Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dezi

TP’s family telling Trump to go to hell

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Big Blue Sky said:

A good friend in the US has said it's been getting nastier there ...  I have always thought: Surely not, not with our lovely community in Mudcrutch Farm.  It will never come to that there.  We are always going to be better than that. 

And yet, there it is, "Dezi" bringing in hate and nastiness to this forum, by linking an article that calls a large segment of people "deplorables" when most of them simply feel they are supporting the USA, and don't have hate for anyone.    With a further nasty and false narrative that the US government is making life "hell" for its non-white citizens.   

Funny how you don't have a problem with that kind of hatred and nastiness, yet you wish to silence those who would respond to it as "don't bring politics here".  Funny how you act as if you are full of love and peace, yet you tell anyone who would push back on hatred and nastiness to effectively "shut up", when it doesn't fit your personal political agenda.  Funny how you insist that government policy IS making life "hell" for non-white US citizens, yet you give no evidence of this to back your nasty claim. 

From your statements about your friend, it sounds like you don't even live in the US.  Yet somehow you "know" what it's all about.  Actually, you don't know what you are talking about.  But you have the right to say it anyway, just stop telling others to be silent when they see nasty lies and distortions and other forms of hatred here, or anywhere else.  This was not intended to be a "safe space" for left-wing lies and nastiness to go unchallenged, much as you apparently would like the politics to only go one way, your way.  I would be very happy if the site where only about the music, but that ship sailed when "Dezi" showed up with this nasty and hateful, politically motivated "article".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The great, sad irony and others have said this long before me here on this 'Farm is that most people want the same thing from life, food, shelter, love, companionship, meaning, purpose, a safe community, entertainment, hobbies, music, books, and on and on. And yet here we are in the year 2020 and still wrestle with the same issues. Strict adherence to either of the big two parties in American politics is a mistake as people are more nuanced and frankly, interesting than being forced to choose sides while corporations sit behind the scenes counting the profits from American's misery and hated towards one another.

c'est tout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Big Blue Sky said:

Sometimes people think de-escalating a situation is easy as saying hey, now, everyone's said some things they may regret and everyone's slightly to blame.  

What's really fascinating is when we realise clearly that sometimes the source of drama can indeed be coming from just one or two people.  In that case, other members in a community often use classic non-violent techniques - whether they realise it or not - by assertively resisting and challenging that dramatic disruption.  People who choose not to be a silent bystander.  As a people, we know what's reasonable, what's morally acceptable, what's ethically okay.  As humans, we do recognise truth.  We just do.  These are all completely legitimate reactions to the emergence of an unpleasant & disruptive force.  In fact, people who resist and challenge deserve to be applauded and thanked.  Peace-building is  long-term process and it's incredibly rewarding.  People are often open to change - and diverse communities can become increasingly supportive and generous, while simply not accepting any negative disruption.  

Alas, sometimes, it's not about arguing or changing disruptive people's minds in the here & now.  For some reason - best known to themselves - some people's preferred worldview makes sense to them.   They'll cling to one or two reasonable values (ie freedom of speech) and try to justify all the rest of it based on that.  They can be accidentally strengthened  by others, especially those who try to help out with good intentions (with the hey, now approach mentioned above) yet end up enabling them.  They aren't necessarily open to 5 lines of articulate reasoning in the here and the now, even if Nelson Mandela or MLK popped in to help out.  Surprisingly, that isn't necessarily going to change their mind - or they're not going to admit to beginning to changing their mind.  Instead, they often change tack and keep trying to escalate - all in the hope of getting attention & a reaction, any reaction.   

Great point on the communication. However, when people can't even agree over a set of facts like "wearing a mask prevents the spread of COVID" the time for messaging in a civil manner is gone because you can't even reach the other side. Sorry for being terse, but my patience when it comes to politics these days is zero. The amount of ignorance that is spread and the misinformation that most people consume is head spinning at best. I for the most part know not to take the bait these days but still at times can't help myself. Like when someone says that AOC, a junior member of the House is leading the Democrats to a North Korean platform is malicious at worst and a gross misunderstanding of politics at best. When you hear people call Govenor Cuomo a communist when the man cut Medicaid during the pandemic, it really gets your blood boiling if your consciousness of your political surroundings. 

I'm not saying you can't hold different beliefs and values. I happen to talk to several people in a more cordial manner who don't share my progressive views. But they don't come from a place of ignorance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

  No it takes guts because they're most likely going to be ripped apart, ignored and/or banned.

cheers

 

On 6/22/2020 at 6:05 PM, nurktwin said:

lol, report it to who, the site is closing.

What ^ he said lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, martin03345 said:

What ^ he said lmao

With the internet, sometimes it's difficult to tell but it seems as if you're acting like you don't get nuance.

I didn't think I'd have to specify, that of course, in the case of this place shutting down the concept of being banned seems ridiculous. Still in my experience, when it comes to the arts, people voicing conservative views will usually be attacked ignored and eventually banned.

On the 'Farm closing or not, it takes guts to basically disagree with an article or criticize it especially when the subject are the surviving family members of the man whose music inspired this place's existence! Whether or not you agree with Drew's points, voicing a minority opinion always takes some measure of courage, or "courage" since this is online ha ha, but you get my point.

On top of that, Big Blue said she flagged or whatever, told on this topic or post a page or two ago. Which makes it seem for all its "rebeliousnes" rock and roll is just as conformist as other parts of society.

I don't think either party has the welfare of American citizens at heart; sure there are no doubt exceptions and good people working within the system but I think they are overwhelmed by the corrupt. But please don't act like conservatives don't have a difficult time  within the arts if they open their mouths. 

Again, people on opposite sides of the political divide have more in common then they believe. Oh well.There's that irony again. As for being pulled into political or psuedo-political debates, that's not how I want to enjoy the last month give or take of visiting this place but I guess the topic does pull people in.

"And says what he wants to say as long as it's up to date with the latest politically correct and progressive belief systems."

cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

With the internet, sometimes it's difficult to tell but it seems as if you're acting like you don't get nuance.

I didn't think I'd have to specify, that of course, in the case of this place shutting down the concept of being banned seems ridiculous. Still in my experience, when it comes to the arts, people voicing conservative views will usually be attacked ignored and eventually banned.

On the 'Farm closing or not, it takes guts to basically disagree with an article or criticize it especially when the subject are the surviving family members of the man whose music inspired this place's existence! Whether or not you agree with Drew's points, voicing a minority opinion always takes some measure of courage, or "courage" since this is online ha ha, but you get my point.

On top of that, Big Blue said she flagged or whatever, told on this topic or post a page or two ago. Which makes it seem for all its "rebeliousnes" rock and roll is just as conformist as other parts of society.

I don't think either party has the welfare of American citizens at heart; sure there are no doubt exceptions and good people working within the system but I think they are overwhelmed by the corrupt. But please don't act like conservatives don't have a difficult time  within the arts if they open their mouths. 

Again, people on opposite sides of the political divide have more in common then they believe. Oh well.There's that irony again. As for being pulled into political or psuedo-political debates, that's not how I want to enjoy the last month give or take of visiting this place but I guess the topic does pull people in.

"And says what he wants to say as long as it's up to date with the latest politically correct and progressive belief systems."

cheers

 

 

Minority opinion? You conservatives own the White House and the Senate. It's not that great of a minority. The whole woe-is-me act is annoying from conservatives that act like they've been under attacked for centuries. You haven't been a minority since the 70s. Again, this goes back to my ignorance point. Just because you are ignorant of other forces around you doesn't mean that your opinion gets a pass. 

Also, though anecdotal, from my personal experience, most people who are left leaning are more into the arts because most arts require a better sense and ability to empathize and sympathize which most people with conservative views are not able to. The whole bootstrap mentality doesn't jive with a welfare system: because those that support it realize either they may need it and it serves as a public good compared to "just get a job you lazy sod".

