Is there a difference

Post Reply New Topic

We disagree strongly, so we'll likely continue to disagree strongly.

That said, it would never occur to me to alter those programs so that your support of people who are hostile towards their existence causes you to lose access to them, so while we might not have any fondness between us I'm still actively campaigning to support you and people who's situation mirrors yours.

I don't need to like you to still have an absolute belief in your equality and basic human dignity. I've posted explicitly regarding other posters whom I disagree with having a right to be here because they need this specific support. I might not love you but that doesn't mean I hate you or feel hostility to your basic humanity. If you were to be treated unfairly I would likely be vocal about it, so long as I agreed that you were being treated unfairly.



Also this.

I see, US workers are less productive (except the data shows they are not). And the best way to handle this problem is to get rid of protections for US workers and citizens where they have more dangerous working environments and less benefits and pay. And naturally, we need fewer taxes because taxes don't protect workers? And you are really making my point that conservative don't actually believe in helping people support themselves, but rather enriching their own pockets and those of their shareholders.

Neoliberal economics (the type of economics you are discussing) has never lived up to its promise, except for those at the very top. Our economic success is directly related to our regulation. If people earn more and have a safe environment in which to live, there is a positive economic effect. Taxes fund public goods. Those goods are also directly related to our economic prosperity.

Yes, US workers have become increasing, relatively less productive since WWII.

This is why US employers move jobs overseas.

The average Chinese worker wage is estimated to be $1.36/hour.


A lot of US workers would probably like to have less labor laws, regulations and taxes, and equivalently more money in their paycheck.

However, regardless, the conflict will resolve itself.

Productive will win over less productive.

Workers are cheaper and have less protections overseas. That is simply the cost of labor. I notice you don't address labor in the US and simply make it about low-skilled labor. It is also funny how companies don't out-source their executives, who have seen huge increases in pay and benefits.

Really? US workers want to have less safety and less money? That is what more deregulation would mean. We both know the savings to companies will not go into their employee's paycheck.

The fundamental problem with neoliberal economics is that it is simply a huge wealth transfer from the many to the few. It works on the pretext that the only social value is in economic profit and has no moral or social function. While certainly, companies need no moral or social outcomes (business does not), equally, we should not be changing our public institutions and systems to simply support a neoliberal ideology and economy. There are other values that are just as or more important.

The biggest limit to the accounting under neoliberal economics is that it does not complete a full benefit-cost analysis and simply focuses on profit and cost. So moving to a region that has few regulations for workers, where workers have greater risk to poor safety and health outcomes, those outcomes are not factored in (called externalities). So while US workers cost more, they are also healthier and can work longer. In unregulated areas, workers are simply discarded and replaced. The social costs of having to support workers that are injured on a job and have their working life shortened are not factored in.

The social impact of job loss and gain are also not considered. Just look at the impact on the Rust belt. So, in 2017, when we gave corporation huge tax breaks, we did not ask those corporation do do anything for that huge benefit. If corporations are going to benefit from the social environment of a country, with public goods such as infrastructure and services, should they not be supporting those benefits? And if their public contributions are lowered, should they not be asked to provide other support, for example, employment guarantees or worker benefits? Under the neoliberal economic philosophy, corporations only have the duty to maximize shareholder benefits.

Only true if you ignore the bottom 92% - or at least 10-92%. And even then, people in positions 92-99.99 have still hugely benefitted from neoliberal economics.

This might depend on how you look at it, because if predictions regarding our resources are right we're basically stealing from the future to artificially inflate our standard of living and if that's true the short term benefits might not outweigh the long term costs.

But, I hope I'm wrong in this regard.

I appreciate the sentiment,I hope you don't dislike me,I have no I'll will toward you.

CHEERS..........

So, what's the solution?

there is no difference as you put it i think i agree from the examples.

all people are unethical and dishonest if not openly they are to themselves...

no country is safe or free of this

the only thing one can do is vote for the lesser of two evils

the world is in flames, absolutely no point in the UN i think, total farce when it matters, complicity oftentimes including decades ago...

just try to abate flames as much as possible in one's own country. in personal and political ways ..every way...
using whatever 'tools' necessary even if one does not believe in the total integrity of a group if it is doing something right..help them. basically.
'take what is good and leave the rest' is a saying we have,.
well now i believe something else
'help what is good and avoid the rest' can only praise actions and intentions not party or people.
not loyalty to a group ..if someone's wrong call them out on it, even if they are one of 'yours'--
it can only improve your own politics and the goal is betterment anyway for everyone.

Last edited by blooiejagwa on 24 Aug 2020, 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

They are 2 sides of the same coin.

Both parties are corrupt and Decrepit beyond belief.

And you wonder why I don’t vote...?

The day a statesman (which, sadly, no longer exists) appears, and satisfies my standards (100% honesty in all dealings, will not change his/her positions No matter what, for starters) I might Consider voting for them. Otherwise, elections are nothing but hot air, and a waste of my time.

So...

Vermont is saying essentially "I know that I, Vermont, look like an idiot for voting GOP because I am voting against my own self interest as a disabled poor person, but by golly I will vote GOP anyway. And the reason I vote that way is that I have psychic powers and can get into Joe Biden's head, and I know that Joe Biden hates me as much as Mitt Romney, and Donald Trump hate me."

Even if I were to accept your premise that you're psychic and really do know first hand what politicians privately believe I still dont follow your logic. I would still vote for a guy who secretely hates me but will do stuff for me because he knows he will get my vote. Or at least I would vote for a guy who wants to kick my ass but will refrain from kicking my ass so I vote for him rather than the other guy who has promised to kick my ass.

I come from a family of radical leftists who endlessly talk about how much they care and the Republicans are evil mean and greedy.

But they treat me like I'm dog s**t because I'm not as successful as they are.
That's how I know the truth about liberals.

That sounds more like an issue with them than with the democratic party. Being a democrat doesn't make you a good person, and being a republican doesn't make you a bad one. But look at the issues both sides are trying to support. Keep in mind that both republicans and democrats feel that social security needs help and neither side is always doing all that much about it...so this isn't an issue that they're as divided on as many others...but regardless, Republicans are and always have been in favor of lower taxes, which means people pay less to help out the common good...and they tend to want to contribute less to things like public health. That's just a simple fact.

If you're looking for help for the common good, e.g. you can't work to support yourself, or have low or no income, you should probably not be a Republican (this will be counter to your own cause). I worked for a non-profit for a few years and saw the direct impact of Trump cutting funds in the health and mental health sectors...and this included services for people with all kinds of disabilities, like autism (services from housing to therapy to caretaking to job help etc). Right now as we speak, Trump is campaigning to make further cuts to health, science, and environmental causes...in favor of national security...for 2021. He has done so in the past and will continue to do so.

If democrats are claiming to support these values and doing the opposite or doing a bad job, then they're not a good representation of the party's values. But your family members are not politicians, and politicians are actively campaigning for various causes that are generally quite transparent. Nevertheless, as voters, even if your family are treating you like sh*t for some family reason (which is of course unfortunate), the simple truth may be that they're willing to pay higher taxes and contribute more money to a good cause, and helping out with better public policy...and if they were republicans, they'd still be treating you like sh*t, except they would also be stingy in their politics. So take your pick, I guess. But I can guarantee that being republican or democrat isn't necessarily going to change their underlying personality or the issues in your family.