Thanks, I'm here for intelligent constructive discussion. You are signalling to me that you are not here for that.

@kmaz When are you going to start this intellegent discussion? I will be waiting.

Local, state and federal government in the US has partially taken over the education lending business, education itself (which is not the same thing), some aspects of health care insurance, and I suppose aspects of health care though I'm not sure on that point. I am not saying it is definitively wrong for government to be involved in some of these things (though I'm probably more in favor of a capitalistic idea of government than some), but I am saying, regardless of what one thinks, if a legislator actually cares about getting legislation passed (not to mention the survival of the country itself over the next few years given that we are still in the middle of the Republicans' villainous takeover attempt via their attacks on the integrity of the voting system), then they will not put on blinders and ear-muffs, ignore whatever rationality may be left in moderate Republicans, write whatever pie-in-the-sky legislation they want and then just go for it. I like that Biden and others have a pretty good radar for ignoring the worst of the Republican dastardly agenda, but goodness, in the face of such evil as McConnell and McCarthy, and the sneering radio voices behind them, and the dozens of millions of voters behind them, do the authors of progressive legislation really think they are going to get passed the over-the-top asks that they are going for? Will they make no effort to find any common ground?

As to getting rid of the filibuster, it's mystifying to me that I have not seen or heard one piece which asks the question what happens if (and when) the McCarthys and McConnells of this world regain a majority and no longer have to overcome a filibuster. That is a terrifying proposition, and given the efforts by the Republicans to harm voting rights in many of the states, something that could happen in less than two years (though hopefully we can push back against it).

The contract’s opening words are “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, ....”

The full contract, IMO, certainly suggests socialism. What went wrong?

BTW, the Articles of Confederation limited members of the first congresses to two terms. The Constitution’s writers took out those term limits.

@yvilletom Term limits would definitely change the way some of our elected officials would vote.

We’re obviously a democracy, there’s an enormous number of profoundly stupid people that were under represented until 2016 when they found a candidate that clearly represented them.
They’ll keep loving him until it kills them in their futile hope that he’ll kill minorities and their allies first, you know, because Jesus loves white men.

Well said. These "profoundly stupid people.." often forget that the people they love to hate, (gays, minorities, etc.etc) are actually Americans too. @Willow_Wisp

@yvilletom

"....The full contract, IMO, certainly suggests socialism. What went wrong?....

I thought this was an interesting comment. Are you thinking it was wrong to move away from whatever socialism is there? I don't know if socialism was implied to a significant degree in the original document, and if it was implied to some degree, I don't know to what extent I'd call this bad or good. But I do think it would be worthwhile if those finding themselves advocating more on the dem side have a think about whether they are advocating for socialism (or some aspects of it) and whether they think that's good or bad. The sneering pseudo-advocates of liberty and capitalism on the radio are quite clear in accusing the dems of advocating for what those advocates are calling "socialism". It would be interesting to hear some clearer thinking in response rather than just awkward or implicit "no, we're not advocating for socialism, but even if it is socialism, what's so bad about that?" I think the country as a whole would be better off if intelligent parties from both sides were to engage prominently in that discussion, over a number of years. This could in my view, help reduce the totally unproductive tit-for-tat nonsense level of many discussions, and help the country.

Still, it's a very big ask. Many of the sneering pseudo-advocates of liberty and capitalism throwing the word "socialism" around tend to err on the side of playing at having productive discussions, but have at least caucused with some of the most venal government-takeover thinking this country has ever seen. For this and other reasons, it is difficult to take them seriously, and it is arguably too much to ask of a well-intended democrat that they engage in discussion with those folks. Still, I think these questions are a "thing" that hopefully a few democrat thought leaders (whether in the legislature or on the radio or what have you) will take up.

Otherwise it is just empty gratuitous over-reaching rhetoric.

hahahaha !!! perfect @racocn8

Hi @yvilletome:

Most recently I primarily have in mind the massive "human infrastructure" proposals of the Democrats and their attempt to bundle (for want of a better word) this with other (actual) infrastructure proposals.

