Why would anyone vote for a Democrat?

One possibility is that people like the promise of free stuff, and they do not understand the free stuff will never materialize, and some like the idea of knocking down rich people.

 

Unfortunately, the American capitalism we currently live under in this country has abandoned its responsibility for sharing benefits of the national productivity with the workers who make that productivity possible. Instead, it has focused its favors increasingly onto the wealthiest among us, while abandoning the middle & working classes. Capitalism DOES have some strong attributes, but the disbursement of benefits to all who deserve it, isn't one of them. That's why we need to introduce some socialist ideas into our system. Democratic socialism is a very positive form of socialism, which both honors & defends human rights & freedoms, and guarantees that economic benefits reach into the lives of all its citizens. I know the word "socialism" was thrown around a lot during the Cold War as a negative idea. Mostly, it was intentionally confused with "communism", which is a very different system. Many Americans fell prey to that false propaganda, & are still swayed by it, in spite of its utter inaccuracy. For the past several years, the country named for the happiest citizens in the world, has been Denmark. Denmark is a perfect example of a Democratic Socialist state. It has instituted many attractive & beneficial programs for its citizens that would make a tremendous positive impact for Americans if implemented here. Americans need to see the real socialism for what it really is, rather than the horribly distorted one from Cold War propaganda days. I'm not suggesting we drop capitalism & replace it with socialism. Rather, I agree with Bernie Sanders, that we need to incorporate some elements of socialism into our capitalistic system to help make the distribution of wealth here more fair, more responsive to public needs, & more beneficial to the middle & working classes, who make our national productivity possible.

 

1. Would you mind describing what you consider these "human rights & freedoms" to be?
2. What economic benefits do you think should be guaranteed to all citizens?
3. Concerning Denmark: Do you really think that "being named as happy" has any scientific meaning?
4. The consumer determines what the distribution of wealth is by the purchases they make. Isn't that about as fair as it gets?
5. Won't he middle class will be burdened even more, as taxes will have to be increased to pay for everyone's benefits?
6. As more things become free, work ethic will erode, and productivity will diminish. Your thoughts?

 

1. Your question #1 is far too complex to address here in any detail. Sufficient to say, all the rights we normally attribute to our best definitions of "human rights" should be considered part of them.
2. I think every citizen should be guaranteed all the basic needs required for daily survival, including housing, clothing, food & access to medical care whenever needed. I think a "living wage" rather than a "minimum wage" should become a national priority, with the amount to vary depending upon the cost of living in the location of residence. I also think free or affordable child care should be provided for any two parent families that have to work outside the home.
3. I am a great admirer of science, but science isn't an expert in every field of inquiry. Happiness isn't something that lends to the physical measures of scientific scrutiny to any dependable degree, but happiness is a gigantic part of the human condition, & a powerful motivator for human activity. The fact that Denmark's citizens are the happiest people in the world, is a great testament to the idea that Denmark is doing something very important in an extremely successful way. America is much lower on that happiness list. Most Americans aren't that happy. At least a quarter of our population is taking anti-depressants daily. We compete with each other instead of finding ways to work together. Our economic system rewards a few "winners" at the top, while ignoring or deploring the gigantic masses who don't stand out above the others. Americans feel lost in a world that doesn't care about them, & in the process, lose their capacity to care about others. So, YES, I DO think "being named as happy" has great meaning.
4. No. The lack of income for the majority of Americans eliminates many or most of the purchases they'd make if they could afford to do so. If you make it so most Americans could afford more by giving them more income, then you'd energize the entire economy, for as you say, it's the customers who make the economy flourish--NOT the business owners or the corporate executives. If you want to see the economy expand like a balloon, then make laws that give more people more spending money.
5. It's much cheaper to provide public benefits thru taxation than it is to provide them privately. So, no. Even if taxes went up a bit, if the benefits expanded greatly for all, then it would be a great deal that helped everyone. That's better than having it all benefit only a few, as now.
6. I disagree. Denmark is again a great example. Denmark provides six weeks vacation for every worker, free or low cost child care for every family, free college tuition, free medical care for everyone, & a guaranteed living wage, yet Denmark has suffered NONE of the problems you fear in your post. Let's look at the existing evidence rather than make up imaginary scenarios that incite unwarranted fears.

