Mile High
Footballguy
Only if people don't vote.I swear we are going to blow this election!
Only if people don't vote.I swear we are going to blow this election!
I'm no expert but this is essentially the U.K. system, right?I imagine there will still be above&beyond policies like many seniors have supplementing Medicare now, so the insurance industry wont be out in the cold (much as they may deserve it) and that will be the choice end for those who want and can afford it
I'm not going to look stuff up right now, but my guess is that most of the top-ranked countries on the various economic freedom indexes have socialized health care systems. Nationalizing health care apparently isn't a death knell for capitalism.Medicare-for-all (Senate and House): Both the Medicare-for-all plans would make the biggest change and eliminate employer-sponsored coverage completely. Under these options, all Americans who currently get insurance at work would transition to one big government health care plan. - Vox, March 20, 2019
Therefore, prices, wages, and distribution of services would be controlled by the government. A socialized industry, to be sure.
not lookin' up neither, but don't most of those have a mechanism for setting or at least negotiating prices? that's where this all comes crashing down for America - if they can't use national customerhood to bring vendors under control.I'm not going to look stuff up right now, but my guess is that most of the top-ranked countries on the various economic freedom indexes have socialized health care systems. Nationalizing health care apparently isn't a death for capitalism.
I agree with the point you're making, but I think things are a little more complicated with Warren. I wouldn't describe her as a socialist, but she seems to harbor a genuine, personal hatred toward private business, especially in banking and finance but by no means just those two areas. On any given policy topic, the narrative she uses pretty much always features privately-owned business as the villains. She doesn't seem to be a big fan of private ownership of the means of production. At best, she's a very reluctant capitalist.The good news is that, among the actual candidates, the idea that socialism might be the answer is limited to Bernie Sanders plus a few fringe people (maybe Gabbard, Williamson, Gravel ... I don’t know).
The main candidates would agree with Hickenlooper.
Biden is not ideological enough to be a socialist. He’s a centrist by nature.
Buttigieg, capitalist. Warren, capitalist. Harris, capitalist. Klobuchar, capitalist. Booker, capitalist. O’Rourke, capitalist. Yang, capitalist.
Hockenlooper just seems to have ended up in front of a pro-Bernie crowd.
There is plenty about banking and finance reasonably causes hatred.I agree with the point you're making, but I think things are a little more complicated with Warren. I wouldn't describe her as a socialist, but she seems to harbor a genuine, personal hatred toward private business, especially in banking and finance but by no means just those two areas. On any given policy topic, the narrative she uses pretty much always features privately-owned business as the villains. She doesn't seem to be a big fan of private ownership of the means of production. At best, she's a very reluctant capitalist.
We can put an asterisk next to Warren, but I view her as basically a champion of ordoliberalism. She's a capitalist, but sees a big role for government in making capitalism work better.I agree with the point you're making, but I think things are a little more complicated with Warren. I wouldn't describe her as a socialist, but she seems to harbor a genuine, personal hatred toward private business, especially in banking and finance but by no means just those two areas. On any given policy topic, the narrative she uses pretty much always features privately-owned business as the villains. She doesn't seem to be a big fan of private ownership of the means of production. At best, she's a very reluctant capitalist.
My notebook may well be out of date, but I've always thought that Warren takes issue with capitalism in instances where ethical behavior is clearly lacking.I agree with the point you're making, but I think things are a little more complicated with Warren. I wouldn't describe her as a socialist, but she seems to harbor a genuine, personal hatred toward private business, especially in banking and finance but by no means just those two areas. On any given policy topic, the narrative she uses pretty much always features privately-owned business as the villains. She doesn't seem to be a big fan of private ownership of the means of production. At best, she's a very reluctant capitalist.
I agree. The term "socialism" is so loaded, that' I'm not even sure what exactly Hickenlooper meant by using it, nor what those who boo'd him thought he meant.Yeah this whole thing grates on me. I’m not much of a fan of the Bernie-Warren-AOC wing of the party; Ive been clear about that. I much prefer the Hickenlooper wing. I like pro-business Democrats, I especially think they understand the importance of trade better and I think their ideas about foreign policy are FAR better.
