Well enough said, and amen, Mod mom. I do feel that this is an abnormal political season in America; the fact that this much space has been given to political discussion in a Wright Chat thread so far, and without objection, perhaps supports that proposition ?
"When you get right down to it, the difference between right and left is the difference between capitalism and socialism. All the side effects of those two systems notwithstanding, one works and the other doesn't." A resolution to the great and growing divide in America may be possible only when that statement -- a diagnosis perhaps widely subscribed to, on one side of the divide, anyway -- has been fully explored and dissected. One wonders why Social Security and Medicare, the figurehead American socialist responses to real human dilemma, are so widely applauded by a majority of our citizenry -- of all persuasions -- if they "don't work." Would ideologues really cut off their noses and abandon or neuter those programs, merely to conform to an abstract personal notion of "what's right" (for all) ?
The second half of "The Divided States of America" airs tonight (in my city) on PBS Frontline. We will be apprised of the conditions under which Mr Trump will assume the helm of "the most powerful nation on Earth" . . . as some never tire of calling it.
SDR
Donald Trump, Donghia and interior design
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
The larger number of popular votes that Clinton got amounted to 2.4% of the total votes cast, which is not all that significant, provided one can wrap one's head around the electoral college system.
SDR, Social Security and Medicare or not, this is a capitalist society. In a truly socialist society, the state owns the property and means of production. Even the EU is a capitalist conglomeration, albeit with greater socialist tendencies than the US. Greece is as close as EU gets to socialism, and look where that got them. As to the status of Social Security and Medicare, they have been so thoroughly embedded in our society that they couldn't be extricated even if a majority wanted it done. It's like heroin: once you're on it, you're hooked. Any reasonable alternatives to the system were obviated long ago. ACA should not be eliminated at this point, even as new and compromised as it is. Nor do I believe Trump would allow it to be. Reconfiguring ACA should be a priority, because, while it helps many, it has raised the cost of medical insurance for many more by outrageous amounts, double and triple times for some. It can be fixed. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Socialism vs capitalism wasn't the issue in this campaign anyway. Clinton is as much a capitalist as Trump, and Bernie was sidelined before the fight got under way.
The Frontline series is interesting insofar as it has dealt with events that have happened. The next segment sounds like "pre-news." Trump hasn't done anything yet, and every time a pundit or expert has made predictions about what he will do, they have been wrong.
SDR, Social Security and Medicare or not, this is a capitalist society. In a truly socialist society, the state owns the property and means of production. Even the EU is a capitalist conglomeration, albeit with greater socialist tendencies than the US. Greece is as close as EU gets to socialism, and look where that got them. As to the status of Social Security and Medicare, they have been so thoroughly embedded in our society that they couldn't be extricated even if a majority wanted it done. It's like heroin: once you're on it, you're hooked. Any reasonable alternatives to the system were obviated long ago. ACA should not be eliminated at this point, even as new and compromised as it is. Nor do I believe Trump would allow it to be. Reconfiguring ACA should be a priority, because, while it helps many, it has raised the cost of medical insurance for many more by outrageous amounts, double and triple times for some. It can be fixed. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Socialism vs capitalism wasn't the issue in this campaign anyway. Clinton is as much a capitalist as Trump, and Bernie was sidelined before the fight got under way.
The Frontline series is interesting insofar as it has dealt with events that have happened. The next segment sounds like "pre-news." Trump hasn't done anything yet, and every time a pundit or expert has made predictions about what he will do, they have been wrong.
I suspect that those who have seen the SS deduction from their paychecks as a constant since they were sixteen and coming home smelling like a GAF Diazo machine, may want some return on their "investment". Another factor, for many retirees that I know, is that life and their place in the economy has swallowed much of their savings such that the monthly SS check helps cover the very basics.As to the status of Social Security and Medicare, they have been so thoroughly embedded in our society that they couldn't be extricated even if a majority wanted it done. It's like heroin: once you're on it, you're hooked.
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
Don't forget, the amount of the deduction you see on your paycheck stub is only half the amount, the other half paid by your employer. So the cost is double what a lot of people think. But the employers' matching dollars are factored into the gross they are willing to pay employees in the first place, meaning that in reality, all of it comes out of the workers' pocket.
And this is just one of many, many examples...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... ent=safari
Watching that film clip we hear of the actions of a bully. Although he ran as a populist and claims hearing tales on the campaign trail has changed him, only time will tell. His cabinet picks are far from reassuring.