 

One of the best posts of the day in my opinion.

 

I sometimes go to meetings with local small business owners. When I listen to other owners, it is obvious which ones are poor employers. They tend to blame their misfortunes on others. If only they could find better employees. If only they didn’t have to pay this or that tax. If it wasn’t for the regulations. It is always someone else’s fault.

 

You need not fear these things.
They do not promote open borders but rather sensible guest worker programs that cut out smuggling.
Free education, college, is for the same reason primary schools became free and then high schools. We want as large a pool of people educated to the levels needed by employers. At one time it was that they be able to read, later higher math skills and working in groups for factories. Now it's the ability to work with information and professional skills. There should be no reason to need to import those skills to the US. There are 8 universities in the US with more than 10,000 international students. It's because the rest of the world sees where future jobs will be. If we don't recognize this and address it the US will be followers rather than leaders and followers take what the leaders leave behind.
The new green deal is another example. Even if you don't believe man can do something about climate you have to admit that everyone is heading in the direction of clean energy. 10 years ago did you say electric cars are a fantasy? Yet here we are. It won't be long until electric vehicles outnumber gas and diesel one. Fortunately we do have some visionaries but they will be outstripped by foreign countries. Germany already has days with renewable energy providing 100%. We risk being followers when we should be leading.
Universal health care. It is the norm the world over. The US is one of the very few countries that have for profit insurance companies between you and the doctor. I know all the horror stories out there about death panels deciding what gets paid but when you ask your friends how many of them have had insurance companies refuse to pay? Why would you trust someone to make decisions about your treatment who has a bottom line to protect? All studies I've seen say health care costs will drop considerably under one payer and if your choice is $5000 a year more in taxes or $10000 to an insurance company it's not really a tough choice.

 

A very rational post; thank you for posting it.

 

A couple of comments. I know of no society that provides free college education to anybody who wants it. Industry and business does not come close to wanting every future employee to have a college education. A large percentage of STEM graduates cannot find jobs in their field. Electric cars cause only a minor reduction in total CO2 emissions. Medicare is much more restrictive in medical services that they provide than any private insurer that I have had and are much more likely to pay the providers less for the services they do pay for. It is highly unlikely that single payer insurance -- which is not the same as coverage and care -- will be cheaper than the private sector providers. It will only appear cheaper because government run health care finds it very easy to hide and bury costs, as Medicare does today.

 

Because they know what they are talking about....

 

Some of what you say makes sense but other stuff does not.

For example: 2) It's not my responsibility to pay for your or anybody else's anything

Unless you never use roads, police, benefit from infrastructure - and a host of other things that "someone else is paying for" - it is your responsibility.

What you are doing is reaping the benefits of wealth redistribution from others - but then turning around and claiming - no one else should be able to reap the benefits of wealth redistribution from you.

 

You won't win. Saner heads will prevail but if they don't get used to talking to the boss in Chinese, living in dorms at work for half of minimum wage as it was in '75

 

Roads are not a commodity. They are infrastructure that is accounted for in the Constitution.

Your food, medical care, sex change, breast implants, housing, transportation, etc, are personal to you, and your responsibility, not mine

Just as those things relating to me are my responsibility, and not yours.

It's called personal responsibility - without which freedom cannot exist.

 

What does not being a commodity have to do with anything ? Many commodities are purchased for infrastructure construction.

All paid for via wealth redistribution.

You seem have not understood my post. You made the general claim "it is not my responsibility to pay for anybody's anything" - now you are backtracking from that claim "anything" and talking about only specific items.

This is classic - "I love socialism - but only for things I agree with" narrative.

You say "infrastructure is accounted for in the constitution" - then you claim "Transportation" is not accounted for - but Transportation is part of infrastructure.

