What do "Progressives" want?

[Tristyn]

Seriously, what is the goal of your agenda? Give it to me point by point. And if you can, tell me how you intend to get there.

It's not what we want, it's what we need.

It's time for single-payer healthcare
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1447190

 

[HisArpy]

Yep, activist-interventionalist government, which is why the meltdown over Kavanaugh.

Some of their more destructive interventions were the Progressive income tax, the 17th Amendment and most of what FDR did.

I don't necessarily like how he did it, but FDR changed the world.

Prior to the meltdown in 1929, most people had mortgages in which they only paid the interest and renewed the mortgage every 5 years. When the bank thought they were too old to work anymore, or too poor, the bank foreclosed and took the property, often leaving older people homeless. The crash of '29 emphasized how bad this was by way of the fact that a lot of younger American's suffered the same fate when the banks called the mortgage due to pay their margin calls and the people couldn't pay.

The New Deal changed all of that. Fixed term mortgages became the norm. People who wouldn't save for tomorrow or a rainy day were now being forced to save by the Federal Government program called Social Security. Older people who hadn't already done their saving for retirement, were given a handout.

It wasn't necessarily a good idea. It did help end the recession and restructure the way American's thought but for what advantage? People still don't save. They still don't consider the financial ramifications of their spending habits. And home prices began that inexorable climb because people didn't care about the cost since the bank that owned the property would lend them the money anyway.

Today, most American's depend on Social Security being there for them. They overspend their earnings on the next shiny gadget to come along and give no thought to their future. The ones who would like to control their financial destiny gripe about how the Gov is "forcing" them to pay for other people's lifelong partying habit. Medicare was an expansion that supposedly no one saw coming, yet was inevitable given how the gov works when it comes to the American citizen's money. Single payer is yet another inevitability as long as stupid people depend on someone else to save their asses from their own attempts at financial self destruction.

Most of this is thanks to FDR's New Deal changing the way American's treat their finances. Yes, it has saved a lot of people a ton of heartache. Yet, in reality, it has changed nothing and cost us dearly. People still don't save for retirement or the future. They have to sell the family home and move to smaller digs in order to be able to afford to live on their Soc Sec pensions. And politicians have raided the Soc Sec trust fund so many times the vault door is off its hinges and the shelves are almost bare.

In essence, DC has become an extension of the financial habits of the people themselves. There is no thought for the future, just spend and grab the newest shiny object and let tomorrow take care of itself. Prior to FDR's new deal, this wasn't the way our gov worked and I question if 22 trillion dollars of Federal debt wasn't the intended goal in the first place. The people of America have been harnessed into working for the rest of the world in order to pay off the debt incurred by their government in the name of "protecting them". What better way to control the freedom loving, than to make them want to be slaves.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Well, feel free to praise the short-term gain (including the prolonging of the Depression), but the long-term damage of enabling the State to rush in and fix every little grievance has led to a Leviathan that we simply cannot finance or rein in and with each new Congress, the need for the politicians to do "something" for the people to justify their existence further endangers our long-term stability. And even this morning we see a self-described Progressive clambering for the government to take over as the single-payer of healthcare. The Progressive movement is like the Civil Rights movement; there is never a moment when they are sated and each and every "victory" just results in the redefinition of what they are fighting for at the moment.

 

[SpeareChucker]

The only reason that you can even begin to make the contention that the National Government resembles the spending of the people is that it no longer has to answer to the people which is what happens when you surrender local control to a far-off "Forbidden City" run by a gaggle of Dowager Empresses who seem to exist only to enhance their personal and family wealth. Each representative now represents hundreds of thousands of people who they don;t have to meet or interact with. That's what the Founders feared. Government only works well when it's close to home and you have to look your neighbor's in the eye when you make a decision.

 

[Tristyn]

Well, feel free to praise the short-term gain (including the prolonging of the Depression), but the long-term damage of enabling the State to rush in and fix every little grievance has led to a Leviathan that we simply cannot finance or rein in and with each new Congress, the need for the politicians to do "something" for the people to justify their existence further endangers our long-term stability. And even this morning we see a self-described Progressive clambering for the government to take over as the single-payer of healthcare. The Progressive movement is like the Civil Rights movement; there is never a moment when they are sated and each and every "victory" just results in the redefinition of what they are fighting for at the moment.

It's a shame you don't feel the American people deserve access to quality, affordable healthcare.

 

[Adre]

It's a shame you don't feel the American people deserve access to quality, affordable healthcare.

He has his (as long as his spouse works). Fuck everyone else!

 

[phrodeau]

Even guns that protect hillary and barry after they are out of office? When they are in the midst of their loving public?

And you hate Ivanka because she is pretty. You are not.