But the main proposals of the Bernie-Warren-AOC wing are:
1. Medicare for All
2. Green New Deal
3. Pay off student loans and free college
4. Tax the very rich to pay for it
This is not socialism!! It’s an extension of the New Deal and the Great Society. While it certainly represents an expansion of government, it does not represent an assault on our essential free market society. Branding these ideas as socialism is not only wrong, it’s simplistic and an attempt to destroy any real reasonable debate or discussion.
Are you an advocate for private, for-profit prisons?We already have the most socialistic program going. It's called prison.
Wait, what?We already have the most socialistic program going. It's called prison.
Maurile, I used to look at the indexes. I'm not sure how much I trust them to accurately measure economic "freedom." To me, economic freedom means markets setting prices, wages, production, and consumption. It also means low taxation and the limited use of force in collecting that taxation. Therefore, I'm almost positive their high ratings of economic freedom would come from their regulatory schemes compared to ours, not anything regarding nationalizing industries or tax rates. They're also probably small, ethnically homogeneous countries, which makes any cooperative endeavor easier provided that trust is there and corruption at a minimum.I'm not going to look stuff up right now, but my guess is that most of the top-ranked countries on the various economic freedom indexes have socialized health care systems. Nationalizing health care apparently isn't a death knell for capitalism.
On the contrary, I think it's a great look. People are fed up with what our country has become, and the left needs to provide some new ideas on how to fix things. Trump and the far right are offering theirs. The Hickenloopers of the world are what will get us four more years of Trump, not the young progressive left that doesn't buy into the boogeyman idea of 'socialism' that Hickenlooper is feeding into here. Socialism and capitalism are near useless in terms of trying to label modern economic systems. There are essentially no pure examples of one or the other, and a blend of the two is what we are today and what we should be going forward. To feed in to the hard right's revulsion of the word socialism is to help stunt necessary, drastic changes to our country that need to be discussed and evaluated from a rational point of view. That crowd (and many, many more like them) are sick of the scapegoating and word games. Why even bring it up, other than to stick your flag in the dirt as someone who thinks we don't have major issues to deal with?This is not a good look, Dems
All the other candidates need to say and feel the same way. Those boos just give more fuel to the Republican fire and will scare away independents.
Here's an idea: Let's be dismissive of the fringe. More apathy please, they've earned it.Much more problematic for the Democrats was the person from PETA who grabbed Senator Harris’ microphone. It’s images like this that help the Trumps claim that liberals are out of control.
Good luck with all that idealism which ignores what the majority of the electorate actually are: Uninformed, easily manipulated buffoons who are highly susceptible to word games.On the contrary, I think it's a great look. People are fed up with what our country has become, and the left needs to provide some new ideas on how to fix things. Trump and the far right are offering theirs. The Hickenloopers of the world are what will get us four more years of Trump, not the young progressive left that doesn't buy into the boogeyman idea of 'socialism' that Hickenlooper is feeding into here. Socialism and capitalism are near useless in terms of trying to label modern economic systems. There are essentially no pure examples of one or the other, and a blend of the two is what we are today and what we should be going forward. To feed in to the hard right's revulsion of the word socialism is to help stunt necessary, drastic changes to our country that need to be discussed and evaluated from a rational point of view. That crowd (and many, many more like them) are sick of the scapegoating and word games. Why even bring it up, other than to stick your flag in the dirt as someone who thinks we don't have major issues to deal with?
