The Democratic Party has moved too far to the left.

[GMDino]

(12-03-2019, 11:59 AM)Dill Wrote: Darn. We need some never-the-lefters to go on record regarding the Ukraine--

Did it hack the US election or not?  Do we back the FBI/CIA or Trump/Barr?

That reframes the whole debate about where our attention should be.

REP. RANDY WEBER ®: Is CrowdStrike in part owned by a Ukrainian?

CHRIS CUOMO: No!

WEBER: ... ... really?

CUOMO: Yes!

WEBER: That's not the information that we have.

CUOMO: You have bad information! pic.twitter.com/byfAq1eXov

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 3, 2019

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-02-2019, 09:52 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. LOL women's suffrage, social security, civil rights, medicare, gay marriage--today's "too far left" is tomorrow's moral high ground. Obama realizes that for sure.

What a grossly oversimplified view of things.  It seems you're implying that every "too far left" idea will be tomorrow's normality.  One need look at the most extreme states to see far left policies having a significant negative impact.  Of course one can make the exact same argument with far right states, proving only what most of us already know, that ideological extremism is a poor way to run a city, county, state or country.

[Dill]

(12-03-2019, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What a grossly oversimplified view of things.  It seems you're implying that every "too far left" idea will be tomorrow's normality.  One need look at the most extreme states to see far left policies having a significant negative impact.  Of course one can make the exact same argument with far right states, proving only what most of us already know, that ideological extremism is a poor way to run a city, county, state or country.

I'm definitely descriptively "implying" that in the U.S., ideas opposed as "socialist" and "leftism" have turned out to be very popular because they are helpful, good for people.

I might have added that from the 1930s on, comparisons to the Soviet Union accompanied attacks on "the left." Why shouldn't that figure as "grossly oversimplifying" things?

If Social Security and Medicare did not lead to the Gulag in the U.S., it is not clear that variations of medicare for all would either.

Because so many "too far left" ideas have become a worthy normality--you have defended them yourself--that history should be opposed to yet another effort to frame an election as a choice between "far left socialism" and the true American way.  

Question for you--Regarding the Ukraine conspiracy, do we back Barr and Trump over the CIA/FBI? If AOC and Warren still the greater threat to our system of government then musn't we?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-03-2019, 04:18 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm definitely descriptively "implying" that in the U.S., ideas opposed as "socialist" and "leftism" have turned out to be very popular because they are helpful, good for people.

All of them? 

Quote:I might have added that from the 1930s on, comparisons to the Soviet Union accompanied attacks on "the left." Why shouldn't that figure as "grossly oversimplifying" things?

It does, it also has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread.

Quote:If Social Security and Medicare did not lead to the Gulag in the U.S., it is not clear that variations of medicare for all would either.

There's a rather a lot of room between right now and gulags.  Your use of such a hyperbolic argument rather exposes how weak you know it to be.

Quote:Because so many "too far left" ideas have become a worthy normality--you have defended them yourself--that history should be opposed to yet another effort to frame an election as a choice between "far left socialism" and the true American way.  

Let me clue you into something.  Aside from social security every example you cite is giving someone something at the expense of nothing.  Woman's suffrage, civil rights and same sex marriage all involve giving someone a right they did not previously posses, but it also cost nothing to anyone else.  What the modern left is advocating will cost others immensely.  They also know this which is why Warren constantly dodges on the middle class tax hike necessary to create her socialist utopia.  Not only is there the monetary cost, but removal of private insurance is also being advocated.  So not only will I have to pay for healthcare for all, including those who aren't in the country legally, but I am also having my private insurance being taken away.  Freedom, amirite? Oh, I forgot, I'm also supposed to help pay of the loans that people voluntarily took on to earn an education.  I mean, it's not like I didn't pay for my college and pay off all my student loans after several years.

Quote:Question for you--Regarding the Ukraine conspiracy, do we back Barr and Trump over the CIA/FBI?  If AOC and Warren still the greater threat to our system of government then musn't we?

I'll be happy to answer that in the thread that's actually about that topic.  In the meantime quit hijacking mine.  Thank you very much.

[hollodero]

(12-03-2019, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All of them? 

As someone living in Bernie utopia: No, not all of them. It remains a question of ideology, not just of "good" or "bad".
But also, many fears seem exaggerated. Life's pretty good in a "leftist" country. Doesn't mean others need to follow our examples, there are downsides.

(12-03-2019, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll be happy to answer that in the thread that's actually about that topic.  In the meantime quit hijacking mine.  Thank you very much.

Actually, I am guilty about that too. And I am sorry for my part in derailing that thread. I got triggered.

[fredtoast]

(12-03-2019, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  So not only will I have to pay for healthcare for all, including those who aren't in the country legally, but I am also having my private insurance being taken away.  Freedom, amirite? Oh, I forgot, I'm also supposed to help pay of the loans that people voluntarily took on to earn an education.  I mean, it's not like I didn't pay for my college and pay off all my student loans after several years.

