health care plan than abolishes private insurance, which is about as Socialist as things get. They won't call it Socialist, but that is untrue. (I'm not using the term Socialist in the pejorative sense, but an economic one). Personally, I do not support that plan, but can understand why others do.The majority of Democrats are not on board with the Socialism push.
Where does this come from? I do hear often that insurance should be done away with because of a litany of reasons that are really not under there control and a product of our government placing them in the middle to avoid having to do what they should be doing. I'm not sure I have heard a single candidate offer this (getting rid of insurance) as a goal of theirs or even a primary reason for the M4A approach. A link would be helpful.The majority of Democrats support a single payer health care plan than abolishes private insurance, which is about as Socialist as things get.
I tend to agree with this. It should also be pointed out that those positions are being formed in areas where the private sector has already proven to be less than ideal if not a flat out failure. So, I am left wondering what the next step forward is if we already know that the private sector is not doing it correctly. It seems to me that you have two options. #1. Legislate the fixes that the private sector is unwilling to do on their own (at which point people will scream socialism) or #2. Take over the role (at which people will scream socialism).There is no question that, from a policy and platform perspective, the Democrats have adopted numerous positions that move more towards a Socialist style of governance.
To your first point, here are a few linksWhere does this come from? I do hear often that insurance should be done away with because of a litany of reasons that are really not under there control and a product of our government placing them in the middle to avoid having to do what they should be doing. I'm not sure I have heard a single candidate offer this (getting rid of insurance) as a goal of theirs or even a primary reason for the M4A approach. A link would be helpful.
I tend to agree with this. It should also be pointed out that those positions are being formed in areas where the private sector has already proven to be less than ideal if not a flat out failure. So, I am left wondering what the next step forward is if we already know that the private sector is not doing it correctly. It seems to me that you have two options. #1. Legislate the fixes that the private sector is unwilling to do on their own (at which point people will scream socialism) or #2. Take over the role (at which people will scream socialism).
Taking healthcare as an example, what would the next logical step be? To me, it's allowing the government to create an insurance plan that competes in the existing market. Remove the laws that prohibit them from behaving just like a "private" plan and see what they can come up with. It will either work or it won't. Then we have our answer.
Thanks....I couldn't get your second link to work, but your third link goes directly against the first one stating:To your first point, here are a few links
nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/kamala-harris-would-end-private-health-insurance.html
inthesetimes.com/article/21777/medicare-for-all-private-health-insurance-companies-abolish
https://reason.com/2019/02/27/medicare-all-private-insurance-jayapal
Take them for what they are worth. Perhaps majority is too strong, but there is significant support among Democrats, either through direct or implied policy changes, to eliminate private insurance.
I have no issue whatsoever with the government offering insurance. Let them compete in the market and see how that shakes out. What I oppose is having the government mandate people purchase government issued insurance policies and banning private insurance companies.
I think it's safe to say they are still feeling their way. When we see official proposals on paper then we can jump to the judgments in your first post. I say this because every single actual proposal I have ever seen includes having private insurance available as something to supplement what the government provides. I personally think that's the correct balance. I guess we'll see what the candidates say when they roll out their proposals in detail.This reality of public opinion explains, for example, why Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Ca.) softened her position on single-payer after saying she would eliminate private health insurance, and why Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has taken to describing it as "aspirational."
Fair enough.Thanks....I couldn't get your second link to work, but your third link goes directly against the first one stating:
I think it's safe to say they are still feeling their way. When we see official proposals on paper then we can jump to the judgments in your first post. I say this because every single actual proposal I have ever seen includes having private insurance available as something to supplement what the government provides. I personally think that's the correct balance. I guess we'll see what the candidates say when they roll out their proposals in detail.
But there are lots of people out there who don’t have a “person”- they’re the ones who decide every election, and they don’t lean strongly in either direction. How they feel about this is important, and not subject to your rules.Short answer for the vast majority of people:
If it's your person, then yes, they deserve the credit. It's obvious. Right there for you to see. This happened under their watch.
If it's not your person, the credit obviously is due to people who are your people. You just don't understand the complexities of how things work. One person can't control anything.
