Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-21-2016, 06:47 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Quote:The common red / blue difference is in beliefs in how effective the government can be.

Are you sure about that? Seems to me folks on the red side have no problem with government in the military and criminal justice sphere.  We maintain by far the largest military establishment on Earth. Did the Red side oppose the Reagan buildup?  Did they oppose the Gulf War, Afghanistan or Iraq? Did we not engage in a massive expansion of the correction system in the 1990’s.  Was that opposed by the Red side?

The Red side opposes government doing stuff they don’t approve of.  So does the Blue side.  Here is where you could invoke values.  For example, much of Trump’s appeal is because a lot of folks are sick and tired of progressives stuffing PC down their throats. Now we are supposed to celebrate men wearing dresses?  What the fuck is wrong with America?

When have you been forced to celebrate in a white dress?

I am not thrilled by affirmative action or political correctness.  I'd much rather they not be necessary.  These are not government programs that should be pushed to the max, the bigger the better.

While it is not one of my favored issues, I am against prejudice.  If people are being harassed or denied equal opportunity because of race, religion, gender, place of birth, etc...  I see something as being wrong which should be addressed.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."  In short, it's one of the government's primary jobs to promote equality.

From the Civil War through Nixon, the Democrats were the party of the KKK.  When LBJ with his War on Poverty and Civil Rights activism drew lots of black votes, Nixon's Southern Strategy deliberately sought out the prejudiced and hateful.  The haters are slowly losing ground, sometimes not so slowly in the case of the recent gay marriage court decision.  There are more battles to be fought, and they will be fought.  Meanwhile, hatred can be used for political gain.  Build a wall on the Mexican border.  Expel people from the country based on their religious belief.  Certain people will weave songs of hate for personal power.  

That's what's wrong with America.

I'm not out to coerce the prejudiced to behave in a certain way.  I'm against prejudice though.  People should not be harassing, insulting and otherwise oppressing others.  To say one opposes political correctness and affirmative action is not that far from saying one approves of bigotry and hatred, that bigotry and hate should be allowed to stand and thrive without challenge or question.  I can dream of a time when government action to promote equality will be unnecessary, and I'd try to keep a line that when one is protecting a group from harassment one shouldn't harass the harassers unduly.  Still, there is much yet to be done.  Good men to doing nothing is not an option here.

***

The conversation you have crashed was primarily on the domestic issues.  I'm willing to go back to Jr High school basics if you want to, but I'm not going to cover the entire year of Jr High school in one post.  Yes, broadly the Republicans have been the more hawkish party going back to when Truman allowed Mao to take China rather than leap into a land war in Asia.  There have been no lack of wrinkles in that broad trend, though.  Of late, the Democrats have generally been more willing to quash failed states and massive crimes against humanity, while Bush 43 had his 'put troops near the oil' adventure in Iraq.  Neither party has had particularly good results.  It's hard to take military force into the Middle East and come out with good approval ratings for one's action.  While both parties will with glee find flaws with whatever the other side does, neither party seems enthusiastic about boots on the ground just now.  Just as well.

Yes, both parties do stuff they approve of.  Thank you for the profound insight.

(08-21-2016, 06:47 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Quote:For someone embracing red beliefs, government is inefficient, corrupt and ineffective.

When it is doing Blue team projects.  Conservatives don’t make as a big issue about inefficient, corrupt and ineffective Defense or Corrections spending.  And ditto for the Blue team.

Yes.  One's own teams stuff is presented as helpful and efficient.  The other team's stuff is presented as corrupt and inefficient.  Consider the Pentagon's acquisition process for an example of how efficient the military side can be or appear to be.

(08-21-2016, 06:47 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Quote:On the blue side, there is a belief that the government can do much good.

Is that really a belief any more, or just wishful thinking?  I support the ACA because (1) it was my team and (2) the Medicaid expansion benefits  family members.  I do not support it because I know it is a good program. Those folks I know who are not on Medicaid and who use the system do not have good things to say about it, even with the subsidies.  I know exactly how they feel.  When I was in grad school I went without insurance during the years I was on a NSF fellowship (TAs got employer-provided insurance).  When I had been in college (and was on my parents plan) there were student medical insurance plans offered that were very reasonably priced. The reason was they could only be used by a student population who were  young and healthy.  But then the state government mandated that these plans cover mental health issues.  Now students are at a higher risk of this, and so the premiums shot up to unaffordable levels.  Now the government is mandating that my 20’s self should buy this expensive insurance that covers stuff I don’t have to worry about.  I would also note that back in my 20’s I was a big fan of Free to Choose.

I was unwilling to subsidize other people’s health care back then when I was poor.  Now that I am rich I have no problem with that and am perfectly willing to pay the taxes for single payer.  But I can completely understand other rich folks who object to being forced to subsidize other people, particularly when it is in a program rife with rent-seeking.  They see it as theft—that is, immoral. Here’s another values issue. If we get single payer someday it’s is not going to be because the folks who objected to it on moral ground have changed their minds.  It will be because they were defeated.

When FDR promoted 'Freedom from Want', one aspect of it was health care.  Eleanor worked it into the UN's Bill of Rights.  The thought was that being poor shouldn't be a death sentence, that all should have access to health care.  Of course, that's been half forgotten and nowhere near accomplished.

In a wealthy country with a huge division of wealth, it seems a proper goal to revisit.  Keeping the insurance companies involved in the health care industry adds overhead costs, extracts profit and adds nothing to the process.  The VA provides coverage much more efficiently.  The current system coercing employers and inducing workers to be declared part time so benefits can be denied is baroque... or should that be broke?

I could be be in favor of Free to Choose too.  Is Medicare one of the systems I can be free to choose?

But I don't know that this is the right thread to do a Health Care discussion.  We're supposed to be bashing Trump here.  Health Care certainly deserves its own thread.

On a broader context, yes, big bureaucratic systems systems can get corrupt and inefficient.  On the other hand, big complex problems cannot always be addressed without big bureaucratic systems.  The New Deal through Great Society eras of the 1930s through 1960s saw much achieved.  As I would expect when one party maintains control of Congress that long, the government was not by any means a lean mean fighting machine towards the end.  I believe this contributed to the failures of government in the 1970s, the National Malaise, and the Reagan era perception that grew out of that time was that government had become too big, clumsy and ambitious.

It had become too big, clumsy and ambitious.

That shouldn't lead to a conclusion that a bunch of health insurance companies siphoning off a ton of profit out of the health care industry is in any way helpful to the health care industry.  Similarly, the red world view often includes a blanket assumption that any attempt to help the people will fail or struggle.  There is often an element of self interest involved where those who can afford to take care of their own circumstances are not interested in helping the People as a whole.

Room for honest differences of opinion, sure.  Isn't that why we're here?