I find it one of the great ironies of life that my favorite TPATH song "Rebels", isn't a song glorifying the South, rebellion or anything of the sort, but is about a worthless drunk who self-aggrandizes when they're trouble is created by them and not others around them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROCK N ROLL was founded on voicing your opinions, good or bad, black, white ,yellow or red and everything in between. Changing that now is like changing the National Anthem or tearing down statues of the history of this country. It's BULLSHIT and everyone knows it. Get a FUCKIN" life and move on!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, martin03345 said:

You conservatives own the White House and the Senate. It's not that great of a minority. The whole woe-is-me act is annoying from conservatives that act like they've been under attacked for centuries. You haven't been a minority since the 70s.

From what I've read, MJ2LD is not "a conservative", neither am I.  i am pro-freedom, and I don't always see that with "conservatives", particularly on abortion.  While voters have to this point been smart enough to reject "progressivism" (aka Marxism), it's certainly true that the left controls the vast majority of news media, movies, television, and teaching.  Today's "progressives" want to shut out any dissent from their orthodoxy, which they call "hate speech".    

Instead of addressing the issues directly to extoll the virtues of enforced marxism (i.e. servitude to the state, the absence of true freedom), "progressives" falsely demonize the opposition as "racists", "haters", and "deplorables".  They don't want an open debate regarding freedom vs. state socialism, they want to shout down and shut down any opposition.  This is what you see with "antifa" as well as the indoctrination at schools and universities, as well as the highly biased media, which will cherry-pick only stories that fit their agenda, and will constantly demonize political opponents as "bad people" rather than debating their ideas. 

To merely observe that "progressive" views don't currently translate to a majority in the voting booths, does not recognize the overwhelming control of the media, academia, and the relentless aggression to stifle opinions that dissent from "progressive" orthodoxy.  And we have very good examples of this from posters such as "Big Blue Sky", who only want one side to be heard, then whine about "safe zones", despite the fact that this topic was started with statements about "deplorables" and "making life hell for US non-white citizens", which he apparently thinks should be meekly accepted as gospel truth.  

29 minutes ago, martin03345 said:

most people who are left leaning are more into the arts because most arts require a better sense and ability to empathize and sympathize which most people with conservative views are not able to.

That's a nice bit of propaganda, but it's not true.  The "progressives" are the ones who want to control others, who want to take away the freedom of people and enslave them to the state.  If you empathize with people then you favor freedom, not control of others.  As far as artists, it's the other way around.  Artists live in a bubble and imagine an idealized world, while they don't have to face the day to day realities of it.  Their hearts are usually in the right place, but they have no understanding of economics or what "progressivism" is really about.  They have talent in one field, but they are outside of reality, only getting a very filtered image of it, especially once they've had success. 

Artists also often have one other trait, though I wouldn't attribute this to Tom Petty.  Artists often want to create a new world, just as they want to create a new work of art.   Hitler was an example of an artist who wanted to create a new world; that was not a happy outcome for the world. Likewise marxism has caused death, starvation, pollution, and misery wherever it's been tried.  Yet you still see plenty of artists proudly displaying their hammer & sickle icons, wearing their Che Guevara t-shirts, etc.  Someone mentioned "Rage Against The Machine" which is a prime example of aggressive leftist Marxism.   

Tom Petty isn't here to speak for himself, but I believe that he favored freedom and was against stifling the opinions of others.  I don't think he would call nearly half of Americans "deplorables" simply because they believed in the USA, as the author of "Dezi's" piece did.  I don't think he would say that the US government has made life "hell" for non-white citizens.  I don't think he was against making money, as long as people delivered a good product at a fair price.  He lived well for most of his adult life, and he earned that lifestyle because his music appealed to so many.  I believe he continued to respect and identify with lesser-paid people (such as in the song "Nightwatchman").  I think Petty wanted everyone to be able to live comfortably, but I don't think he felt that everyone absolutely must have exactly the same lifestyle, regardless of their productive output, or even regardless of whether they were interested in working at all.  But I don't know any of this, because he's not here to state it.  I do know from his past statements that he cared deeply about the environment, and I know that he supported Obama.  I don't view him as a Marxist along the lines of Tom Morello; I just haven't seen that in his lyrics, in his comments, or in his lifestyle.  But again, we'll never know at this point.  

Ok - those will be my last comments on this or any political subject.  Again, this was started by "Dezi" and extended by others; I didn't want to make this a political website, but once that topic has been started, I am against one-sided enforced orthodoxy.   Some people are too caught up in the idea that everything they have been told to believe is the only acceptable view, and that anyone who holds a different view must be a deplorable hater.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2020 at 10:37 AM, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

I agree and think we also need some social support systems as well; even if let's say 50% of people are scamming the system, the other half legitimately need help, sometimes people fall on hard times, bad luck and I think a healthy, moral society has systems in place to help them.

I agree with this, except that 50% of people scamming the system is far too many.  A society can't continue to exist like that.  It is important to limit the number of people scamming the system, not only to remove the burden from the rest of society, but also so that people will study useful skills when they have the opportunity, rather than limiting themselves with the knowledge that they can always skate by via the system.

But absolutely, those in need, those who have had bad luck, should always be supported - and in the USA, they are.  There are food, housing, medical aid, and other welfare programs.  But we should also do more to help people get jobs skills and help align them with productive work - for their own sakes as well as that of society at large.  AOC continually raises false flags when she claims that there are people working 80 hours/week who can barely feed their families.   It might generate sympathy for her Marxist programs from people who never heard of food stamps, housing subsidies, medical subsidies, earned income tax credits, etc. but she's misleading the public on this, in pursuit of greater government control, more redistribution of productive wealth, which by definition means less freedom.   She should be in favor of people being able to work, but she discouraged Amazon from locating in her district, and many potential jobs were lost as a result.  Which apparently is ok with her, who needs work when you have the "Green New Deal" where work is optional?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, martin03345 said:

I find it one of the great ironies of life that my favorite TPATH song "Rebels", isn't a song glorifying the South, rebellion or anything of the sort, but is about a worthless drunk who self-aggrandizes when they're trouble is created by them and not others around them

Yes agree!! I also love hearing Rebels!!!  Possibly also screaming it out the car window when I was young & foolish.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, martin03345 said:

You conservatives own the White House and the Senate.

My political opinions fall across a wide spectrum of thought, it comes down to the specific issue I may be conservative in one area, liberal in another but don't feel any particular nor strict allegiance to one political label or train of thought.

22 hours ago, martin03345 said:

are more into the arts because most arts require a better sense and ability to empathize and sympathize which most people with conservative views are not able to.

Look at the irony of what you just said! Conservatives aren't able to empathize and sympathize? That's a pretty big brush your painting with.

22 hours ago, martin03345 said:

The whole bootstrap mentality doesn't jive with a welfare system: because those that support it realize either they may need it and it serves as a public good compared to "just get a job you lazy sod".

Of course there's "bootstraps" type out there; I think the big disconnect comes from anger at the ones who scam the system whatever percentage that is; so conservatives (and surely some liberals) balk at paying more of the money they work hard for to help others abusing the system. Why this doesn't translate into everyone criticizing all the corporate tax scamming and pocketed money that could help others, I don't know, well, I do know, graft, corruption etc. Oh well. 

I don't think conservatives own the White House, I think other moneyed interests do and the whole Dem/Rep binary is puppet theater though I also admit I could be wrong on that and it's just blind stupid human greed and pettiness (no pun intended) that has so much going wrong in a country where so much could go right.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

From what I've read, MJ2LD is not "a conservative", neither am I.  i am pro-freedom, and I don't always see that with "conservatives", particularly on abortion.  While voters have to this point been smart enough to reject "progressivism" (aka Marxism), it's certainly true that the left controls the vast majority of news media, movies, television, and teaching.  Today's "progressives" want to shut out any dissent from their orthodoxy, which they call "hate speech".    