Same as Day One.
While I’m opposed to single payer at the current time, and also Medicare for All, I take issue with the bolded. Social Security was also called “as socialist as it gets”; so was Medicare (including by Ronald Reagan.)IThe majority of Democrats support a single payer health care plan than abolishes private insurance, which is about a socialist as it gets.
Hang in there Tim and keep you head up, that special person is out there for you.....somewhere.But there are lots of people out there who don’t have a “person”- they’re the ones who decide every election, and they don’t lean strongly in either direction. How they feel about this is important, and not subject to your rules.
And then there are people like me. I’ve made it clear that Trump is definitely NOT my guy. Yet I think it would be dishonest not to credit him some for the economy. Does he deserve all of the credit? Of course not. Are there worrying concerns in what he is doing? Yes and I listed them in the OP. But despite that Trump deserves SOME of the credit here.
If only you weren’t so far away. There could be real possibilities...Hang in there Tim and keep you head up, that special person is out there for you.....somewhere.
Let's be honest about this whole insurance thing though. They are being told to do way more than simply being insurance and that's because our politicians don't have the sack to stand up to big pharma companies to protect us their electorate. I have a love/hate relationship with insurance at this point. I really wish our politicians would do their jobs like every other modern government around the world. If they did, the US would no longer be the place where these companies come to "make up for" their lost profits elsewhere around the globe. The US is basically the kitty litter box of big pharma and our politicians are ok with it.Fair enough.
I will say this and I offer this purely as opinion, is that many Democrats do want to eliminate private health insurance and go to M4A or some equivalent, but are deliberately being vague because the public is reluctant. The openly Socialist faction in the Democratic party, although not a majority, has become a powerful force, and is looking to move policy dramatically to the left very quickly.
Social Security is Socialist. Again, I'm saying this in the academic sense. While I don't agree politically with Socialism, I respect it as a legitimate intellectual and government framework. I'm not trying to be insulting.While I’m opposed to single payer at the current time, and also Medicare for All, I take issue with the bolded. Social Security was also called “as socialist as it gets”; so was Medicare (including by Ronald Reagan.)
Large scale liberal entitlements are not socialist because they are designed to work within the capitalist free market framework. A true socialist would seek to remove and replace that framework.
I can't argue with that. I don't pretend to have the answer and there is no question big pharma engages in some sketchy practices. I'm just very hesitant to make radical changes because I have relatives that live overseas or have lived overseas and they are all highly critical of government run health care.Let's be honest about this whole insurance thing though. They are being told to do way more than simply being insurance and that's because our politicians don't have the sack to stand up to big pharma companies to protect us their electorate. I have a love/hate relationship with insurance at this point. I really wish our politicians would do their jobs like every other modern government around the world. If they did, the US would no longer be the place where these companies come to "make up for" their lost profits elsewhere around the globe. The US is basically the kitty litter box of big pharma and our politicians are ok with it.
I think we all have those anecdotes. I have a few family that don't like it. I have a few that do...friends that do. That's why I tend to look at the studies.I can't argue with that. I don't pretend to have the answer and there is no question big pharma engages in some sketchy practices. I'm just very hesitant to make radical changes because I have relatives that live overseas or have lived overseas and they are all highly critical of government run health care.
I know you just have to argue, but yes, most people have a person. They're either in charge or not in charge. When they're in charge, the good things are because of them. When they're not in charge, the good things are because of other things besides the people in charge.But there are lots of people out there who don’t have a “person”- they’re the ones who decide every election, and they don’t lean strongly in either direction. How they feel about this is important, and not subject to your rules.
And then there are people like me. I’ve made it clear that Trump is definitely NOT my guy. Yet I think it would be dishonest not to credit him some for the economy. Does he deserve all of the credit? Of course not. Are there worrying concerns in what he is doing? Yes and I listed them in the OP. But despite that Trump deserves SOME of the credit here.
You may not believe this Joe but I argue when I disagree with you, not just for the sake of arguing.I know you just have to argue, but yes, most people have a person. They're either in charge or not in charge. When they're in charge, the good things are because of them. When they're not in charge, the good things are because of other things besides the people in charge.
