Presidential election, 2016

[Classic-Xer]

(12-29-2016, 09:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: I do not think that is what he is saying. The way I see it he wants to help people who need it. For me that would qualify people who have certain disabilities, mental and physical, women or men with small children or those who have lost jobs. Just to name a few. Note he says "benefits for those who really NEED them." This I do agree with.

I don't think it's a good idea for an older retiree's like Bob to piss off younger private sector taxpayers like Warren. I think its pretty stupid understanding the separation/ the gap that clearly exists between the private sector's (Republican/Libertarian voters) and the public sectors (Democratic/Progressive voters).

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-29-2016, 09:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So basically you're saying you want to tear down everyone who does better than you.  Got it.

Me, I'd rather everyone do as well as possible.

No, you do not get it at all.  This is not unusual.  When someone tries to speak with an extreme partisan, the extreme partisan will replace plain speaking with a strawman position, a vile stereotype.  Taramarie has it right.  I'll go into more detail, though I don't know that you are capable of understanding stuff outside your personal values.

FDR proposed his Four Freedoms: of Speech, of Religion, from Fear and from Want.  I was talking about economics, which would fall under Freedom from Want.  While FDR spoke broadly of four freedoms before the US entered actively entered the war, Eleanor got more specific with her UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  To be free from Want, one should have certain basics...  notably food, shelter, health care, and a retirement plan.

Conservatives have a vile stereotype of Democrats wanting everyone to have a free ride.  Allegedly, Democrats want the government to pay everybody for doing nothing.  No.  This is a Big Lie, a vile stereotype, a strawman.  However, the economy should be set up so that everybody willing and able to work ought to be able to get the above bolded basics.  I am not at all interested in paying large amounts of tax money for lavish entitlements.  I am interested in a solid economy with jobs paying living wages that allow most everybody to get the basics without government involvement.  The better the economy, the less money need be spent on safety nets, and I would absolutely like to minimize the cost of safety nets.  Entitlements for entitlements sake is not the correct path.

But my desire to minimize spending on safety nets doesn't mean that folks past retirement age ought to be starving under overpasses while being unable to get health care.

I don't know that either of us doing significantly better than the other.  We're both software guys from the Boston area.  I'm comfortably retired.  We're both Free from Want.  We both have the bolded basics.  Neither of us have any real reason other than a sense of arrogant entitlement to be unhappy with where we are.  I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.  Sure, the rich could always get richer, but it seems unseeingly for them to complain about the degree of their richness while Freedom from Want is being systematically denied, when companies are striving to avoid health and retirement expense for the benefit of the investors.  In an ideal utopian dream world, perhaps companies would provide complete benefit packages, living wages and living hours.  In such a world perhaps the government need not mandate them, but this isn't such a world.

I don't have any particular emotional desire to limit how absurdly rich the rich get.  I do want to strive towards Freedom from Want.  When everyone can get access to health care, when there are available jobs paying living wages that allow saving for retirement, the rich can get as rich as they want.  

(Disclaimer:  I do have a concern that when the rich run out of good investments they will blow a bubble -- such as the dot com and housing bubbles -- and eventually collapse the economy.  If there is any sign at all that a bubble is being blown, I'd increase taxes to the investing class and start buying down the debt.  While I'm not against applying supply side under certain conditions, it can and has recently been way overdone.  The rich certainly can get too rich.  Limiting how absurdly large the division of wealth can get is to the benefit of those on both sides of the gap.  But that's economics more than class struggle.)

Aside from avoiding bubbles, there is nothing wrong with everyone doing as well as possible.  I perceive a problem when a few do very very very well, while others are denied basics.  Some seem unable to perceive this as a problem.  I'm more concerned with the denied basics than how absurdly rich the richest get.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-30-2016, 01:09 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 09:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: I do not think that is what he is saying. The way I see it he wants to help people who need it. For me that would qualify people who have certain disabilities, mental and physical, women or men with small children or those who have lost jobs. Just to name a few. Note he says "benefits for those who really NEED them." This I do agree with.

I don't think it's a good idea for an older retiree's like Bob to piss off younger private sector taxpayers like Warren. I think its pretty stupid understanding the separation/ the gap that clearly exists between the private sector's (Republican/Libertarian voters) and the public sectors (Democratic/Progressive voters).