Instead of addressing the issues directly to extoll the virtues of enforced marxism (i.e. servitude to the state, the absence of true freedom), "progressives" falsely demonize the opposition as "racists", "haters", and "deplorables".  They don't want an open debate regarding freedom vs. state socialism, they want to shout down and shut down any opposition.  This is what you see with "antifa" as well as the indoctrination at schools and universities, as well as the highly biased media, which will cherry-pick only stories that fit their agenda, and will constantly demonize political opponents as "bad people" rather than debating their ideas. 

To merely observe that "progressive" views don't currently translate to a majority in the voting booths, does not recognize the overwhelming control of the media, academia, and the relentless aggression to stifle opinions that dissent from "progressive" orthodoxy.  And we have very good examples of this from posters such as "Big Blue Sky", who only want one side to be heard, then whine about "safe zones", despite the fact that this topic was started with statements about "deplorables" and "making life hell for US non-white citizens", which he apparently thinks should be meekly accepted as gospel truth.  

That's a nice bit of propaganda, but it's not true.  The "progressives" are the ones who want to control others, who want to take away the freedom of people and enslave them to the state.  If you empathize with people then you favor freedom, not control of others.  As far as artists, it's the other way around.  Artists live in a bubble and imagine an idealized world, while they don't have to face the day to day realities of it.  Their hearts are usually in the right place, but they have no understanding of economics or what "progressivism" is really about.  They have talent in one field, but they are outside of reality, only getting a very filtered image of it, especially once they've had success. 

Artists also often have one other trait, though I wouldn't attribute this to Tom Petty.  Artists often want to create a new world, just as they want to create a new work of art.   Hitler was an example of an artist who wanted to create a new world; that was not a happy outcome for the world. Likewise marxism has caused death, starvation, pollution, and misery wherever it's been tried.  Yet you still see plenty of artists proudly displaying their hammer & sickle icons, wearing their Che Guevara t-shirts, etc.  Someone mentioned "Rage Against The Machine" which is a prime example of aggressive leftist Marxism.   

Tom Petty isn't here to speak for himself, but I believe that he favored freedom and was against stifling the opinions of others.  I don't think he would call nearly half of Americans "deplorables" simply because they believed in the USA, as the author of "Dezi's" piece did.  I don't think he would say that the US government has made life "hell" for non-white citizens.  I don't think he was against making money, as long as people delivered a good product at a fair price.  He lived well for most of his adult life, and he earned that lifestyle because his music appealed to so many.  I believe he continued to respect and identify with lesser-paid people (such as in the song "Nightwatchman").  I think Petty wanted everyone to be able to live comfortably, but I don't think he felt that everyone absolutely must have exactly the same lifestyle, regardless of their productive output, or even regardless of whether they were interested in working at all.  But I don't know any of this, because he's not here to state it.  I do know from his past statements that he cared deeply about the environment, and I know that he supported Obama.  I don't view him as a Marxist along the lines of Tom Morello; I just haven't seen that in his lyrics, in his comments, or in his lifestyle.  But again, we'll never know at this point.  

Ok - those will be my last comments on this or any political subject.  Again, this was started by "Dezi" and extended by others; I didn't want to make this a political website, but once that topic has been started, I am against one-sided enforced orthodoxy.   Some people are too caught up in the idea that everything they have been told to believe is the only acceptable view, and that anyone who holds a different view must be a deplorable hater.  

The fact you bother to say progressiveism is Marxism shows that you are completely ignorant. It's not the same. Democratic socialism and Marxism are not the same? Have you ever bothered to read Marx? Or Adam Smith? Or actually read the Constitution? Are you someone who has actually dedidcated an inordinate amount of time to studying a vast scope of political/economic/historical material or just someone who read an article on the Internet and declared themselves a Constitutional scholar on what constitutes freedom? Is being made to wear a mask during a pandemic considered an oppression of your freedoms because the greater good and health of society outweighs your selfish need to be inconvenienced by a mask?

Do you not know the difference between a social safety net that our tax dollars go to to make sure everyone has the chance to not be ruined by something such as medical debt or losing a job or is that just tough shit to them? If there's this grand conspiracy of the left controlling the media and education, then why aren't more conservative people pushing to improve their status? And the left doesn't control the media. Most outlets that you refer to as "left" are center right neoliberal bastions. CNN is not left. Left of the modern Republican party but not left in politics. Know the difference. Also, being a progressive and left leaning person doesn't make you a socialist just because you support socialized medicine (us using our tax dollars to make sure everyone is guaranteed healthcare), strong worker rights and a social safety net. Socializing industries that should be socialized is not communism. 

And most artists aren't people living in a rich bubble. Most artists don't make a damn thing but do it for the joy they get from creating and living out that fantasy. Just because Hollywood is narcissistic and has their head up their own asses doesn't speak for the majority of people who are artists.  And to bring Hitler into that discussion shows you're empty on actual coherent thoughts. Breaking out Godwin's Law!

And you don't think Tom would say the US government life hell for non-whites? Did he not disavow the use of the "Confederate Flag"? I'm pretty sure he did. And to who are you to say as someone who I'll assume for this post is white to say that a group of non-whites feel that this country as made their life a living hell? The fact you can't even listen to their plight and dismiss the issues minority communities with impunity shows you're a narcissistic person. When someone's baby dies, you don't say "yeah well my kid got sick!" That's being an insensitive prick.

Keep think you're the boomer in total control of being a free thinker. You're the type of person from your post that shows that you are too damn and old and too set in your ways to know that the wind of change is blowing, the ship is coming in and you time in history will be marked with a scar. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

I agree with this, except that 50% of people scamming the system is far too many.  A society can't continue to exist like that.  It is important to limit the number of people scamming the system, not only to remove the burden from the rest of society, but also so that people will study useful skills when they have the opportunity, rather than limiting themselves with the knowledge that they can always skate by via the system.

But absolutely, those in need, those who have had bad luck, should always be supported - and in the USA, they are.  There are food, housing, medical aid, and other welfare programs.  But we should also do more to help people get jobs skills and help align them with productive work - for their own sakes as well as that of society at large.  AOC continually raises false flags when she claims that there are people working 80 hours/week who can barely feed their families.   It might generate sympathy for her Marxist programs from people who never heard of food stamps, housing subsidies, medical subsidies, earned income tax credits, etc. but she's misleading the public on this, in pursuit of greater government control, more redistribution of productive wealth, which by definition means less freedom.   She should be in favor of people being able to work, but she discouraged Amazon from locating in her district, and many potential jobs were lost as a result.  Which apparently is ok with her, who needs work when you have the "Green New Deal" where work is optional?  

Whether people are scamming the system is not the problem. The fact you have to question it shows your skepticism. Also, have you ever actually tried to get benefits like Food Stamps, Welfare or Unemployment? It's not that fucking easy. And the amount you get is minute. We're in the middle of a pandemic and the governments of every major industrialized nation on the earth is paying their citizens to stay at home and flatten the curve. Here in the States: you got 1200 dollars and were told to make it last. That's a disconnect from reality that not just Republicans, but a majority of Democrats have. The Federal Reserve is printing money and handing it over to businesses left and right to keep this bubble economy afloat so they can make money and regular Joe's and small businesses get screwed over. The cruise industry shouldn't have gotten a bailout. If you were truly for the free market and liberty you should have said "tough shit, you go under" and we move on as a society from there. But we didn't. You can't not be mad or ignore stuff like that but be upset if Joe Schmoe might screw the system. You punch up and not down. 