Please support your claim that infrastructure spending is "constitutional" - along with Police and other things you enjoy -including unlimited spending on military - Homeland Security - and all the other things you benefit from -that others pay for.

 

You don't think the government has a "bottom line" to protect??

In single payer systems costs always skyrocket b/c no one has any incentive to use resources wisely. Why would they, afterall it's "free", right??

As a result, costs skyrocket, and the government has to begin rationing care and making life/death decisisions based on cost. The infamous "quality of life" quotient.

That is not a "rational" post. On the contrary, everything in it is irrational.

Education for example... as soon as the FedGov illegally began setting the agenda for, and providing funding for education, costs have gone thru the roof and quality has declined precipitously.

America used to be #1 in almost all academic measures. Today, we are far down the rankings, despite spending more per pupil (by far) than any other nation.

If the left's ideas held up to scrutiny and actually delivered on the sunshine and rainbows promises, I'd probably support most of them; but, that isn't reality.

In theory communism should work beautifully - the reality is very ugly.

Government is, as our Founding Fathers clearly understood, is a very dangerous thing, and it's power should always be constrained.

Violate those principles at your own peril.

 

It's fairly obvious that you've been influenced by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and absorbed his ideology for too long; both you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this post.

 

Universal Healthcare is one reason. Red should have never let Blue have sole rights to this one.

If you don't like socialism - aka wealth redistribution - then why on earth would you vote Red since they are even bigger socialists than Blue.

How UHC will be paid for ? we are already paying for it. The total HC spend in 2017 was 3.5 Trillion - with a capital (T). Every other first world nation in the world provides UHC for roughly half the cost. We could just switch over to one of the better systems - or better yet improve upon it - and there is 1.7 Trillion in savings on the Table.

Time to get with the program - https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

 

Costs skyrocket in health care? What do you base that on, all the industrial nation's with far lower costs?
Education? Do you propose boarding up primary and secondary schools? Bunch of freeloaders. Did you know that Harvard PhD students as a rule pay nothing? Why? Because they attract the best professors who attract the most research funding. Upon graduation they get the highest paying jobs and in turn make the largest donations to the alma mater. The bigger the undergrad pool the higher quality of grad students. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

Why would anyone vote for a Democrat?

Probably for honest smart Government as in 2018 Elections ........... and as a check on a Dirty President

 

News Flash: There was this thing called the Internet. Ever hear of it? Venture capitalists were throwing money at anyone calling themselves an internet company, hundreds of millions of dollars going to companies that never produced a product and if they did 90% of them never produced a profit, but money kept pouring in because people just had to be a part of it. That bubble had to eventually burst there was no way around it.

 

Here's another way of looking at it...

I agree with our Founding Fathers and the principles of liberty they handed down to us, and you don't.

I believe in personal responsibility and freedom, and you don't.

 

For socialist HC systems costs are held down in a number of ways - none of them good.

They deny and/or delay service. If you need a hip replacement (as I do now), they will make a "quality of life" and "life expectancy" determination; and, if you don't fit within their algorithm parameters - guess what?? you ain't gettin' no hip

They pay their Drs and support staff less; they don't invest in new equipment; they don't invest in research; they, b/c they are the government afterall, carry red ink, etc, etc...

America's HC system is a mess, but that's a seperate argument. Much of what is wrong with our HC system is b/c the government is excessively involved and we don't have free markets.

P.S. My health insurance premiums went up 1000% b/c of Obamacare - thanks a lot... I appreciate your help

 

Like I said, both you and I will have to agree to disagree on this thread.

 

If it's any consolation, I have no problem admitting that your side will win out in the end.

It's much easier to destroy something than it is to protect and preserve it.

My guess is the Constitution will be replaced within the next 15-20 years.

I expect to see massive fiscal and economic collapse within about 10-12 years - as our debt load us currently 135% of GDP. Combined with Medicare and SS both now operating in the red, and poised to sink the Federal budget...

As the engineer said about the Titanic sinking - "it's a mathematical certainty".