I don't think Warren is that much younger than me.  If he is the Warren Dew I think he is, we weren't quite in the same gaming / social circle back in the late 1970s and 80s, but our circles (MITSGS) intersected in the days when fantasy role playing was young.

In my youth, writing software was fun, but the stress load increased with time and a changing industry.  I retired early.  Still, your presumption that he is private sector while I was public sector is misguided.  I was private sector through my whole career.

[Odin]

(12-29-2016, 09:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: I do not think that is what he is saying. The way I see it he wants to help people who need it. For me that would qualify people who have certain disabilities, mental and physical, women or men with small children or those who have lost jobs. Just to name a few. Note he says "benefits for those who really NEED them." This I do agree with.

Warren is insinuating a common conservative straw man, which is that left-wing policies based on creating a more equal distribution of wealth leads to everyone being "equally poor".

[Odin]

(12-30-2016, 01:09 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: private sector's (Republican/Libertarian voters) and the public sectors (Democratic/Progressive voters).

This is complete nonsense.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-30-2016, 08:00 AM)Odin Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 01:09 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: private sector's (Republican/Libertarian voters) and the public sectors (Democratic/Progressive voters).

This is complete and utter nonsense.

Fixed it.

[The Wonkette]

(12-30-2016, 02:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't think Warren is that much younger than me.  If he is the Warren Dew I think he is, we weren't quite in the same gaming / social circle back in the late 1970s and 80s, but our circles (MITSGS) intersected in the days when fantasy role playing was young.

In my youth, writing software was fun, but the stress load increased with time and a changing industry.  I retired early.  Still, your presumption that he is private sector while I was public sector is misguided.  I was private sector through my whole career.

You are correct.  FWIW, Warren Dew has posted that he was born in 1960, making him a very late Boomer, and six years younger than you, which isn't that much younger.  However, I cannot speak for whether he has a gaming past. 

[Eric the Green]

(12-30-2016, 01:09 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 09:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: I do not think that is what he is saying. The way I see it he wants to help people who need it. For me that would qualify people who have certain disabilities, mental and physical, women or men with small children or those who have lost jobs. Just to name a few. Note he says "benefits for those who really NEED them." This I do agree with.

I don't think it's a good idea for an older retiree's like Bob to piss off younger private sector taxpayers like Warren. I think its pretty stupid understanding the separation/ the gap that clearly exists between the private sector's (Republican/Libertarian voters) and the public sectors (Democratic/Progressive voters).

If telling the truth is pissing off the deceived, so be it.

Yes, we understand the gap. Calling it private and public sector is better than business and government, because no-one likes "government." "Public sector" means it belongs to the people.

The error is to think that people in the public sector, or who benefit from it, vote for Democrats, and people in the private sector vote for Republicans. That's not true; it's nonsense to assume so. Many people in the private sector realize the benefits to society and themselves of the public sector. They vote Democratic too, if they are smart.

[Warren Dew]

(12-30-2016, 01:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.

And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all. That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

[Warren Dew]

(12-29-2016, 09:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: I do not think that is what he is saying. The way I see it he wants to help people who need it. For me that would qualify people who have certain disabilities, mental and physical, women or men with small children or those who have lost jobs. Just to name a few. Note he says "benefits for those who really NEED them." This I do agree with.

Since I have three small children, I would qualify by your definition.  Perhaps you should modify your perception of what he is saying?

[Mikebert]

(12-29-2016, 09:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Me, I'd rather everyone do as well as possible.

But what does this mean?  Possible covers a lot of territory. Put bluntly, are there any economic outcomes that could occur in the next four years that would cause you to revolt against the party in power that you current support? Or is any outcome acceptable if under your team, because you will assume that was all that was possible?

[Warren Dew]

(12-30-2016, 05:40 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 09:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: I do not think that is what he is saying. The way I see it he wants to help people who need it. For me that would qualify people who have certain disabilities, mental and physical, women or men with small children or those who have lost jobs. Just to name a few. Note he says "benefits for those who really NEED them." This I do agree with.

Since I have three small children, I would qualify by your definition.  Perhaps you should modify your perception of what he is saying?