And she was against Amazon locating their due to the enormous tax break they were going to get. If you don't like the taxes of the area, build somewhere else. They can pay. And as someone who actually works in logistics and has done that type of labor: if you want to say be grateful for the 16 dollars they want to pay you for that job, I say you go do it and see how long you last. Because you have no idea. And again,the fact you make these glorious suppositions show that you cannot relate or empathize with the plight of people.

I honestly would like to know why you're so Reganomic happy. Where the 80s that great for you Boomer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

I agree with this, except that 50% of people scamming the system is far too many.

I just picked a random figure. Of course, 50% is too big, you've got serious problems if half are scammers. I think everyone agrees that social services should go to those who need it. But then, you can get into the issues of who decides the cut offs and how much is apportioned. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

I just picked a random figure. Of course, 50% is too big, you've got serious problems if half are scammers. I think everyone agrees that social services should go to those who need it. But then, you can get into the issues of who decides the cut offs and how much is apportioned. 

 

As I said in an earlier post, (and I may be more civil with you MJLD because you don't come across as truly out there" a majority of people who receive any relief aren't defrauding the system. And the benefits they receive are not great. And they're not that easy to get. If it where, most people would opt not to work. It's a myth. Also keep this in mind, some states during this pandemic opened up earlier than advised just so they could kick people off of unemployment rolls. Now look at how it's gotten worse. Food for thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, martin03345 said:

(and I may be more civil with you MJLD because you don't come across as truly out there" a majority of people who receive any relief aren't defrauding the system. And the benefits they receive are not great. And they're not that easy to get. If it where, most people would opt not to work. It's a myth. Also keep this in mind, some states during this pandemic opened up earlier than advised just so they could kick people off of unemployment rolls. Now look at how it's gotten worse. Food for thought

I appreciate it but I really think everyone should be civil in the general sense, especially those we disagree with. Anyway, yeah, I figure it's more likely a minority of people who are running a scam and they ruin it-potentially-for everyone. I'm also aware of some of the limits of these services, as well as the need to renew, the social shame of having to use them as well, etc. Kinda ties back to my original point, these services are essential, and despite how much you and Drew may disagree he thinks the same overall.

I don't blame hardworking people for wanting to protect themselves from taxes, especially every time some new bureacratic scanal emerges. I also think people need help etc. Which brings me back to my larger point, I think more people on opposite sides of the political divide have more in common and they end up arguing over differing sources of information and numbers.

Most likely let's say you, Drew and Big Blue randomly met in a bar, not knowing about this place and a TPATH song came on, you'd all get along just fine and once that human, personal connection is formed, perhaps later if politics emerged, there would be a civil attempt to understand and egnage with each other. And if not, then at least to agree to disagree and dance to the music.

I think I've said my peace here,

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

I appreciate it but I really think everyone should be civil in the general sense, especially those we disagree with. Anyway, yeah, I figure it's more likely a minority of people who are running a scam and they ruin it-potentially-for everyone. I'm also aware of some of the limits of these services, as well as the need to renew, the social shame of having to use them as well, etc. Kinda ties back to my original point, these services are essential, and despite how much you and Drew may disagree he thinks the same overall.

I don't blame hardworking people for wanting to protect themselves from taxes, especially every time some new bureacratic scanal emerges. I also think people need help etc. Which brings me back to my larger point, I think more people on opposite sides of the political divide have more in common and they end up arguing over differing sources of information and numbers.

Most likely let's say you, Drew and Big Blue randomly met in a bar, not knowing about this place and a TPATH song came on, you'd all get along just fine and once that human, personal connection is formed, perhaps later if politics emerged, there would be a civil attempt to understand and egnage with each other. And if not, then at least to agree to disagree and dance to the music.

I think I've said my peace here,

cheers

I agree with that but again, as I said before, I can have civil discussions with people, and do frequently as I am someone who lives in a rural, conservative area of NY but also at the same time have little patience for discourse for people who make statements to things they do not understand and speak from great ignorance. Welfare abuse is one of them. Everyone may know one person but it's a rare abuse. And one that is minuscule compared to let's say, our government's bloated military spending. And if you're a hardworking American, you shouldn't just be worried about how your taxes are spent, but how corporations and other people's taxes that are being gathered at a lower effective rate then you is being ignored because you can't get a good tax lawyer and that our tax code is screwed. As I said before, you shouldn't punch down but punch up. Even if someone abused our welfare system, it isn't nearly generous enough or easy to get that should make you envious of someone who receives it. It's a public good like a road or education. You may not have kids but you still have to pay school taxes because the education of our nation is a highly valuable commodity. Same thing goes for healthcare. It does no one no good for someone to rot and die of cancer, obesity etc. It's better for us as a society to use our tax dollars to ensure all of us our healthy. From a pure economic stance alone: a healthy nation makes a more productive nation. Imagine what we could do if millions of people haven't been paralyzed by obesity, drug addiction, depression and suicide at rates that other nations don't see. 

I'm not advocating for COMMUNISM. Or a totally socialized government. But for socialized areas of life such as healthcare and safety nets because it benefits society. Private business alone is unfit to make sure a nation is healthy. It's not profitable in a sustainable way. That's where the government comes in. The government has a vested interest in keeping it's citizen healthy because that's your revenue base. That's not necessarily true for private health care because whether your healthy doesn't matter, as long as you buy the medicine that you need at an exorbitant rate to keep you healthy they won't care. That brings us to a more moral question: is it moral to raise money on the lives and health of others? Most people would say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

Have you ever bothered to read Marx? Or Adam Smith? Or actually read the Constitution?

Yes, yes, and yes.  And I do happen to have a degree in Economics.  

 

1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

And you don't think Tom would say the US government life hell for non-whites? Did he not disavow the use of the "Confederate Flag"? I'm pretty sure he did.

Tom stopped using the Confederate battle flag as a backdrop, because while he originally felt that it represented the South as a place, he realized that a lot of people saw it as a symbol of slavery, even a symbol celebrating slavery.  And so he stopped using it and felt bad that he'd ever used it.  But that's got nothing to do with the present US government, and the prior US government fought against the Confederacy and ended slavery.  So you are not giving any logical support to your "Tom would say it's a living hell for non-White citizens" thesis.

 

1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

And to who are you to say as someone who I'll assume for this post is white to say that a group of non-whites feel that this country as made their life a living hell?

WHAT exactly has the US government done to make their lives a living hell?   Can you name even ONE example of this?  If anything, the US government is stacked in favor of non-whites, with affirmative action.  I know of no law that makes any non-white lives a living hell.  As to whether that's borne out, look at all the non-whites who wish to immigrate to the USA - do people actually choose to leave their homes to join a living hell?  What you are saying is a talking point with no substance in reality.  Just because a lot of leftists keep repeating it, doesn't make it more true every time they repeat it. 

 

1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

Do you not know the difference between a social safety net that our tax dollars go to to make sure everyone has the chance to not be ruined by something such as medical debt or losing a job or is that just tough shit to them?

I'm in favor of the social safety net, and we've got that now, to a very high degree.  We've got full medicaid for those without jobs, and heavily subsidized ACA for those who have low-paying jobs.   We've got food stamps, we've got housing subsidies, we've got free limited use cell phones, we've got welfare payments and earned income tax credits.  The social safety net is mission accomplished, so why do leftists keep saying it isn't there? 

Now you could point to homeless people, and I feel bad for them, but those are either people with mental illness, drug addicts, or people who choose not to use government help.    The US no longer forces mental patients into asylums, and doesn't force drug addicts to get clean.  But the government is there for people who want help voluntarily.  You could raise government aid substantially and there would still be people choosing to live in tents and under freeways.  And that's sad to see them waste their lives that way, but that's what our courts decided counts as freedom, so it's a choice. 

1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

The fact you bother to say progressiveism is Marxism shows that you are completely ignorant.