Raise taxes. Create additional entitlement programs. Actively redistribute wealth. Continue expanding the government.On the contrary, I think it's a great look. People are fed up with what our country has become, and the left needs to provide some new ideas on how to fix things. Trump and the far right are offering theirs. The Hickenloopers of the world are what will get us four more years of Trump, not the young progressive left that doesn't buy into the boogeyman idea of 'socialism' that Hickenlooper is feeding into here. Socialism and capitalism are near useless in terms of trying to label modern economic systems. There are essentially no pure examples of one or the other, and a blend of the two is what we are today and what we should be going forward. To feed in to the hard right's revulsion of the word socialism is to help stunt necessary, drastic changes to our country that need to be discussed and evaluated from a rational point of view. That crowd (and many, many more like them) are sick of the scapegoating and word games. Why even bring it up, other than to stick your flag in the dirt as someone who thinks we don't have major issues to deal with?
Is that why Hillary got more votes?Good luck with all that idealism which ignores what the majority of the electorate actually are: Uninformed, easily manipulated buffoons who are highly susceptible to word games.
Only because of massive voter fraud!Is that why Hillary got more votes?
Plus she was colluding with the SovietsOnly because of massive voter fraud!
So who was behind that fraud that allowed her to get more votes?Only because of massive voter fraud!
George Soros, JFK, and Elvis.So who was behind that fraud that allowed her to get more votes?
I agree. Find someone who can win first then worry about the other stuff. The Dems can't allow 4 more years of Trump appointing judges.Good luck with all that idealism which ignores what the majority of the electorate actually are: Uninformed, easily manipulated buffoons who are highly susceptible to word games.
ETA - I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the Dems are fixated on finding the perfect candidate based on issues and not electability and think they can just counter the Republican strategy by simply presenting a "rational" point of view, we're going to see 4 more years of Trump.
And all those illegals in California. And someone here was looking over not New Hampshire right? We never heard how that went.George Soros, JFK, and Elvis.
Chef Sho....stir that pot.And all those illegals in California. And someone here was looking over not Mew Hampshire right? We never heard how that went.
WTH is a Mew Hampshire? I'm trying to figure out what "looking over not Mew Hampshire" means.Chef Sho....stir that pot.
It’s sausage fingers out of control.WTH is a Mew Hampshire? I'm trying to figure out what "looking over not Mew Hampshire" means.
Hickenlooper was Governor of Colorado - name a more progressive state in the last 8 years - weed, healthcare, tech jobs, green energy?- while still ranked highly in best places to do business year after year . He has results - the others are just pretenders. I'll hang up and listen.On the contrary, I think it's a great look. People are fed up with what our country has become, and the left needs to provide some new ideas on how to fix things. Trump and the far right are offering theirs. The Hickenloopers of the world are what will get us four more years of Trump, not the young progressive left that doesn't buy into the boogeyman idea of 'socialism' that Hickenlooper is feeding into here. Socialism and capitalism are near useless in terms of trying to label modern economic systems. There are essentially no pure examples of one or the other, and a blend of the two is what we are today and what we should be going forward. To feed in to the hard right's revulsion of the word socialism is to help stunt necessary, drastic changes to our country that need to be discussed and evaluated from a rational point of view. That crowd (and many, many more like them) are sick of the scapegoating and word games. Why even bring it up, other than to stick your flag in the dirt as someone who thinks we don't have major issues to deal with?
I like Hickenlooper. The problem he has in a national election is that he's neither charismatic nor a bomb thrower when it comes to rhetoric. Unfortunately to gain enough traction to win, you need to be one of the two these days IMO.Hickenlooper was Governor of Colorado - name a more progressive state in the last 8 years - weed, healthcare, tech jobs, green energy?- while still ranked highly in best places to do business year after year . He has results - the others are just pretenders. I'll hang up and listen.
Don't understand that logic....what if people vote for Trump?Only if people don't vote.
IMO, candidates pushing a strongly progressive agenda are the more electable candidates, and I don't think it is remotely close.Good luck with all that idealism which ignores what the majority of the electorate actually are: Uninformed, easily manipulated buffoons who are highly susceptible to word games.
ETA - I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the Dems are fixated on finding the perfect candidate based on issues and not electability and think they can just counter the Republican strategy by simply presenting a "rational" point of view, we're going to see 4 more years of Trump.