Not at all. Single people who have to care for tiny ones cannot work. That was the case with my mother for instance. Unless you are hiring people to look after the wee ones. If they are below kindergarten age those people should qualify. If you are hiring someone to look after the wee ones I have to say you are not really there for the kids physically.

Ah, so you think the government should only worry about single parents, thus encouraging single parenting.  I think that's terrible social policy, and it would be better to facilitate day care affordability for all parents, but I guess that's one of the red/blue divisions, that those on the red side think traditional families are also acceptable.

[Warren Dew]

(12-30-2016, 05:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 09:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Me, I'd rather everyone do as well as possible.

But what does this mean?  Possible covers a lot of territory. Put bluntly, are there any economic outcomes that could occur in the next four years that would cause you to revolt against the party in power that you current support? Or is any outcome acceptable if under your team, because you will assume that was all that was possible?

I don't vote based on party; I vote based on policy.  You have a reasonable idea of the policies I support.  If the Democrats were to switch to my preferred policies, while Trump switched to yours, then I'd switch my vote - but then, you'd probably switch your vote too.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-30-2016, 02:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 01:09 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 09:38 PM)taramarie Wrote: I do not think that is what he is saying. The way I see it he wants to help people who need it. For me that would qualify people who have certain disabilities, mental and physical, women or men with small children or those who have lost jobs. Just to name a few. Note he says "benefits for those who really NEED them." This I do agree with.

I don't think it's a good idea for an older retiree's like Bob to piss off younger private sector taxpayers like Warren. I think its pretty stupid understanding the separation/ the gap that clearly exists between the private sector's (Republican/Libertarian voters) and the public sectors (Democratic/Progressive voters).

I don't think Warren is that much younger than me.  If he is the Warren Dew I think he is, we weren't quite in the same gaming / social circle back in the late 1970s and 80s, but our circles (MITSGS) intersected in the days when fantasy role playing was young.

In my youth, writing software was fun, but the stress load increased with time and a changing industry.  I retired early.  Still, your presumption that he is private sector while I was public sector is misguided.  I was private sector through my whole career.

You were private sector your entire career and you bowed out early because you couldn't adjust and adapt to the changes. So, what are you now? Do you normally make fun of people who have been shut out/blocked from doing work. Sooner or later, you blue dudes are going to have to show us that you're worth our continued support and social alliance. We ain't there yet but we are moving in that direction. Does loosing 30% of your retirement package sound ok/doable to you?

Suggestion, give up on the extreme partisan labeling and insulting and learn to directly communicate aka honestly negotiate. You preferred a democratic manage style and your boss agreed to go along with it. As your boss, I would have agreed with you too as long as I knew that I was looking at a serious, ambitious and talented group who have worked pretty well together who really wanted to accomplish things. What role would you like me to play Bob? The role of an employee. The role of a manger/boss. The role of a business owner. The role of an entrepreneur. The role of a pivotal board member. The role of a chief executive officer. You can laugh at my writing all you want, I know what on my resume up to this point. BTW, if I truly believed that all lefties were either in it for a free ride or looking for a free ride. I would have completely wrote the Democratic party off a long time ago and I wouldn't be here posting with them today.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-30-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 01:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.

And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all.  That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

No.  It might seem clear in your mind, but you seem incapable of comprehending values outside of your world view.

Like many Democrats, I am happy when more people who have not had access to health care get health care.  That fits under the general Freedom from Want meme.  As a by product of these regulations, it became easier / cheaper / preferable somehow for companies to employ people long term rather than bring in temps.  I am not thrilled by regulations.  As 'the more entitlements the better' is an unhealthy meme, 'the more regulations the better' is also unhealthy.  One creates entitlements or regulations when one absolutely has to rather than for the sake of creating them.  Why?  Unintended consequences arise.  That software companies hire permanent employees rather than bring in contractors is one such.  I don't expect this was a deliberate act on anyone's part.  However, it is a reason not to meddle if there isn't a need.

As a broad principle, not just just as an individual accusation, I have noted a tendency when extreme partisans are creating or nursing vile stereotypes and strawmen they often attribute ugly motives to the individual with the opposing world view.  Here, you seem to be suggesting that I have a motive to hurt software engineers who would rather contract out than hire on.  It is tempting and easy to twist it about, to suggest that conservatives wish to kill poor people by depriving them of health care.