 Progressivism wasn't originally equal to Marxism, but in the USA today, they are the same.  Progressivism had a useful and important purpose at one time, but all the goals short of Marxism have been accomplished.  Therefore, the two are the same.  Who were the most "progressive" Democratic candidates for president this year?  Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.  Who is the most "progressive" member of the US Congress?  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  I see no difference between those three and Marxists, and in fact Bernie Sanders proudly took his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, coming back to extoll its virtues.  And AOC has embraced the government of Venezuela while rejecting that of the USA.  Humorously, Bernie even lived on a commune in his youth, but he got kicked out because he wasn't doing much actual work.  Liz Warren used to claim she was a capitalist, but she doesn't say that now.  She has proposed that all corporations over $1 billion would have to get a federal permit to operate, renewed every year and only issued if the corporation sets hiring quotas, wages, and other enforced controls to her liking.  That's essentially "the workers control the means of production" of Marx himself. 

The USA is about freedom, and it does have a completely adequate, even substantial social safety net.   But if you want to be an outright communist, you have that right.  Just pool your money with some like-minded others, buy some farmland somewhere, and start a commune.  Everyone shares, and no one is forced to join.   Also, if you want to work in the free market but you feel very generous, you can give away all your wealth until you are now equal with the person who has the least.  I read that Tom Morello has a net worth of $30 million, so I do wonder if he's a hypocrite.  But that's his right in a free country.  As to Tom Petty, he's a guy who wanted to give people a good product at a fair price.  But I don't recall that he was against making money or living a nice live off of his own productivity. 

What the Marxist progressives want is not the option to be communist, they want to force everyone to live with their vision of equal outcomes.  Whether you bothered to study difficult and/or useful material in school, wouldn't matter.  Whether you worked hard and effectively, wouldn't matter.  Whether you had a vision of a new/better product or service and took the risk to build it, wouldn't matter.   Economies stagnate and die under Marxism, and that's even when they can borrow and steal innovations from the free market.  Imagine if the whole world were Marxist, we'd practically devolve to the stone age.  How can anyone who actually cares about people embrace the starvation, the death, the lack of freedom and the high levels of pollution that Marxism brings?   In the relatively free market economies as exist today in the USA, or South Korea, everyone is better off, even those on welfare.  Except of course the people at the very top of Marxism, keeping everyone else enslaved.  So fat Kim Jong Un does live pretty well, but most of the rest of the North Koreans live terribly.  To the point where South Korea not only has a per capita GDP 15x greater than North Korea's, but the average South Korean young man is now 3.5 inches taller than his North Korean counterpart, thanks to better nutrition.   Why would anyone choose Marxism who actually cares about humanity?  

1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

And to bring Hitler into that discussion shows you're empty on actual coherent thoughts. Breaking out Godwin's Law!

Godwin isn't God.  Nobody voted to pass his "law" in any democracy.  Sometimes it's appropriate to bring Hitler into the discussion.  He was an artist by vocation, he tried to create a new world as if he were creating a new work of art, and it didn't turn out well for the existing world.  A lot of "artists" who want to create a new world should keep that in mind.  Though as I pointed out earlier, I wasn't talking about Tom Petty.  

2 hours ago, martin03345 said:

Keep think you're the boomer in total control of being a free thinker. You're the type of person from your post that shows that you are too damn and old and too set in your ways to know that the wind of change is blowing, the ship is coming in and you time in history will be marked with a scar. 

I was wondering when the "Ok Boomer" dismissal would appear.  The funny thing about "Ok Boomer" is that this is what the Marxist college professors have told their students to say/think, when confronted by ideas and logical arguments that destroy the idealized propaganda they've been told to believe.  Don't listen to someone who has much more experience than you have, because that person is just an "old Boomer" and a fundamentally horrible person at their core.  That the "Zoomers" or whatever you might call yourself consider themselves to be open-minded is laughable, when their first reaction to challenging logic is to shut their ears and scream "Ok Boomer" until the threat of an "unacceptable" idea goes away.  

Guess what?  All learning is dependent on prior learning.  If you shut out the views of people with experience, you are condemning yourself to being a perpetual child.  Although that's what your Marxist professor masters were hoping you'd do.  

I consider myself too young to be a true "Boomer", but ironically the Boomers were one of the most rebellious generations in US history.    They often embraced Marxist iconography and toyed with the actual philosophy while in college.  Then they got into the real world and gained some actual experience.  I will give the Boomers credit though, for being open minded enough to support free speech. They weren't afraid of free speech, the way today's Zoomer's have been told they must be.  Closing down free speech and closing down your mind creates all sorts of problems, for both the individual and society.  I'm guessing that Orwell's book 1984 is not popular with Zoomers, since they seem intent on living it.  However, you won't be able to run your Marxist prison without opposition from those who prefer freedom.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Well you happen for someone who has a degree in economics to have a poor grasp of economics. Trickle down benefits of the current and administrations past since the 80s have not seen a major boon to American worker wages as they have stagnated for 40 years even though productivity and company profits have hit an all time high. That's an economic system that can't sustain itself as we have seen in prior years. The profits to do not reach the people who help generate them. Period. 

And you think Tom wouldn't be more supportive of the oppression of non-whites? the fact he disavowed the use of the Battle Flag of Virginia is because people were rallying against it as a symbol of slavery, tyranny and of the unequal treatment of African Americans. Which that whole debate was sparked when there was an uptick in violence against the African American community. Why even bring it up to disavow it if there wasn't an on going harm to the them?

Thirdly, as I said before, have you ever had to try to apply and get these great benefits that the government hands out? And if you haven't why are so many people still living in squalor if they can live off the glorious teet that is American communism? What we offer as a society is much less than any other nation because people like you think it's there problem and not ours as a whole. Poverty, poorer education, underemployment, these are all societal ills that require the backing of society. To sit here and say "well you got a free phone and internet! what else could you need!" is beyond ignorant. Those tools that were once considered luxuries are now necessities. Almost all businesses require you to apply via internet to get a job. That is not a luxury. Most business require you to have access to a phone and a home address if you want a job. If you're homeless, you don't have that. Period. Let's see you start from nothing. Socializing such industries is not a socialization of the entire economy. It's a wonder Europe got along just fine doing that with out us. It doesn't mean advocating for the end of retail, etc. 

The fact you keep going back to your Marxist well shows you don't know what it is. Pushing for worker rights and autonomy is not communist. If that's the case, the laborers who toiled for 40 hour work weeks, end to child labor and paid time off are Marxists because they kept businesses from maximizing their profits. Much of the benefits you have and got where gained through the toil of people who toiled harder than you ever and ever could have imagined.  

It is under your generation's watch that you took everything that was fought so hard for and to make this country what it is and waste it away for yourselves and throw it to the way side for your children and grandchildren. There will be a reckoning and a price to pay for it. It your starting to see it with Gen Zers and Millennials who are tired of the being shafted. You had several opportunities to try and build on the previous progress that was made and decided to throw it away for your own comfort. Youyr wisdom is not wanted as your generation squandered and frittered away our nation's fortune several times over. What makes you horrible people beyond having decent, structural, intellectual conversations with is the fact that it's the equivalent of talking to a brick wall. You don't budge, you have a self-righteous streak about you. 

For the 80th time, actually look up what communism is. You and every other dumb son of a bitch from your generation don't know the difference between the multitude of types of government and economic systems. I'll piss and burn on  the American flag to trigger you're group of snowflakes because dissent is the greatest form of patriotism. Knowing when somethings wrong and trying to fix it is much braver than shouting "Kevin Bacon wasn't in Footloose". May the souls you're generation sent to die in illegal wars like Iraq and Afghanistan haunt you forever. And may the economic disaster your generation bring destroy your 401k right before you're about to slip into retirement. It may not take you but it'll take your friends. It's on your hands and conscience, not ours. We have only just begun our struggle to have a voice in the government that represents the few like you and the many like us. And may that same ill be wished upon us when we over stay our welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, martin03345 said:

Private business alone is unfit to make sure a nation is healthy. It's not profitable in a sustainable way.