I understand your point of view. That's why I clearly said, "vast majority of people".
Employer based health insurance is ridiculous. You choose private corporations to be in charge of healthcare instead of democratically elected government. How is that working out for us? Most expensive healthcare system in the world that doesn’t even cover all of its citizens. But socialist healthcare is supposed to be the boogeyman? We’re living in a nightmare RIGHT NOW!I'm not so sure about that. The majority of Democrats support a single payer health care plan than abolishes private insurance, which is about as Socialist as things get. They won't call it Socialist, but that is untrue. (I'm not using the term Socialist in the pejorative sense, but an economic one). Personally, I do not support that plan, but can understand why others do.
My opinion is that the progressive leaning Democrats have no real issue with just being transparent about the intellectual direction of their party, but others are more reluctant. There is no question that, from a policy and platform perspective, the Democrats have adopted numerous positions that move more towards a Socialist style of governance. There are some semantics to tease out in the big picture, but if not the majority, a vocal and powerful minority of Democrats are pushing Socialist policies.
Do we need to provide AOC and Bernie Links?The majority of Democrats are not on board with the Socialism push.
No, because polling suggests they represent 20-25% of Democrats, perhaps less.Do we need to provide AOC and Bernie Links?
Do you think pointing out two people shows "majority" to be wrong? I don't think that's how math worksDo we need to provide AOC and Bernie Links?
That's fair. I do think it's important to note that a Democratic 2020 frontrunner uses the "S Word" openly...if we are being honest.No, because polling suggests they represent 20-25% of Democrats, perhaps less.
It’s not a matter of “if” but “when”.I guarantee that if the economy went in the tank, the media would have been blaming Trump 24/7.
CorrectI guarantee that if the economy went in the tank, the media would have been blaming Trump 24/7.
Would it be correct to place blame of it goes in the tank to to instability caused by his administration’s policies?Correct
Depends, but likelyWould it be correct to place blame of it goes in the tank to to instability caused by his administration’s policies?
sho nuff said:Would it be correct to place blame of it goes in the tank to due to instability caused by his administration’s policies?
That would be a major reason I might place blame at the feet of DJT if the economy tanked. If his policies were well conceived and implemented fairly I'd perceive the economy with regards to DJT like I have with every other previous president. A sitting president really doesn't deserve credit for a booming or collapsing economy that has been influenced more by the previous admin. That might change for me.TripItUp said:Depends, but likely
exactly. you know, like how every other western liberal democracy works.While I’m opposed to single payer at the current time, and also Medicare for All, I take issue with the bolded. Social Security was also called “as socialist as it gets”; so was Medicare (including by Ronald Reagan.)
Large scale liberal entitlements are not socialist because they are designed to work within the capitalist free market framework. A true socialist would seek to remove and replace that framework.
To be fair, no one individual is....I really hate this argument, but yeah.
True as far as you went, but you forgot something and that is to acknowledge that what you have said is true, but in the present case, whatever the present case may be, my side is actually responsible, not just a beneficiary of circumstances or grand cycles.Short answer for the vast majority of people:
If it's your person, then yes, they deserve the credit. It's obvious. Right there for you to see. This happened under their watch.
If it's not your person, the credit obviously is due to people who are your people. You just don't understand the complexities of how things work. One person can't control anything.
Same as Day One.
The founder of My Pillow sleeps easy knowing Donald Trump is president because he believes Trump was chosen by God.
“God answered our millions of prayers and gave us grace and a miracle happened on November 8, 2016,” Mike Lindell, founder and CEO of the specialty pillow company, said Thursday morning at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland. “We were given a second chance and time granted to get our country back on track with our conservative values and getting people saved in Jesus’ name. As I stand before you today, I see the greatest president in history. Of course he is, he was chosen by God.”
I got a one week ban for calling this trolling, which it clearly was. I politely pointed out that Noonan was conflating changes in growth rates with changes in raw numbers. He pretended not to understand what I was saying and then posted this, which was obviously written to mildly annoy me (ie trolling). And it's pretty obvious who went crying to the mods about it too.Now I see your confusion. You didn't understand what I was saying. Apology accepted.