I am guessing that this is incorrect for you personally and for many conservatives.  I suspect you favor policies that would benefit yourself and others in your profession, social class, cultural group or whatever.  If such policies that favor you and yours happen to have a side effect of hurting others, I suspect your primary motivation is not to hurt others.

But when opposing groups of extreme partisans are throwing strawmen and stereotypes at each other, that is often not the presumption.  There is often an assumption that the other guys have an unjustified hatred and desire to do harm.  In the past, I have often been on the receiving end of posts saying in effect that 'all liberals think alike, therefor what you think is...' followed by hateful vile stereotypes.

That seems to be the type of thinking you are indulging in, trying to convince me that I'm out to get you.  Huh?  No.  I'm not acting out of hate.  I simply think it prudent and moral to have an inclusive economy.  I believe many to most progressives have similar principles.  However, when the conservative opposition persistently acts to deprive the poor of the basics, it is very very easy to think that the opposition lacks morality, has no empathy with their fellow men.  I am dubious about such strawmen and stereotypes that my fellow progressives indulge in.  However, I have no difficulty understanding where they are coming from, and it is quite difficult to convince them to drop their false or less than fully true concepts of how vile the conservatives are.

Anyway, you are making strange assumptions about my motivations which have no basis in truth.  Alas, this in not unusual here.  It's pretty much par for the course.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-30-2016, 05:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 09:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Me, I'd rather everyone do as well as possible.

But what does this mean?  Possible covers a lot of territory. Put bluntly, are there any economic outcomes that could occur in the next four years that would cause you to revolt against the party in power that you current support? Or is any outcome acceptable if under your team, because you will assume that was all that was possible?

I don't vote based on party; I vote based on policy.  You have a reasonable idea of the policies I support.  If the Democrats were to switch to my preferred policies, while Trump switched to yours, then I'd switch my vote - but then, you'd probably switch your vote too.

I'm less likely to switch parties at this point. I don't trust the Democrats at all at this point. I do feel sorry for the honest Democrats who are going to find themselves being caught up in the middle of a mess that they had nothing do with and relatively no control over politically.

[Warren Dew]

(12-30-2016, 06:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 09:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Me, I'd rather everyone do as well as possible.

But what does this mean?  Possible covers a lot of territory. Put bluntly, are there any economic outcomes that could occur in the next four years that would cause you to revolt against the party in power that you current support? Or is any outcome acceptable if under your team, because you will assume that was all that was possible?

I don't vote based on party; I vote based on policy.  You have a reasonable idea of the policies I support.  If the Democrats were to switch to my preferred policies, while Trump switched to yours, then I'd switch my vote - but then, you'd probably switch your vote too.

I'm less likely to switch parties at this point. I don't trust the Democrats at all at this point.

They'd have to show that they would actually work toward sensible policies; promises would not be sufficient.  I don't expect this to be put to the test; political parties can't change their platforms that easily, as it's easier to lose votes than to gain them.

[Warren Dew]

(12-30-2016, 06:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 01:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.

And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all.  That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

No.  It might seem clear in your mind, but you seem incapable of comprehending values outside of your world view.

Oh, I understand your world view perfectly.  I also understand that as one of those extreme partisans you keep talking about, you're incapable of understanding mine.

And I understand that you engage in serious self deception, as do most on the blue side. You actually flat out said you didn't care about a change being bad for me, and you flat out said that you thought you'd oppose changes that would be bad for me only because they were likely to be bad for you too. But now you're trying to pretend to yourself that you said something different, without actually taking back the words that you're pretending you no longer agree with.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-30-2016, 06:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 01:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.

And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all.  That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

No.  It might seem clear in your mind, but you seem incapable of comprehending values outside of your world view.

Like many Democrats, I am happy when more people who have not had access to health care get health care.  That fits under the general Freedom from Want meme.  As a by product of these regulations, it became easier / cheaper / preferable somehow for companies to employ people long term rather than bring in temps.  I am not thrilled by regulations.  As 'the more entitlements the better' is an unhealthy meme, 'the more regulations the better' is also unhealthy.  One creates entitlements or regulations when one absolutely has to rather than for the sake of creating them.  Why?  Unintended consequences arise.  That software companies hire permanent employees rather than bring in contractors is one such.  I don't expect this was a deliberate act on anyone's part.  However, it is a reason not to meddle if there isn't a need.