Maybe not, but private business shouldn't be excluded from health care.  

58 minutes ago, martin03345 said:

The government has a vested interest in keeping it's citizen healthy because that's your revenue base.

Actually that's not true.  If all the government cared about was the revenue base, they wouldn't pay for the elderly and permanently disabled.  

And In Communist China, I recall that they considered banning cigarettes, for people's health.  Then they realized that they made a lot of government revenue from taxing cigarettes, and they didn't want to lose that.  Plus when people die from smoking related diseases, they are usuaily at the end of their working lives, so that's a win for government right there (no more pension and health care costs).  So cigarettes are still plentiful in China, and a very high proportion of those dying from COVID-19 are smokers. 

Too many young progressives/marxists buy into the myth of benevolent and uncorrupted marxist government.  Actually the more government control you have, the more opportunity for corruption.  If a business is corrupt and not serving the needs of its customers, it dies due to competition.  Government monopolies continue unchecked in their corruption. 

1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

That's not necessarily true for private health care because whether your healthy doesn't matter, as long as you buy the medicine that you need at an exorbitant rate to keep you healthy they won't care. That brings us to a more moral question: is it moral to raise money on the lives and health of others? Most people would say no.

Is it "moral" to exclude private business from creating profit-seeking medical solutions?  Most of modern medicine was created in order to seek a profit.  That includes MRI machines, most pharmaceuticals, pacemakers, valve stents, hip replacements, and minimally invasive, highly accurate assisted surgery such as the Da Vinci Surgical System.   

I happen to have eye allergies that cause excessive itching and mucus which can interfere with my eyesight.  The itching itself can be bad enough that I would rub my eye against the pillowcase while sleeping, which has it's own bad effects including infection (which did happen to me).  The solution arrived in the form of olopatadine, developed in the 1980's by a Japanese profit-seeking corporation  Before olopatadine, no other eye drops worked sufficiently for me, not even close.  With one drop in each eye every day or every other day (depending on the allergy season) I have no itchyness, no mucus, just normal eye functioning as when I was younger.  Was it "immoral" that this Japanese corporation sought a profit?  No one was making a feasible treatment, and there's no reason to think that they would have.  Eye drops would not likely have been high on the list of lifesaving priorities.  But I am grateful that the free market was large enough to support the creation of these drops.  I consider what they did completely moral.

Today the USA has an extensive healthcare support system for everyone.  There are subsidies for pharmaceuticals.  I happen to agree with ACA to some extent, but I would make certain changes.  Including that people should be able to purchase more "basic" insurance, rather than the take-it-or-leave-it policies that include endless physical therapy, visits to a psychologist for "stress", etc.  I'm not saying that those can't be beneficial to some people, but they aren't absolutely necessary, and if someone wants to save that expense they should be allowed to do so. 

Further, people should get discounts if they are not overweight, similar to the discount that nonsmokers get.  This would encourage people to lose weight - and obesity is the cause of numerous health problems.  Or if they fail to get to a healthy weight, then they pay more, which is only fair given the actual costs of obesity.  They should also consider tort limits and selling policies across state lines, but also do a better job of keeping bad doctors from practicing and resurfacing in other states.  Finally, they should greatly raise the tax penalty for not buying health insurance.  If necessary the gov't could pay most or all the cost of insurance, but non-compliance should come with a penalty so large that it wouldn't make economic sense not to get insurance.  It's too easy now for people to opt out  of insurance for $700/year, or whatever the penalty is now.

I'm glad that Biden was one of the few Democratic presidential candidates who did not want a complete government takeover of healthcare, as did Sanders, Warren, and others.  Giving government a monopoly on healthcare would lead to poor quality service, and would hugely stifle innovation.  Medical science has come a long way, but it still has a very long way to go before we can treat so many of the crippling and deadly diseases and conditions out there.    And for those who claim that some European state healthcare is pretty good, that's debatable, but also - they depend strongly on the profitability of the US market for innovation, even for European based pharma companies.   End the US market for "moral" reasons (no profit seekers), and not only US health sees stifled innovation, but so does health in the rest of the world.  

   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

Maybe not, but private business shouldn't be excluded from health care.  

Actually that's not true.  If all the government cared about was the revenue base, they wouldn't pay for the elderly and permanently disabled.  

And In Communist China, I recall that they considered banning cigarettes, for people's health.  Then they realized that they made a lot of government revenue from taxing cigarettes, and they didn't want to lose that.  Plus when people die from smoking related diseases, they are usuaily at the end of their working lives, so that's a win for government right there (no more pension and health care costs).  So cigarettes are still plentiful in China, and a very high proportion of those dying from COVID-19 are smokers. 

Too many young progressives/marxists buy into the myth of benevolent and uncorrupted marxist government.  Actually the more government control you have, the more opportunity for corruption.  If a business is corrupt and not serving the needs of its customers, it dies due to competition.  Government monopolies continue unchecked in their corruption. 

Is it "moral" to exclude private business from creating profit-seeking medical solutions?  Most of modern medicine was created in order to seek a profit.  That includes MRI machines, most pharmaceuticals, pacemakers, valve stents, hip replacements, and minimally invasive, highly accurate assisted surgery such as the Da Vinci Surgical System.   

I happen to have eye allergies that cause excessive itching and mucus which can interfere with my eyesight.  The itching itself can be bad enough that I would rub my eye against the pillowcase while sleeping, which has it's own bad effects including infection (which did happen to me).  The solution arrived in the form of olopatadine, developed in the 1980's by a Japanese profit-seeking corporation  Before olopatadine, no other eye drops worked sufficiently for me, not even close.  With one drop in each eye every day or every other day (depending on the allergy season) I have no itchyness, no mucus, just normal eye functioning as when I was younger.  Was it "immoral" that this Japanese corporation sought a profit?  No one was making a feasible treatment, and there's no reason to think that they would have.  Eye drops would not likely have been high on the list of lifesaving priorities.  But I am grateful that the free market was large enough to support the creation of these drops.  I consider what they did completely moral.

Today the USA has an extensive healthcare support system for everyone.  There are subsidies for pharmaceuticals.  I happen to agree with ACA to some extent, but I would make certain changes.  Including that people should be able to purchase more "basic" insurance, rather than the take-it-or-leave-it policies that include endless physical therapy, visits to a psychologist for "stress", etc.  I'm not saying that those can't be beneficial to some people, but they aren't absolutely necessary, and if someone wants to save that expense they should be allowed to do so. 

Further, people should get discounts if they are not overweight, similar to the discount that nonsmokers get.  This would encourage people to lose weight - and obesity is the cause of numerous health problems.  Or if they fail to get to a healthy weight, then they pay more, which is only fair given the actual costs of obesity.  They should also consider tort limits and selling policies across state lines, but also do a better job of keeping bad doctors from practicing and resurfacing in other states.  Finally, they should greatly raise the tax penalty for not buying health insurance.  If necessary the gov't could pay most or all the cost of insurance, but non-compliance should come with a penalty so large that it wouldn't make economic sense not to get insurance.  It's too easy now for people to opt out  of insurance for $700/year, or whatever the penalty is now.

I'm glad that Biden was one of the few Democratic presidential candidates who did not want a complete government takeover of healthcare, as did Sanders, Warren, and others.  Giving government a monopoly on healthcare would lead to poor quality service, and would hugely stifle innovation.  Medical science has come a long way, but it still has a very long way to go before we can treat so many of the crippling and deadly diseases and conditions out there.    And for those who claim that some European state healthcare is pretty good, that's debatable, but also - they depend strongly on the profitability of the US market for innovation, even for European based pharma companies.   End the US market for "moral" reasons (no profit seekers), and not only US health sees stifled innovation, but so does health in the rest of the world.  

