College grads agree w/ Liberals, while High School dropouts agree w/ Conservatives.

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, yes, far left policies can work.

For how long?

There's also a matter of scale. What works for a country who's total population is less than half that of the largest single city in the US isn't necessarily going to work here.
 
Upvote 0

JoyJuice

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2006
10,838
483
✟20,965.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Others
Actually I think our whole conversation is a subject for another thread but since no one has complained I see no reason to not continue.

On the affirmative action point that's actually a good example. I don't go so far as to say it's no longer necessary and it is a stretch to say it isn't working at all, but providing opportunity will only go so far. We'll always have those that refuse to drink, and in my opinion society owes them nothing. We have, in my opinion, gotten to the point where we need to get serious about addressing other contributors to the inequality of results because the opportunity side of the equation,while obviously not totally fixed, has reached the point where even large efforts will only result in small improvements. It's time to start addressing the refusal to drink. The problem is one can't do that without being called a racist or a woman hater, even is one is a woman or a minority member.
Of course not taking the path to be all one can be is prevelant throughout our society no matter race or sex, but I'm sorry, unless you can find something more concrete I just don't see a problem where given the liberal emphasis to expedite opportunity, that opportunity is consistantly being wasted to the point thinking providing that opportunity doesn't exist. As you pointed out there may be some mitigating factors as why one would feel why that opportunity provided isn't obtainable, but that does not negate that opportunities are being made use of. I am not speaking of those who refuse to drink, I am speaking of those who willing to take advantage of them. They are abundant.
 
Upvote 0

KomissarSteve

Basileus
Feb 1, 2007
9,058
351
40
✟25,945.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
And what is the relevance unless you want the US to become what the rest of the world is.

Which "rest of the world"? If you mean the rest of the Western world, then I think any patriotic American would want the U.S. to become like the rest of the world - with a higher standard of living than what the U.S. currently has.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Which "rest of the world"? If you mean the rest of the Western world, then I think any patriotic American would want the U.S. to become like the rest of the world - with a higher standard of living than what the U.S. currently has.

Maybe, IF it's being done in a way that is sustainable in the long term, something that is still very much undecided. And like I already said, there's the matter of scale. None of the "sucessful" economic models that are basically socialist in nature are on a scale even close to that of the US. Just becuase it works in a country the size of one of out larger states and with a population of 40 million doesn't mean that it will work with 300 million.
 
Upvote 0

KomissarSteve

Basileus
Feb 1, 2007
9,058
351
40
✟25,945.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Maybe, IF it's being done in a way that is sustainable in the long term, something that is still very much undecided.

It remains undecided because the Right cries "Communists!!!!!!1" every time someone brings it up.:doh:
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It remains undecided because the Right cries "Communists!!!!!!1" every time someone brings it up.:doh:

It remains undecided because none of the existing situations in which it is currently "successful" have existed for more than a couple of generations at most.

And again there is the question of scale. An almost purely socialist/communist model works great on a small scale. Witness the Amish. Although a key difference there is that resources are not declared by the state to be state owned, they are voluntarily shared. But as the system scales up, problems that have thus far been insurmountable and lead to the eventual collapse of the system have come up. Even in some of the most socialist European governemnts there is a growing notion that adding back some more capitalistic elements is going to be required.
 
Upvote 0

KomissarSteve

Basileus
Feb 1, 2007
9,058
351
40
✟25,945.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
It remains undecided because none of the existing situations in which it is currently "successful" have existed for more than a couple of generations at most.

A couple generations is more than enough time to judge whether or not a policy works, and besides - if it stopped working after a couple generations, that's one of the reasons why we have a legislature to change the laws.

And again there is the question of scale. An almost purely socialist/communist model works great on a small scale. Witness the Amish. Although a key difference there is that resources are not declared by the state to be state owned, they are voluntarily shared. But as the system scales up, problems that have thus far been insurmountable and lead to the eventual collapse of the system have come up. Even in some of the most socialist European governemnts there is a growing notion that adding back some more capitalistic elements is going to be required.

Yet there's quite a bit of room between what America has and what Sweden, for example, has. Even if we were to institute a system of comprehensive health care for all American citizens, we would still be nowhere near as Socialist as the Scandinavian countries. The U.S. can afford to move in a marginally more Socialist direction at this point, simply because it's so far from being a Socialist country.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The U.S. can afford to move in a marginally more Socialist direction at this point, simply because it's so far from being a Socialist country.
Can afford to, maybe. But what makes you so sure that it is actually going to result in it being a better place?

You can't say "because it works in other places" because those other places are on a massively smaller scale.


As for changing things after a couple of generations if it doesn't work out, that's not likely. Show me one case where a government entitlement program of any significant size, say one that directly benefitted more than 30% of the population, was ever canceled by the US legislature.
 