Crazy. I read most of your posts and at best they're snarky. He's the biggest offender here of ignoring direct questions to his posts and then when people get aggravated has no qualms about reporting to mods about "injustices" who then ban people. I didn't play this game when I was a kid and certainly refuse to now that I'm an old man. I hope you and the rest of the honest posters looking for a discussion put him on ignore. Was wondering where you were.I got a one week ban for calling this trolling, which it clearly was. I politely pointed out that Noonan was conflating changes in growth rates with changes in raw numbers. He pretended not to understand what I was saying and then posted this, which was obviously written to mildly annoy me (ie trolling). And it's pretty obvious who went crying to the mods about it too.
I understand the powers that be want a civil conversation, but censoring even accurate descriptions of people and things is not a conversation at all. That goes both for the wildly bigoted misogynistic psychopath in the White House and his hypocritical, often-cruel followers. He is who he is, they are who they are, and IMO denying or normalizing any of it makes you part of the problem.
That is completely ridiculous. But, yeah, you have to be careful about accurately describing things on this forum. People will report you for it.I got a one week ban for calling this trolling, which it clearly was. I politely pointed out that Noonan was conflating changes in growth rates with changes in raw numbers. He pretended not to understand what I was saying and then posted this, which was obviously written to mildly annoy me (ie trolling). And it's pretty obvious who went crying to the mods about it too.
I understand the powers that be want a civil conversation, but censoring even accurate descriptions of people and things is not a conversation at all. That goes both for the wildly bigoted misogynistic psychopath in the White House and his hypocritical, often-cruel followers. He is who he is, they are who they are, and IMO denying or normalizing any of it makes you part of the problem.
Not surprised in the leastI got a one week ban for calling this trolling, which it clearly was. I politely pointed out that Noonan was conflating changes in growth rates with changes in raw numbers. He pretended not to understand what I was saying and then posted this, which was obviously written to mildly annoy me (ie trolling). And it's pretty obvious who went crying to the mods about it too.Now I see your confusion. You didn't understand what I was saying. Apology accepted.
I understand the powers that be want a civil conversation, but censoring even accurate descriptions of people and things is not a conversation at all. That goes both for the wildly bigoted misogynistic psychopath in the White House and his hypocritical, often-cruel followers. He is who he is, they are who they are, and IMO denying or normalizing any of it makes you part of the problem.
Funny thing is, I wasn't even replying to the poster. I was replying to someone else and discussing the difficulty between wanting to ignore bad faith posters and not wanting them to spread lies and misinformation. In this case the misinformation was pretty innocuous, but you can see far worse examples of it breaking through the far right and reaching normally reasonable and decent people elsewhere. The mischaracterizations of comments from Muslim elected officials as anti-Semitic, the absurd suggestion that Trump wasn't actually calling white supremacists "very fine people," the lies about media bias and errors- I've seen all those far right propaganda items and many more embraced by people I generally respect. We've already normalized so much awfulness in just three short years.Crazy. I read most of your posts and at best they're snarky. He's the biggest offender here of ignoring direct questions to his posts and then when people get aggravated has no qualms about reporting to mods about "injustices" who then ban people. I didn't play this game when I was a kid and certainly refuse to now that I'm an old man. I hope you and the rest of the honest posters looking for a discussion put him on ignore. Was wondering where you were.
Keep fighting the good fight GB.Funny thing is, I wasn't even replying to the poster. I was replying to someone else and discussing the difficulty between wanting to ignore bad faith posters and not wanting them to spread lies and misinformation. In this case the misinformation was pretty innocuous, but you can see far worse examples of it breaking through the far right and reaching normally reasonable and decent people elsewhere. The mischaracterizations of comments from Muslim elected officials as anti-Semitic, the absurd suggestion that Trump wasn't actually calling white supremacists "very fine people," the lies about media bias and errors- I've seen all those far right propaganda items and many more embraced by people I generally respect. We've already normalized so much awfulness in just three short years.