   

 

 

Nobody is saying when they advocate for socialized medicine that they are saying that the government is prone to be corrupt or inefficient. However, because it is a government agency that will have mass dollars put into it by the public, the public will have a greater desire and need to make sure that it does what the public wants. It'll be much more responsive. Also, most health insurance plans aren't even selected by people in a truly free market place, they are selected by their employers and the employee can become a slave to their job because of it. You may argue you have the freedom to break away from your work if you are unsatisfied but if you have a family that relies on your wages and whatever healthcare coverage you may have, you in reality do not have a choice. Also if you're someone like me who comes from an area of a small amount of decent jobs, you are essentially tethered to your job. Tying healthcare to your work empowers your employers and not the workers.

Secondly, most medical developments are brought about through public tax dollars that go to the R and D. As you claim for me to be a slave to the government, you are a slave in thinking the private sector is the answer to all. As I said before, I'm not and most people are not advocating for a truly Marxists government or economy. But again, there are inefficiencies in things like healthcare that private industry cannot fill. If they had you wouldn't get billed for getting cancer at 60k for treatment.

Thirdly, if again, every other developed nation has socialized healthcare that is well received and has seen lesser levels in obesity and mental health, why would that ruin the US? Is it because we're that vastly different? Not at all. Private industry does not have the ability or desire to help those with pre-existing conditions. To force business to deal with it restricts their "freedom".

Finally you pay into social security and disability your entire working life. That's your pay roll tax, the government isn't allotting that money to anything else. If they spend it elsewhere then you have to be a smart enough citizen to raise your voice. Again it's called accountability. Use your freedom to protest it if it doesn't work. And if anything, why not give it a try for a decade. We've done this private insurance dance for 50 years and most people are pretty fucking sick of their insurance. If Medicare for all is so bad, then you can excise it from law. And don't call the ACA socialized medicine when all it did was fine those who mainly can't afford insurance and create a slightly bigger "marketplace" for insurance instead of a true public option

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, martin03345 said:

Well you happen for someone who has a degree in economics to have a poor grasp of economics. Trickle down benefits of the current and administrations past since the 80s have not seen a major boon to American worker wages as they have stagnated for 40 years even though productivity and company profits have hit an all time high. That's an economic system that can't sustain itself as we have seen in prior years. The profits to do not reach the people who help generate them. Period. 

That's a complete myth right there.  Actually worse than a myth, it's an outright lie.  Yes I'm aware of flawed liberal "studies" which purport to show no significant wage increases in 40, 50, 60 years - as if the 1950's were some sort of golden age of material wealth.  And they were, compared with the 1940's, 1930's, 1920's, etc.  But not compared with today, or at least pre-coronavirus 2020. 

The flaws lie in the way wealth/wages are measured, by inexpert or biased economists.  The reality is that the average US worker has far more material wealth today than in any prior decade (again, up until the virus hit, which was not caused by free market economics).  Even the poorest and people on welfare live better than before, much better.  Today's median houses are bigger and better than they were 40 years ago.  When I was growing up, very few people had color TVs, my own family had one 19" black and white set until I was 14.  Our cars then were poorly made compared with today, with vinyl seats that cracked, poor quality radio (no CD or USB), hand-crank windows, no sunroofs, no GPS, no back-up camera the cars frequently broke down, etc.    We had no air conditioning.  No cell phones, no PCs, no internet, no online shopping or online information gathering/sharing.   

Were we poor?  Not at all, we were upper middle class.  Both of my parents had college degrees, my father with a master's degree and had been a former US Army officer.  Both parents worked full time once I was 10.   Today people have great cars, big screen color tvs, air conditioning everywhere, food is better (delivery from far away markets), people have personal computers, smart phones, much better health and dental care than in the past, access to immense music and television libraries digitally.  When I was growing up, our vacations meant a few hours drive somewhere to a bed and breakfast for a week.   Today (or until the virus) families often fly to Disneyworld or whatever.  I don't begrudge that people live much better lives today than they did in every prior decade, but it's a complete crock that the average worker has not benefitted from the gains in productivity.  You'd have to be a complete fool to believe some Marxist professor or presidential candidate (looking at you Bernie) who tells you that US workers haven't had a pay increase in 40 years or whatever the claim is.  When you can afford a much better lifestyle than went before, for the same hours worked and the same educational level, you've had a significant pay increase.  Distorted measurements be damned.

As to what you call "trickle down", again that's a leftist term, no serious economist uses that.  Supply side economics is free market, low tax economics which works - not just for greater economic growth and prosperity for all, but increased government tax revenue (due to the economic growth and increased profitability) as well.  Economic growth benefits everyone.  Increased productivity benefits everyone.  Economic growth and increased productivity, with competitive business, results in goods and services of better quality and/or cheaper/wider availability.  It also results in higher net pay for the workers, better jobs, better benefits, better/cleaner/safer/more pleasant working conditions, etc.   Does it too frequently result in CEO's getting excessive pay?  Yes but that's a problem of shareholder empowerment, as the excessive pay comes at the expense of the shareholders, not of the hired employees.  At any rate, you apparently have been poorly educated on the free markets, and I'm sad but not surprised to see that.  Unfortunately too many of today's professors have a political agenda, rather than a desire or ability to impart the truth to inexperienced minds.  As you get older you will come to see things differently than you do now.  For now all you have are your myths; reality for you will likely arrive several decades from now.   And at that point you'll be angry that you were so badly misinformed in your youth.   But don't feel bad - it happens to everyone, on many topics.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

That's a complete myth right there.  Actually worse than a myth, it's an outright lie.  Yes I'm aware of flawed liberal "studies" which purport to show no significant wage increases in 40, 50, 60 years - as if the 1950's were some sort of golden age of material wealth.  And they were, compared with the 1940's, 1930's, 1920's, etc.  But not compared with today, or at least pre-coronavirus 2020. 

The flaws lie in the way wealth/wages are measured, by inexpert or biased economists.  The reality is that the average US worker has far more material wealth today than in any prior decade (again, up until the virus hit, which was not caused by free market economics).  Even the poorest and people on welfare live better than before, much better.  Today's median houses are bigger and better than they were 40 years ago.  When I was growing up, very few people had color TVs, my own family had one 19" black and white set until I was 14.  Our cars then were poorly made compared with today, with vinyl seats that cracked, poor quality radio (no CD or USB), hand-crank windows, no sunroofs, no GPS, no back-up camera the cars frequently broke down, etc.    We had no air conditioning.  No cell phones, no PCs, no internet, no online shopping or online information gathering/sharing.   

Were we poor?  Not at all, we were upper middle class.  Both of my parents had college degrees, my father with a master's degree and had been a former US Army officer.  Both parents worked full time once I was 10.   Today people have great cars, big screen color tvs, air conditioning everywhere, food is better (delivery from far away markets), people have personal computers, smart phones, much better health and dental care than in the past, access to immense music and television libraries digitally.  When I was growing up, our vacations meant a few hours drive somewhere to a bed and breakfast for a week.   Today (or until the virus) families often fly to Disneyworld or whatever.  I don't begrudge that people live much better lives today than they did in every prior decade, but it's a complete crock that the average worker has not benefitted from the gains in productivity.  You'd have to be a complete fool to believe some Marxist professor or presidential candidate (looking at you Bernie) who tells you that US workers haven't had a pay increase in 40 years or whatever the claim is.  When you can afford a much better lifestyle than went before, for the same hours worked and the same educational level, you've had a significant pay increase.  Distorted measurements be damned.