You forgot to complain about the socialist that make you pay for education for other peoples children, bombs to drop in a war you don't agree with, fire departments to put out fires at other peoples houses, air traffic control even if you never fly, natural disaster relief for events that never effect you, highways you may never drive on, and so on and so on and so on.

Our government was designed to protect all citizens and do what is best for the entire nation.  Good citizens who love their country should agree with this. 

[Dill]

(12-03-2019, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All of them?
It does, it also has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread.

There's a rather a lot of room between right now and gulags.  Your use of such a hyperbolic argument rather exposes how weak you know it to be.

My argument is no more "hyperbolic" than yours, but a good deal sounder as argument.

And yes, placing your "too far left" thesis in historical context has something to do with discussion on a thread entitled "The Democratic Party has moved too far Left."   I was not the one who first referenced "extreme states." All I did was point out how the Gulag down the road has been a consistent recourse to those opposing social(ist) legislation. Why do we have to forget that history because you want to re-use the tactic?

Which "leftist/socialist" ideas have been implemented which have not worked out? Off hand I cannot think of a one.  Maybe one of FDR's Farm programs?

In any case, my point does not require that none fail, or fail to be implemented. Only that many have worked out well. 

(12-03-2019, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let me clue you into something.  Aside from social security every example you cite is giving someone something at the expense of nothing.  Woman's suffrage, civil rights and same sex marriage all involve giving someone a right they did not previously posses, but it also cost nothing to anyone else.  What the modern left is advocating will cost others immensely.  They also know this which is why Warren constantly dodges on the middle class tax hike necessary to create her socialist utopia.  Not only is there the monetary cost, but removal of private insurance is also being advocated.  So not only will I have to pay for healthcare for all, including those who aren't in the country legally, but I am also having my private insurance being taken away.  Freedom, amirite? Oh, I forgot, I'm also supposed to help pay of the loans that people voluntarily took on to earn an education.  I mean, it's not like I didn't pay for my college and pay off all my student loans after several years.

Pretty sure Medicare costs someone something. Meant to throw in the GI Bill too. Could have mentioned "Medicaid," but the list was not meant to be exhaustive of ways in which the US has been built and improved by cost-sharing measures opposed as "socialist." 

If Warren is your problem, why not really refute her by showing how much you pay now for health care now compared to what your costs would be under her plain?  And how much health care will cost the country without her plan and then with it? Explain why the Dem party is tending left if Warren's poll numbers are dropping.

Did you go to a state university? And whence came your "loans"?

(12-03-2019, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll be happy to answer that in the thread that's actually about that topic.  In the meantime quit hijacking mine.  Thank you very much.

LOL don't thank me yet. You didn't announce your thread as a discussion of the merits of one candidates version of healthcare, but of the Democratic party's place on the contemporary political spectrum. The "threat" of far leftism which you would amplify here is one of Trumpism's biggest props at the moment.  The urgency of the far left threat you purport to identify cannot really be scaled in isolation from other threats to the republic, though it might distract from them.

[Dill]

(12-03-2019, 07:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You forgot to complain about the socialist that make you pay for education for other peoples children, bombs to drop in a war you don't agree with, fire departments to put out fires at other peoples houses, air traffic control even if you never fly, natural disaster relief for events that never effect you, highways you may never drive on, and so on and so on and so on.

Our government was designed to protect all citizens and do what is best for the entire nation.  Good citizens who love their country should agree with this. 

I think there are definitely different conceptions of the common good at play here.

When some hear of protecting citizens they think of walls and Muslim bans, not healthcare or education. 
Predatory health insurers are not the enemy, but guarantors of "choice" and hence "freedom."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-04-2019, 06:40 PM)Dill Wrote: I think there are definitely different conceptions of the common good at play here.

When some hear of protecting citizens they think of walls and Muslim bans, not healthcare or education. 
Predatory health insurers are not the enemy, but guarantors of "choice" and hence "freedom."

This kind of veiled insult and allusion to the beliefs of others on this board is far worse then the petty insults that get people banned around here.  You think you're being clever, but it's transparent as hell.  I'm sure your response would be something along the lines of  , "why would you assume I'm talking about you", which is par for the course for your tactic.  This place is fast becoming not worth the time of anyone who doesn't fit neatly into your ideology.

[*bfine32*]

(12-03-2019, 07:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You forgot to complain about the socialist that make you pay for education for other peoples children, bombs to drop in a war you don't agree with, fire departments to put out fires at other peoples houses, air traffic control even if you never fly, natural disaster relief for events that never effect you, highways you may never drive on, and so on and so on and so on.

