The Democrat Utopia

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I can see DSA as being radical. But $15/hr minimum wage, full healthcare, and paid child and sick leave aren't radical at all. Cancelling student debt isn't radical but not as mainstream as those others.

 

I wouldn't say that.  It's a matter of degree of radicalness.  

[Fru]

It's intriguing to me how policies that are effectively used thru out the rest of the developed world are "radical" in the US. 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Fru said:

It's intriguing to me how policies that are effectively used thru out the rest of the developed world are "radical" in the US. 

 

They're radical because we're one of the world's poorest countries with little ability to pay for such programs.

[RedDenver]

44 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I wouldn't say that.  It's a matter of degree of radicalness.  

I suppose you can view it that way, but I think of "radical" as being completely outside the norms. However, $15/hr minimum wage already exists in a number of places and is a big part of the current discussion. Many people have full healthcare both from their employers (public and private) and from the government (Medicare). And many people have paid child and sick leave. And that's just in the US. As Fru mentions, these things exist throughout the world.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I suppose you can view it that way, but I think of "radical" as being completely outside the norms. However, $15/hr minimum wage already exists in a number of places and is a big part of the current discussion. Many people have full healthcare both from their employers (public and private) and from the government (Medicare). And many people have paid child and sick leave. And that's just in the US. As Fru mentions, these things exist throughout the world.

 

To me, radical has nothing to do with if it's done somewhere else or not.  It's if it's a drastic change from what we currently have.  A $15/ hr minimum wage nationally would be a drastic increase from what we currently have.  Sure, there's spots in the country that have that.  But, as a "norm" across the country, we don't.  Medicare for all is a radical change from what we currently have even though other countries have it.  It would be a radical change from what Americans are used to and have experienced. 

 

Now, saying that, I'm not against looking at what I consider radical ideas.  I've been pretty vocal on here when discussing healthcare that I'm all for an honest discussion looking into single payer plans for the US.  I'm not for an across the board $15 per hour minimum wage in the US.  If some municipalities like Seattle or Los Angles where living expenses are outrageous want it...great.  I don't think it's needed in rural America where living is much less expensive.  I would prefer to look at the increase in taxes on the upper income levels first.  See how that affects income distribution and go from there.  Saying that, I'm would be much more for it if it were say around 50% instead of 70%+.

 

So....just because something is "radical" from what we currently have, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

[RedDenver]

26 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

To me, radical has nothing to do with if it's done somewhere else or not.  It's if it's a drastic change from what we currently have.  A $15/ hr minimum wage nationally would be a drastic increase from what we currently have.  Sure, there's spots in the country that have that.  But, as a "norm" across the country, we don't.  Medicare for all is a radical change from what we currently have even though other countries have it.  It would be a radical change from what Americans are used to and have experienced. 

 

Now, saying that, I'm not against looking at what I consider radical ideas.  I've been pretty vocal on here when discussing healthcare that I'm all for an honest discussion looking into single payer plans for the US.  I'm not for an across the board $15 per hour minimum wage in the US.  If some municipalities like Seattle or Los Angles where living expenses are outrageous want it...great.  I don't think it's needed in rural America where living is much less expensive.  I would prefer to look at the increase in taxes on the upper income levels first.  See how that affects income distribution and go from there.  Saying that, I'm would be much more for it if it were say around 50% instead of 70%+.

 

So....just because something is "radical" from what we currently have, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

I see where you're coming from. But when people use "radical" in political discussions it seems to be implied that radical ideas are not even worth discussing. 

[BigRedBuster]

30 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I see where you're coming from. But when people use "radical" in political discussions it seems to be implied that radical ideas are not even worth discussing. 

 

Unfortunately, that is true.....but, it shouldn't be.  The level of "radical" that is needed is sometimes dependent on the severity of the problem.  With healthcare, I point to the old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  We've been doing this system long enough and it's not working.  Time to do something radical to fix it.

 

Just need an honest debate over the subject.

[Landlord]

There's also a semantics element at play. Radical in terms of politics is different than radical in terms of rad and cool and is different in terms of radical in other contexts as well. 

 

 

The 'radical' nature of the democratic socialist platform is in how much power it wants to give to the state. The ideas may not sound outrageously radical on their own, but the nature of the entire platform is very radical leftist ideolgoy. It's much more power than baseline/median worldwide, and is associated in appropriate and inappropriate ways with Marxism/Stalinsim/etc. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

18 hours ago, Oade said:

 

Criticize Northam all you want, but if the new standard is that people who've made a dumb joke or worn a deplorable costume need to be fired or step-down, then we're screwed as a society.

 

I'd rather reserve 100% of my criticism for political parties who are actively sabotaging voting rights in order to marginalize the black vote. A 35 year old racist photo comes in a distant second. 

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I'd rather reserve 100% of my criticism for political parties who are actively sabotaging voting rights in order to marginalize the black vote.

 

 

What? Why not reserve 100% of your criticism for all things that deserve proportionate criticism?

 

If you actually mean that statement then you've just given the Democratic party carte blanche freedom to do anything bad they want as long as they don't try to stop minorities from voting.

[methodical]

18 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Of course it's not free; the current system is also not free. However, 30+ other countries show that single payer works at least as well as our current system. And studies have shown that Medicare-for-All should save somewhere between $2 trillion and $5 trillion over a decade as compared to the current system. 

 

And add in the fact that it'd no longer be tied in with employment which gives corporate america even more leverage over people, especially those with families, so people would be more likely to leave for better jobs or to start a business.

 

It's radical, but radical in most political "do the most good for the most people cases" really means "our special interests don't want it, you shouldn't consider it!  No! No! its CRAZY! cant work! trust us, look away before they start making sense."

 

You pump 3.5 trillion a year into something and they are going to pay a lot of people to scream when you start considering removing middlemen.  There's a lot of entrenched interests, with lots of money.

[Moiraine]

Radical doesn't just mean "a lot different" in politics. It also means "bad."

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, methodical said:

 

And add in the fact that it'd no longer be tied in with employment which gives corporate america even more leverage over people, especially those with families, so people would be more likely to leave for better jobs or to start a business.

 

It's radical, but radical in most political "do the most good for the most people cases" really means "our special interests don't want it, you shouldn't consider it!  No! No! its CRAZY! cant work! trust us, look away before they start making sense."

 

You pump 3.5 trillion a year into something and they are going to pay a lot of people to scream when you start considering removing middlemen.  There's a lot of entrenched interests, with lots of money.

I have never ever ever sat around with fellow business owners talking about how wonderful it is to be able to control employees with health insurance. 

 

Most would LOVE to not have to deal with it. 

 

Your first paragraph is way off of he mark. 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Radical doesn't just mean "a lot different" in politics. It also means "bad."

Sometimes that is correct. Not always. 

[StPaulHusker]

If I can be honest for a moment, I'm open to listening to any radical idea about how to better this country for ALL people.  That doesn't mean that the idea has to be accepted as is but we have to have everything on the table.