As to what you call "trickle down", again that's a leftist term, no serious economist uses that.  Supply side economics is free market, low tax economics which works - not just for greater economic growth and prosperity for all, but increased government tax revenue (due to the economic growth and increased profitability) as well.  Economic growth benefits everyone.  Increased productivity benefits everyone.  Economic growth and increased productivity, with competitive business, results in goods and services of better quality and/or cheaper/wider availability.  It also results in higher net pay for the workers, better jobs, better benefits, better/cleaner/safer/more pleasant working conditions, etc.   Does it too frequently result in CEO's getting excessive pay?  Yes but that's a problem of shareholder empowerment, as the excessive pay comes at the expense of the shareholders, not of the hired employees.  At any rate, you apparently have been poorly educated on the free markets, and I'm sad but not surprised to see that.  Unfortunately too many of today's professors have a political agenda, rather than a desire or ability to impart the truth to inexperienced minds.  As you get older you will come to see things differently than you do now.  For now all you have are your myths; reality for you will likely arrive several decades from now.   And at that point you'll be angry that you were so badly misinformed in your youth.   But don't feel bad - it happens to everyone, on many topics.  

 

Ok Boomer. Again, just because in the 60s a TV was a luxury doesn't mean that the previous day's luxury's are now necessities. Cellphones and the internet are necessities. Saying having a fridge is a necessity. Time marches on and nobody cares that you only had 3 channels. And no, wages have not kept up with inflation. Just because they've gone up, doesn't mean they've gone up at the rate to which the dollar is valued. And no, most economists aren't a secret cabal of left leaning commies, they tend to be more conservative as well.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Also, when that technology grows and becomes more pervasive, it becomes cheaper too. Big screen TVs used to be thousands of dollars. Now you can't even buy a tv under 32 inches and it's only a 150 for one. Not just as demand rises but as the means of production become cheaper does the price of said goods drop as well.

And ok, you're right, supply side economics is the proper nomenclature. Got me there! But hey, if it was so profitable, again, why haven't wages been more responsive to that growth? Why then have a great deal of jobs been outsourced to foreign nations leaving this countries industry to rot to the core? If economic growth benefits all, wouldn't a healthcare system that is actually efficient and responsive to their customers promote a healthier nation which in turn be a more productive society? Wouldn't we not all be a bunch of fat asses? Would not all be pissed off that it takes our insurance 4 months to send a bill back for a visit that by that time 95% who make it won't remember? Why are we paying for services that we won't know of until months on end after service is rendered? If someone is in dire need of healthcare are they going to turn it down if in the long run it may bankrupt them because they won't know till it's too late? These are market inefficiencies. If you want private insurance, then the price needs to be posted point of service, otherwise you're in for a ass fucking. 

Finally on my education: when it came to economics, my professors were all apolitical. But the fact you swear to the dogma that is everything must be free market shows you truly don't know how to be flexible. Like I said, not once have I argued for a Marxist government or economy. If wanting for socialized healthcare makes me a commie, then you have no understanding of the term. Enjoy you're 5k deductible. May when the cancer hits your asshole that it tries to find God when you try to figure out how to pay for that chemo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The band usually provided interesting ideas whenever they were interviewed.  The Petty Archive is an excellent resource until the day the estate releases Heartbreakers: The Collected Thoughts in a vegan bound hardcover book.  

So I can share the *benefits* of having obsessively read as many interviews as I can (since I was 16).  Yes for sure, Tom Petty directly discussed these topics below.  Other people here will know of other interviews too.  Go read the material too.  

  • American Dream original
  • American Dream as it changed (and as a song too, of course)
  • Use of confederate flag - within 18 months of touring with it off Southern Accents - stopping the show, talking directly to audiences & banning its use in his concerts
  • Use of confederate flags & role of statues in public spaces - revisited 
  • Being in the 1% because of career earnings
  • Police stopping cars and young men dying as an unintended consequence (& Don't Pull Me Over. )
  • Violence in LA during the 92 riots (& a song there too)
  • Violence in his crowds (that snippet from them touring in Germany when he's saying the concert promoters need to stop the fighting)
  • Being threatened with violence because of wearing long hair
  • Growing up in a segregated community and seeing racism and how he & his friends weren't like that
  • Incarceration rates

Other people spoke of the generosity care and empathy shown by Tom & his family:

  • his cousin Sadie about how TP came to the Gainesville march to help shift focus from KKK & starve them of potential press
  • his family's generous support of homeless and disadvantaged

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, martin03345 said:

Also, most health insurance plans aren't even selected by people in a truly free market place, they are selected by their employers and the employee can become a slave to their job because of it. You may argue you have the freedom to break away from your work if you are unsatisfied but if you have a family that relies on your wages and whatever healthcare coverage you may have, you in reality do not have a choice. Also if you're someone like me who comes from an area of a small amount of decent jobs, you are essentially tethered to your job. Tying healthcare to your work empowers your employers and not the workers.

I agree 100%.  Healthcare/health insurance should not be linked to employment.  The only reason for this is that there was a wage freeze under FDR, so companies started including health insurance benefits as a way to competitively raise pay without breaking the freeze.  Unfortunately the system stuck.  If it were up to me I would completely separate employment from healthcare, business would simply have to pay more to make up the difference (in a competitive environment), as I said I favor a modified ACA in which the penalty for non-compliance was so high, that everyone would have to get it.  But they'd also have a choice in the extent of their coverage, rather than being forced to get the gold-plated plan.  The gold/silver/bronze plans of ACA currently give the exact same levels of care, the only difference is between the monthly charges and the deductable charges.  

7 minutes ago, martin03345 said:

Secondly, most medical developments are brought about through public tax dollars that go to the R and D.

 Not true.  Public R&D has made very little difference in innovation; University/Private R&D has made a significant difference in research (not development), but the most substantial innovations have come through profit-seeking, investment-led R&D.    

 

10 minutes ago, martin03345 said:

Thirdly, if again, every other developed nation has socialized healthcare that is well received and has seen lesser levels in obesity and mental health, why would that ruin the US? Is it because we're that vastly different? Not at all. Private industry does not have the ability or desire to help those with pre-existing conditions. To force business to deal with it restricts their "freedom".

Again, the innovations of those other countries are greatly based on the profitability of the US market.  Take away the profitability of the US market, and they all lack significant innovation.  As to lifestyle, the US is different, and the population is far too obese as a result of lifestyle choices.  Just last week I saw an Asian-American who remarked that his Taiwanese relatives became obese and had related health problems as a result, vs. their time in Taiwan or his relatives that remained in Taiwan.  This is not due to health care, and that example was just a generation away from their origin - imagine how families of many generations in the US are obese.  While there are many causes of this, including culture and the varied choices of affordable food, it's not caused by private practice doctors caring less about their patients than government-monopoly doctors.

As I mentioned, I strongly feel that our US health insurance policies should encourage and reward participants who maintain a healthy weight, or financially punish those who don't.  While this is not feasible at corporations offering "free healthcare", you and I both agree that health insurance should be completely separate from employment.  People who buy insurance under ACA pay $150/month (I think) more if they are smokers.  It should be much the same with obesity levels, the more obese someone is, the more they should pay.  This would combine to reduce health care costs, reduce the need for doctors and hospitals, and lead to longer and presumably happier lives for participants.  I read a long time ago that in South Africa, health insurance is done this way, with discounts for being of a healthy weight (or penalties for being obese).  For some reason in the US, I believe that laws prevent this - as some sort of discrimination.  But that's ridiculous, if so.  People aren't born obese, and aren't prevented from losing weight, unless they have an extremely rare condition that fewer than 1% of all obese people actually have.  And I'm not biased against the obese, I am in favor of them becoming healthy and avoiding all the related health problems that obesity causes.  But you can't force someone to be of a healthy weight, so you structure insurance to give them a financial incentive.   

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...