#CruzSexScandal

[Joe Bagadonuts]

'Cause the word ****** was being thrown around, genius.

Well the word ****** isn't even in the version I've heard. So please treat us to this gem.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Huh? I think you may have your political terminology a little mixed up. Socialism is one end of a continuum. Joe clearly pointed out "farther toward", which implies moving further to the socialistic end of the continuum...

No I don't. The core concept of socialism is state ownership of the means of production.

Evidently, the way it is being used here and elsewhere involves a more expanded definition, e.g., expansion of social safety net, of, if you will, the welfare state. I genuinely want to understand which of Bernie's policy ideas are pushing the US more toward socialism, and as part of this, what people understand this term to mean.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You need me to explain to you how Sanders proposed programs would move us toward socialism? Are you paying any attention to what he says at all?

I don't need you to, but if you choose to, I would not mind you explaining a bit more why/how you think Sander's programs would push us toward socialism, and in the process, explain what you mean by the term.

In answer to your question, I'm evidently not paying close enough attention to what he's saying.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You and Cruz sound very similar.

Ouch, that really hurts

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Sounds like you need Jesus as much as Cruz does

I need lots of things, maybe Jesus is one of them, but I'm pretty certain it's not the vindictive, bigoted version of Jesus that Ted Cruz worships.

 

[b_line]

Does this story actually have legs?

Legs fo dayzzzzzzzzz bro! Why else would ted have cheated on Heidi?

 

[b_line]

I don't need you to, but if you choose to, I would not mind you explaining a bit more why/how you think Sander's programs would push us toward socialism, and in the process, explain what you mean by the term.

In answer to your question, I'm evidently not paying close enough attention to what he's saying.

Single payer medicine is the big one.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't need you to, but if you choose to, I would not mind you explaining a bit more why/how you think Sander's programs would push us toward socialism, and in the process, explain what you mean by the term.

In answer to your question, I'm evidently not paying close enough attention to what he's saying.

Your posts lead me to believe that you think that government does a good job with the money it collects and spends. If that's the case, you and I see this entire issue in fundamentally different ways. I do not believe government does a good job of solving problems. I think that the results of government programs are almost always vastly different than the intentions. I could give many examples. As a result of this, I believe that government involvement in our lives (especially from the federal level) ought to be minimized. For this reason I'm rarely for increased federal social spending and the increased federal taxation that's required to fund it.

To me increased taxes and increased social programs are another step on the pathway toward a more socialist form of government. Also, I do not believe that the social programs will work at all as advertised. People in high tax brackets will take steps that will hurt the economy (moving money and business offshore) and people who are eligible for the programs will take steps to get as much as they possibly can. There will also be a ton of fraud and waste. It happens every time.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Your posts lead me to believe that you think that government does a good job with the money it collects and spends. If that's the case, you and I see this entire issue in fundamentally different ways. I do not believe government does a good job of solving problems. I think that the results of government programs are almost always vastly different than the intentions. I could give many examples. As a result of this, I believe that government involvement in our lives (especially from the federal level) ought to be minimized. For this reason I'm rarely for increased federal social spending and the increased federal taxation that's required to fund it.

To me increased taxes and increased social programs are another step on the pathway toward a more socialist form of government. Also, I do not believe that the social programs will work at all as advertised. People in high tax brackets will take steps that will hurt the economy (moving money and business offshore) and people who are eligible for the programs will take steps to get as much as they possibly can. There will also be a ton of fraud and waste. It happens every time.

I think the government at times uses tax money well, at other times it does not. It has it's share of inefficiencies and dysfunctions. I think also that the private sector, especially large corporations, do a generally good job of allocating economic resources, but are full of inefficiencies, dysfunctions and inequities. I'm simply not willing to indulge in generalizations on the order of "government = bad" or "private sector = good." There are a wide variety of public goods/service, which I'd be very hesitant to turn over to the private sector, for a variety of reasons, and a wide variety of goods/services I'd be very hesitant to turn over to the public sector. Provision of health care is not one of them, because as I've noted repeatedly, countries that DO have a much larger role of the government in healthcare delivery do so at a lower cost, with better outcomes, and higher public satisfaction rates.

I see the issue as complex, whereas your posts lead me to believe that you don't, and that, rather, you have a pretty simplistic understanding of what is, in my opinion, a complex issue.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Single payer medicine is the big one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but health care service providers would still be privately owned, right?

Ok, fair enough. Keep in mind that where it comes to health care, the US is the outlier among developed nations. Health care in this country costs more, produces lower health outcomes, and lower public satisfaction rates than many or our developed nation counterparts. Why, then, would we not want to take a closer look at their models to learn from them . . . other than, perhaps, our misguided sense of American exceptionalism, which dictates that, even when we are producing sub-optimal outcomes compared to other developed countries, the way we do it is better, because . . . . America!

 

[fishonjazz]

Health care in this country costs more, produces lower health outcomes, and lower public satisfaction rates than many or our developed nation counterparts.

If this is true and people don't want to change it then wouldn't those people that don't want to change it have to be idiots?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I think the government at times uses tax money well, at other times it does not. It has it's share of inefficiencies and dysfunctions. I think also that the private sector, especially large corporations, do a generally good job of allocating economic resources, but are full of inefficiencies, dysfunctions and inequities. I'm simply not willing to indulge in generalizations on the order of "government = bad" or "private sector = good." There are a wide variety of public goods/service, which I'd be very hesitant to turn over to the private sector, for a variety of reasons, and a wide variety of goods/services I'd be very hesitant to turn over to the public sector. Provision of health care is not one of them, because as I've noted repeatedly, countries that DO have a much larger role of the government in healthcare delivery do so at a lower cost, with better outcomes, and higher public satisfaction rates.

I see the issue as complex, whereas your posts lead me to believe that you don't, and that, rather, you have a pretty simplistic understanding of what is, in my opinion, a complex issue.

We disagree, so that means you understand the issue and I don't. Got it.

If this is true and people don't want to change it then wouldn't those people that don't want to change it have to be idiots?

Yep, but please remember that the idiots are the ones who thought that health care costs would go up as a result of Obamacare, and it turns out that they were right.
https://sites.middlebury.edu/presid...u-lie-assessing-claims-about-obamacares-cost/

Maybe the geniuses who believe we need to emulate the rest of the world to solve this problem are overlooking the fact that the rest of the world is effectively being subsidized by American Health Care. And maybe they are also ignoring the fact that a much larger percentage of an American's health care dollar ultimately ends up in an insurance company's pocket than anywhere else in the world (because American consumers are the ones who ultimately pay for all of those liability lawsuits against doctors, hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, pharmaceuticals, etc.). Hmm, who is oversimplifying this issue again?