Upvote 0

KomissarSteve

Basileus
Feb 1, 2007
9,058
351
40
✟25,945.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Can afford to, maybe. But what makes you so sure that it is actually going to result in it being a better place?

How can one be sure that any piece of legislation is going to make the U.S. a better place? Because it has worked under other, not-too-terribly-different circumstances.

You can't say "because it works in other places" because those other places are on a massively smaller scale.

Massively? France, England, and Germany are definitely smaller, but not on such a scale that it really changes the breed of animal we're working with here.

As for changing things after a couple of generations if it doesn't work out, that's not likely. Show me one case where a government entitlement program of any significant size, say one that directly benefitted more than 30% of the population, was ever canceled by the US legislature.

I don't think that's because they couldn't, though; I think it's because most politicians realize that, imperfect though those programs may be, the country is better off with them than without them.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How can one be sure that any piece of legislation is going to make the U.S. a better place? Because it has worked under other, not-too-terribly-different circumstances.
My point is that we are a terribly different circumstance than the existing examples.



Massively? France, England, and Germany are definitely smaller, but not on such a scale that it really changes the breed of animal we're working with here.

The largest of the three is still around 1/4 the size of the US. On what do you base the idea that that doesn't change things significantly?



I don't think that's because they couldn't, though; I think it's because most politicians realize that, imperfect though those programs may be, the country is better off with them than without them.
They would never do it, even if they knew the policy was a total failure because to do so would be career suicide. Different topic but that's why we need to do away with career politicians.


Look I'm not trying to say that our existing system is without problems. I just think that any significant move in a socialist direction is a chainsaw type solution to a scalpel type problem. And considering the likelyhood that the politicians would lack the will to do the right thing at the cost of their seats if something didn't work well, it just compounds the argument for much smaller tweaks as opposed to wholesale changes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KomissarSteve

Basileus
Feb 1, 2007
9,058
351
40
✟25,945.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
My point is that we are a terribly different circumstance than the existing examples.

In what ways are we so different from the existing examples that what works for them will not work for us?

The largest of the three is still around 1/4 the size of the US. On what do you base the idea that that doesn't change things significantly?

The fact that they are all large societies with huge economies, heterogeneous populations, and varying socioeconomic strata.

They would never do it, even if they knew the policy was a total failure because to do so would be career suicide.

I'm not at all convinced that this is true at all; why do you think this is necessarily the case?

Look I'm not trying to say that our existing system is without problems. I just think that any significant move in a socialist direction is a chainsaw type solution to a scalpel type problem.

I disagree; I think a far more apt analogy would be, "A significant move in a socialist direction is often portrayed as a chainsaw-type solution by the Far Right, when it is in fact closer to a scalpel."
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not at all convinced that this is true at all; why do you think this is necessarily the case?
The fact that cases of elected officials sacrificing their political future to do what's right or necessary are very few and far between.



I disagree; I think a far more apt analogy would be, "A significant move in a socialist direction is often portrayed as a chainsaw-type solution by the Far Right, when it is in fact closer to a scalpel."

Any significant move in a more socialist direction is a significant move away from the principles and ideals of the founders. The founders, as evidenced by their own words in the founding documents and their private writings were primarily about individual rights and freedom and about having government be as small and weak as possible and still fill it's necessary functions. Nothing about a more socialist system , as applied to the real world, fit's that ideal. In theory socialism fits that ideal very well, but in reality it ends up with a government that has an ever increasing influence and control over the citizens and a growing limitation of personal freedoms. I absolutely do not buy the idea that the reason that this is so is because it has never been done the right way. It's been done too many times in to many varied circumstances with the same results to say that.
 
Upvote 0

bgrass1234

Regular Member
Sep 14, 2006
441
22
✟15,689.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
What does liberal or conservative mean.

In the 1700s I would be called a liberal.

Today I'm the opposite of both the Liberals and the NeoCons.

Finishing college means nothing. Just means more government indoctrination. Knowing what I know now. I would have dropped out of High School as soon as I could get my GED. Then I could be where I am know only I would be in my early twenties and not knocking on 30's door.
 
Upvote 0

KomissarSteve

Basileus
Feb 1, 2007
9,058
351
40
✟25,945.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The fact that cases of elected officials sacrificing their political future to do what's right or necessary are very few and far between.

Right, but I was referring to your assumption that it would be political suicide. I'm not convinced that that would be true in every case. There are plenty of elected politicians whose constituencies are made of people who want to see welfare cut back drastically.

Any significant move in a more socialist direction is a significant move away from the principles and ideals of the founders. The founders, as evidenced by their own words in the founding documents and their private writings were primarily about individual rights and freedom and about having government be as small and weak as possible and still fill it's necessary functions.

The authors of the Federalist Papers would beg to differ.
 
Upvote 0