As a broad principle, not just just as an individual accusation, I have noted a tendency when extreme partisans are creating or nursing vile stereotypes and strawmen they often attribute ugly motives to the individual with the opposing world view.  Here, you seem to be suggesting that I have a motive to hurt software engineers who would rather contract out than hire on.  It is tempting and easy to twist it about, to suggest that conservatives wish to kill poor people by depriving them of health care.

I am guessing that this is incorrect for you personally and for many conservatives.  I suspect you favor policies that would benefit yourself and others in your profession, social class, cultural group or whatever.  If such policies that favor you and yours happen to have a side effect of hurting others, I suspect your primary motivation is not to hurt others.

But when opposing groups of extreme partisans are throwing strawmen and stereotypes at each other, that is often not the presumption.  There is often an assumption that the other guys have an unjustified hatred and desire to do harm.  In the past, I often on the receiving end of posts saying in effect that 'all liberals think alike, therefor what you think is...' followed by hateful vile stereotype.

That seems to be the type of thinking you are indulging in, trying to convince me that I'm out to get you.  Huh?  No.  I'm not acting out of hate.  I simply think it prudent and moral to have an inclusive economy.  I believe many to most progressives have similar principles.  However, when the conservative opposition persistently acts to deprive the poor of the basics, it is very very easy to think that the opposition lacks morality, has no empathy with their fellow men.  I am dubious about such strawmen and stereotypes that my fellow progressives indulge in.  However, I have no difficulty understanding where they are coming from, and it is quite difficult to convince them to drop their false or less than fully true concepts of how vile the conservatives are.

Anyway, you are making strange assumptions about my motivations which have no basis in truth.  Alas, this in not unusual here.  It's pretty much par for the course.

What values are you talking about? His working values or your retirement values? Talking values and using values without any knowledge explanation and clarification pertaining to the values in play appears to be par for the coarse. OK. Now quit and go away believing that your values won.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-30-2016, 06:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 06:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 01:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.

And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all.  That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

No.  It might seem clear in your mind, but you seem incapable of comprehending values outside of your world view.

Oh, I understand your world view perfectly.  I also understand that as one of those extreme partisans you keep talking about, you're incapable of understanding mine.

And I understand that you engage in serious self deception, as do most on the blue side.  You actually flat out said you didn't care about a change being bad for me, and you flat out said that you thought you'd oppose changes that would be bad for me only because they were likely to be bad for you too.  But now you're trying to pretend to yourself that you said something different, without actually taking back the words that you're pretending you no longer agree with.

No, you seem still to be clinging to the idea that I favor health care because it would hurt software contractors.  There can be more than one reason to favor a given policy.  To me, Freedom from Want is far more important a base principle than any (non extant) desire to hurt software contractors.  Yes, in addition to base progressive principles, doing stuff that would hurt one's self is bad too.  However, I favored Freedom from Want long before I learned that software contractors might be forced to seek full time employment.  I would still support Freedom from Want had you never mentioned (gasp) that you had to get a job.  (Poor baby.)

I also note you are forcing the conversation back to my motivations rather than showing any interest in talking policy.  Granted, you are far more polite about it than usual, but it's still a common ploy among extreme partisans to move from discussion of policy to personal attack.  That's not what I'm here for.  I'd as soon skip that part of the discussion.  Still, if you continue to try to present yourself as an expert on how I think, I'll continue to pop your pretenses.

Can you acknowledge that the Four Freedoms are a ligitimate base for progressive thought, that food, shelter, health care and a path to a secure retirement can be described as basics, and that pursing these things for all can be a healthy and defendable basis for a political philosophy?  Can you understand that these are more important to me than my (non extant) hatred of software contractors?

Or must you continue to twist my words in order to better defend your rigid stereotypical thinking?  Can you accept that your vile stereotype of me, which is compatible with your world view, might not be as valid as my description of Progressive Thought 101, which is not compatible with your world view?