Where's the problem ? Clearly, "massive" infrastructure is needed.....@kmaz

As a side note: people dying in Texas from the cold, dying in the Northwest from the heat, and buildings falling on people in Florida.... You would think that even Republicans would care about Americans dying. I guess they must want to invade another third world country and occupy it for 20 years instead...@kmaz

@kmaz

“massive human infrastructure” is massive over-reaching rhetoric until you identify the human infrastructure and your reasons for saying it’s gratuitous.

@yvilletom

The legal efforts seeking financing (either in high hundreds of billions, if not more than a Trillion) for so-called "human infrastructure", and the types of activities being defined as human infrastructure, are well-known.

[en.wikipedia.org]

"... On June 24, the bipartisan group met with the president and reached a compromise deal costing $1.2 trillion over eight years, which focuses on physical infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, railways, water, sewage, broadband, and electric vehicles).[b] Biden stipulated that a separate "human infrastructure" bill (e.g. child care, home care, and climate change) must also pass, whether through bipartisanship or reconciliation.[9] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that the House would not vote on the physical infrastructure bill until the other bill passes in the Senate.[28]...."

In this case, it seems to me more likely that all of the measures will fail if they are attached. The low-odds (as far as I can tell) of winning the gamble to get them passed, and the large size of the proposal, seem contribute to my use of the word gratuitous. An additional factor here is that, as far as I know, the attaching of these proposals to infrastructure is unprecedented. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong).

In general, going beyond this particular bill, the pendulum has swung from the harsh elimination of programs (that some might see as socialist) under the previous administration to extremely large program proposals. One may debate whether such proposals are good or bad, wise or unwise. But proposing what appear to me to be massive expansion of such programs under the new administration, knowing that some opponents have recently participated in what should probably be treated as treasonous efforts, and that dozens of millions of voters back representatives and senators who are dead set against these programs, and considering that the federal government is now about USD $28 trillion in debt, .... it all strikes me as extraordinary tone-deaf over-reach. Insistence on matters where the opposition has made clear that it will not pass (regardless of one's emotions and moral judgment) means in my view that one's insistence is gratuitous.

As to the increasingly urgent life-and-death matter of the climate emergency, here again, I think rational measures (if they can be agreed), should not be attached to other measures, but should be respectfully submitted for a vote. Personally I think they should include policies of taxes and other penalties on greenhouse gas pollution along with some sort of reward for credible pollution cleanup.

@Leetx
you wrote: "Where's the problem ? Clearly, "massive" infrastructure is needed."

my response: A couple of things here:

• I do agree that (from what little I know), maintenance and building of actual infrastructure (roads, ports, government buildings, refueling, etc.) is "needed". Some folks might call even this "socialism" but under the US system of the last 2+ centuries, generally government at various levels is accepted as responsible (even Republicans seem to concede this). While there is disagreement as to the amount to be spent on this infrastructure, there is not disagreement that it is needed, and that it is appropriate for the federal government to step up, and that is why a bipartisan agreement was reached.
• Rational legislation on the climate change emergency is desperately needed. Many Republicans try to lump such legislation in with their accusations that "liberals" are just trying to engage in more of their nonsense, but I think of such legislation as a rational capitalist response. It's not yet widely understood, but I think the Republican obstructionist response on virtually all measures designed to spend money and address the climate emergency amounts to blocking the protection of property rights. That is, climate change is happening due to polluting activity, and it is fully within a capitalist government purview to regulate and eliminate deadly property- and life-destroying polluting activity and address pollution cleanup. These matters are important enough so they should get their own separate legislation. We can understand that it may be a few more years before some American Legislators figure all of this out, but (as far as I can tell) lumping the legislation with other votes is not helping at this time. Maybe I am wrong on that last point.
• As to home care and child care, they are "needed" but agreeing on that point does not help us understand whether or to what extent it is the government that should pay for them.

I'm curious as to why you used so many unnecessary words to agree with me.
Do you know ? @kmaz

@Leetx

Yes. Yes, I do indeed know.