I've been an activist for many years, after closing my business of 17 years appalled over the use of torture in our name, it became my main focus. If policy upsets you, get involved to push for change. As discouraged as many are, I find hope in how enlightened and active young people have become. Where in the past most relied on a few sources of media for news, now we have many willing to delve past the talking points to do research before having an opinion. We have an awakening of the electorate. I'll use an analogy that ties to this site (Mr Silver, being the owner of Auldbrass of course):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7PKRjrid4
I've been an activist for many years, after closing my business of 17 years appalled over the use of torture in our name, it became my main focus. If policy upsets you, get involved to push for change. As discouraged as many are, I find hope in how enlightened and active young people have become. Where in the past most relied on a few sources of media for news, now we have many willing to delve past the talking points to do research before having an opinion. We have an awakening of the electorate. I'll use an analogy that ties to this site (Mr Silver, being the owner of Auldbrass of course):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7PKRjrid4
Can we say that we have a representative government, when not many more that 56% of those eligible voted in the last election ? And when those representatives given the job are more interested in staying in office -- an expensive proposition -- than in doing the people's business ? When "getting the job" has become a years-long circus, for those who aspire to the privilege and for the hapless citizens who have to endure (and, ultimately, pay for) the grotesque campaigns . . . ?
SDR
SDR
This is the type of thinking I simply don't understand. The man has repeatedly said one of his first priorities would be to repeal the ACA, as has the man he wants as his Secretary of Health. Why on earth are we not to take the man at his word? Why? How is this "pre-news?"ACA should not be eliminated at this point, even as new and compromised as it is. Nor do I believe Trump would allow it to be.
I also believe a person's past behavior is actually an indicator of what they will do in future similar circumstances. We do not have to wait to see what the man will do. By now many of us are already quite sickened by what he has already done and said, deeds and words which up until he became viable even most Republicans condemned.
In many ways FLW was a despicable man. In his case, he had a rare creative talent for which he is now mainly remembered. It seems many are somehow hoping the same will be true of the new president. I pray to God they are right.
ch
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
Craig, Trump said all sorts of things about ACA. His call for immediate repeal was just the loudest, because that's what many in his base had said they want. In quieter interviews, his approach is much more modulated. He said a long time ago that ACA would not be eliminated in one fell swoop, but would be eased out and replaced gradually, up to a 3-year timeframe. One must listen to everything he says and the context in which he says it. He has played the campaign game that has been around for 200 years, but more adroitly. Even Melania's speech, cribbed from Michelle Obama's speech, was no accident; they knew exactly what they were doing and how the press would perceive it.
The left tend to take things too literally. In this way, they are a lot like the so-called religious right, a Republican infestation. Secular leftist ideology is, curiously, couched in dogma, which is just another term for philosophical absolutism, an oxymoron. The majority of Trump's base knows ACA isn't going to be trashed with prejudice. They know the Wall is just a campaign slogan, that there is no way he or anyone else will send 11 million aliens packing, or do anything to bring about nuclear war with China or Russia. It's all just a lot of yelling to gain attention. The religionists might take it literally, but Trump is doing what Reagan did 36 years earlier: playing them.
Personally, I would much rather have seen someone else win the nomination, specifically Rudy Giuliani, but there is no way I would ever have voted for Hillary Clinton, about whom I cannot comment without being censored. I would sooner vote for pond scum. Being in California, my vote didn't matter anyway.
The left tend to take things too literally. In this way, they are a lot like the so-called religious right, a Republican infestation. Secular leftist ideology is, curiously, couched in dogma, which is just another term for philosophical absolutism, an oxymoron. The majority of Trump's base knows ACA isn't going to be trashed with prejudice. They know the Wall is just a campaign slogan, that there is no way he or anyone else will send 11 million aliens packing, or do anything to bring about nuclear war with China or Russia. It's all just a lot of yelling to gain attention. The religionists might take it literally, but Trump is doing what Reagan did 36 years earlier: playing them.
Personally, I would much rather have seen someone else win the nomination, specifically Rudy Giuliani, but there is no way I would ever have voted for Hillary Clinton, about whom I cannot comment without being censored. I would sooner vote for pond scum. Being in California, my vote didn't matter anyway.
He's a sly one...
From Slate.com...
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.co ... ent=safari
But now Giuliani has essentially admitted that Trump wanted to ban Muslims from the United States, he just knew that an outright blockade would be illegal, so he asked the former New York mayor for help.
Giuliani revealed the stark details in an interview on Fox News, where host Jeanine Pirro essentially set up what should have been a softball question: “Does the ban have anything to do with religion?� And that’s when Giuliani got into the explanation:
"OK. I’ll tell you the whole history of it. So when he first announced it he said, “Muslim ban.� He called me up and said, “Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.� I put a commission together with Judge Mukasey, with Congressman McCaul, Pete King, a whole group of other very expert lawyers on this. And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.
From Slate.com...
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.co ... ent=safari
But now Giuliani has essentially admitted that Trump wanted to ban Muslims from the United States, he just knew that an outright blockade would be illegal, so he asked the former New York mayor for help.
Giuliani revealed the stark details in an interview on Fox News, where host Jeanine Pirro essentially set up what should have been a softball question: “Does the ban have anything to do with religion?� And that’s when Giuliani got into the explanation:
"OK. I’ll tell you the whole history of it. So when he first announced it he said, “Muslim ban.� He called me up and said, “Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.� I put a commission together with Judge Mukasey, with Congressman McCaul, Pete King, a whole group of other very expert lawyers on this. And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.
Last edited by peterm on Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.