Our government was designed to protect all citizens and do what is best for the entire nation.  Good citizens who love their country should agree with this. 

The bold really doesn't address his point about providing for non-citizens.

The other things you mention are available to all citizens and each citizen should pay his/her equal share. Who is going to pay for medicare for all? 

[Dill]

(12-04-2019, 07:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This kind of veiled insult and allusion to the beliefs of others on this board is far worse then the petty insults that get people banned around here.  You think you're being clever, but it's transparent as hell.  I'm sure your response would be something along the lines of  , "why would you assume I'm talking about you", which is par for the course for your tactic.  This place is fast becoming not worth the time of anyone who doesn't fit neatly into your ideology.

Restating publicly affirmed beliefs of millions of Americans to make a point about different conceptions of the common good can hardly be "veiled insult and allusion," and is certainly not "far worse than the petty insults that get people banned around here."   (Jeezus, hyperbole alert.)

E.g., why would saying that someone who supports Trump's Wall DOES support Trump's wall be "far worse" than calling someone who is NOT an ISIS supporter an ISIS supporter?  Why should someone who has publicly supported Trump's Muslim ban consider it an "insult," veiled or not, if someone else points out there are people, somewhere, who support Trump's Muslim ban?  

You have claimed Dems want "essentially" open borders and said unsavory things about Muslims, for sure, but I don't recall you specifically defending Trump's wall or supporting his Muslim ban. So I don't expect people to make the secret, veiled, but "clever" connection to you.  Perhaps you have defended these somewhere. If so, I'd appreciate the clarification. 

You appear to imply that personal insults and constant hyperbole about "far left extremists" are ok, but defenses of my "ideology" make list discourse a waste of time? That just sounds like someone does not like his own ideology challenged. 

Finally--you've offered a lot of off-the-mark drama here in the form logically inconsistent claims, and no good reason why I should not have responded to Fred's point that "our government is designed to protect citizens" by pointing out that, while everyone agrees with that, differing conceptions of the common good (of "protection") drive them to very different priorities and in very different policy directions. 

[Dill]

(12-04-2019, 07:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The bold really doesn't address his point about providing for non-citizens.

The other things you mention are available to all citizens and each citizen should pay his/her equal share. Who is going to pay for medicare for all? 

Do non-citizens pay taxes?

[*bfine32*]

(12-04-2019, 09:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Do non-citizens pay taxes?

If they want to; not tracked like US citizens. Not sure what the point is. Was it your intent to attempt to "answer" a question with a question?

[fredtoast]

(12-04-2019, 07:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The other things you mention are available to all citizens and each citizen should pay his/her equal share.

That is not how it works.  There has never been a time in this country or any other country with an income tax when everyone paid an equal share.

(12-04-2019, 07:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Who is going to pay for medicare for all? 

The same people who pay for public education for all, and roads for all, and fire and police protection for all, etc, etc.

Every indutrialized democracy on this planet except the United states has some form of public health care.  There is no reason why the richest country on earth can not afford it. 

[fredtoast]

(12-04-2019, 10:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If they want to; not tracked like US citizens.

Non-citizens have income tax withheld from their paychecks just like citizens.  They also pay sales tax just like citizens.

"Wanting to" has no more to do with non-citizens paying taxes than citizens.

[*bfine32*]

(12-05-2019, 01:19 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Non-citizens have income tax withheld from their paychecks just like citizens.  They also pay sales tax just like citizens.

"Wanting to" has no more to do with non-citizens paying taxes than citizens.

Please help with the theme of the OP:

Should illegal immigrants receive healthcare on taxpayer's dime?

As to the "want to". How do you track it without a SSN?

[Dill]

(12-04-2019, 10:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If they want to; not tracked like US citizens. Not sure what the point is. Was it your intent to attempt to "answer" a question with a question?

Hmmm. You don't see the point in asking whether non-citizens pay taxes after you've just stated that citizens should pay their fair share and then asked who would pay for medicare for all?

My "intent" was to determine whether you had factored non-citizen taxpayers into your policy--i.e., to pull out an element apparently missing from your statement of it.  Are you still "unsure" about my point?

[fredtoast]

(12-05-2019, 11:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the "want to". How do you track it without a SSN?

Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) issued by IRS.

[*bfine32*]

(12-05-2019, 01:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmmm. You don't see the point in asking whether non-citizens pay taxes after you've just stated that citizens should pay their fair share and then asked who would pay for medicare for all?

My "intent" was to determine whether you had factored non-citizen taxpayers into your policy--i.e., to pull out an element apparently missing from your statement of it.  Are you still "unsure" about my point?

I'm still unsure of your answer. Who should pay for medicare for all and should illegal immigrants be entitled?

[*bfine32*]

(12-05-2019, 01:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) issued by IRS.

Do they have to apply for this number or are they issued automatically like a SSN?