• First, I was in effect responding to multiple posts you had made, and covering several points.
• Second, I am not going to trivialize and over-simplify my thinking and points in order to conform to your thinking, or anyone else's. I am not here to try to "win" a debate, nor am I here primarily to convince you or anyone of anything. What I want to do though is engage in congenial and civilized discussion, and develop my thoughts, and this is accentuated by the fact that the matters we are discussing are inherently of high importance. This impacts the length of my answers because I think there is a lot of poor over-simplified thinking around a lot of these topics, and my point is to look harder and deeper and go through in what I consider to be a rational step-by-step way.
• Third, it was not clear to me where you were going with this. I estimated that you might be translating "needed" into legislative action, and I do not necessarily translate it that way (as should be clear from my last point above) and I wanted to go to some lengths to make this clear.

In other words, no we do not fully agree. We're talking about trillions of dollars in proposed expenditure, a recent narrow escape from four more years of a murderous constitution-wrecking would-be dictator, an ongoing broad-daylight attempt permanently to subvert the entire country by undermining the voting system, and it seems important, to me, to speak up as best I can, to make matters better if I can, and to make clear what I agree with, and what I disagree with. I don't mind attempts to respectfully disagree. I like them a lot and sometimes the other person proves to be right. I do try to take action though, where possible, to guard against any possible misunderstanding of my views.

I think you just love mental masturbation...@kmaz

@Leetx Hey, don’t get religious and say masturbation is wrong.

@yvilletom

Stix48 and Leetx were not interested in showing respect for themselves and others and so I have had to block them. I don't know everything about how blocking works, but hopefully that means they will no longer be able to participate in or deliberately disrupt this thread, or others that I may create, but I don't know.

I'm here to discuss in a mutually-respectful way, as time permits. Thanks for trying to do that.

One of the basic points here, to put things a different way, is that for years right-of-center folks have stated a concern that left-of-center folks are taking the country toward "socialism". This accusation has been a key point used to justify massive demonization of left-of-center folks.

In my own view, all (or most) good lies contain a shred of truth, and in my own view, there is some socialism inherent to some of the left-of-center-agenda. It is not the immediate danger to the fate of the nation that the right-of-center folks have stated, but I think it would be worth discussing rather than just getting to office and then going over the top with one's proposals, and ignoring virtually every word of concern from the right. I'm not sure I've heard or seen a conversation where a prominent left-of-center politician (other than Sanders who is a self-described Socialist) addresses themselves to whether their goals are socialist, and if so, then whether they are good or bad.

There is a school of thought in government philosophy that the purpose of government, in some idealized systems, is not to redistribute wealth and provide for the needs of people, but to protect individual property rights. I subscribe to this school of thought, and so speak it, more or less, and recognize the germ of the idea, in what the crazed fascism-advocating right-of-center folks are saying. They are saying that any redistributed wealth has to come from somewhere, and that it is morally wrong physically to take it from some folks and give it to others - that this is not their concept of government and that they oppose it on moral principle. When someone opposes something on moral principle it is a powerful thing. When I see left-of-center folks express amazement at the persistence and high voting numbers of some right-of-center positions, I think to myself they should be more aware that they are being opposed not just because many right of center folks are weak-minded and delusional, but also because somewhere in the right's reasoning are moral prinicples of their own. I never see this laid out as a bridge between right and left discussions, so I am laying it out.

It is perhaps worth noting that while we are speaking "Blue Dog Democrats" and a few loan moderate republicans are trying with some effort, that in my opinion we should respect, to get some of the legislative business done. When I see somewhat extreme-seeming left-wing proposals that seem to ignore the right's concerns, I do think those left-wing folks have their own (different) moral principles they are trying to honor, but I also think they are being so willfully tone-deaf that (in my opinion) they need to be faulted.

@kmaz I understand blocking to work the way you described it, but instead of saying I had to block Stix48 and Leetx I would’ve said I chose to block them. I do not easily surrender control.

There are issues between left and right and I see them in pretty much the same way that you do. The media seem to give more air time to the tone-deaf people on both sides.