Your soul is black. Or dead, you choose.

The general population of Republicans were fired up on by a deranged Democrat, in a fucking softball game retard. You should have been a bat girl or bev babe for that game sweetie.

Is it really impossible for you to argue in support of the Second Amendment without suggesting that opponents should be shot? It really weakens your argument, that.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Toejam. The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[coati]

That is our current reality. The President did not win the popular vote, and the 51 Senate Republicans represent fewer citizens than the 49 Senate Democrats.

And that situation has been defined as the largest political mandate in Amerikan history (along with the corroborating evidence of the largest crowd ever at the inauguration).

 

[HisArpy]

It's a shame you don't feel the American people deserve access to quality, affordable healthcare.

No one says they don't. Anyone and everyone are free to emigrate to whatever socialist country they desire for whatever reason they choose. So long as the socialist country accepts them that is.

The whole "quality and affordable" argument is nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan. Yes, some countries have nationalized HC and everyone is covered. What you don't talk about is the fact that the coverage isn't worth much.

Yes, you can see the doctor if you have a sniffle or need your little blue pills. But, what happens when you need something specialized? Ogg (I think it's Ogg) advocates for the national HC in Great Britain as a model of success. Yet he admits that for "the best" HC everyone goes to the US or the EU.

Why? If nationalized HC is so good, WHY do those people need to go elsewhere for treatment? Why the 2 tiers for HC in those places? And why don't you mention that when you talk about "quality"?

And, here's the next question; if YOU need HC, don't you want the best there is? Or are you willing to settle for "second rate"?

Then I have a final question; the HC industry depends on innovation to advance treatments for things like cancer. What's interesting is that those advances rarely to never seem to come from places that have nationalized HC. Why is that?

 

[phrodeau]

No one says they don't. Anyone and everyone are free to emigrate to whatever socialist country they desire for whatever reason they choose. So long as the socialist country accepts them that is.

The whole "quality and affordable" argument is nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan. Yes, some countries have nationalized HC and everyone is covered. What you don't talk about is the fact that the coverage isn't worth much.

Yes, you can see the doctor if you have a sniffle or need your little blue pills. But, what happens when you need something specialized? Ogg (I think it's Ogg) advocates for the national HC in Great Britain as a model of success. Yet he admits that for "the best" HC everyone goes to the US or the EU.

Why? If nationalized HC is so good, WHY do those people need to go elsewhere for treatment? Why the 2 tiers for HC in those places? And why don't you mention that when you talk about "quality"?

And, here's the next question; if YOU need HC, don't you want the best there is? Or are you willing to settle for "second rate"?

Then I have a final question; the HC industry depends on innovation to advance treatments for things like cancer. What's interesting is that those advances rarely to never seem to come from places that have nationalized HC. Why is that?

I think it's obvious that a lot of people are willing to settle for second-rate health care. They want to overturn the ACA, don't they?

Besides, if plain beads and rattles will do the trick, using huge shiny American beads and rattles will only be more expensive.

 

[HisArpy]

I think it's obvious that a lot of people are willing to settle for second-rate health care. They want to overturn the ACA, don't they?

Besides, if plain beads and rattles will do the trick, using huge shiny American beads and rattles will only be more expensive.

I do believe your premise is backward. But, that's exactly on par with the rest of your comments here, so it's understandable.

 

[phrodeau]

I do believe your premise is backward. But, that's exactly on par with the rest of your comments here, so it's understandable.

Oh, please show me where any Republicans made efforts to improve health care when the ACA was drafted.

 

[Rightguide]

Seriously, what is the goal of your agenda? Give it to me point by point. And if you can, tell me how you intend to get there.

Read the Communist Party Platform, it will summarize their wants and needs.

 

[SpeareChucker]

lol



Republicans were shut out. It was a purely partisan bill...

 

[HisArpy]

Oh, please show me where any Republicans made efforts to improve health care when the ACA was drafted.

You keep picking them up and moving them so often that those goalposts of yours must not be very heavy.

Of course, phantom images and fleeting ideas really never are substantial, are they?

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

https://pisces.bbystatic.com/image2/BestBuy_US/images/products/2818/28187204_sa.jpg;maxHeight=640;maxWidth=550

 

[Sean]

lol



Republicans were shut out. It was a purely partisan bill...

This is an utter lie, as usual.

 

[BotanyBoy]

See here. Note all the subject-buttons on the left side of the page.

I love the first bullet point.

Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

Mother fuckers can't even define "fair share in taxes" they just want wealth redistribution.....government administration over the distribution of goods and services.

Their entire platform (according to KO's link) is advocating government control over the means of production and administration over the distribution of goods and services.

"Progressive" is a rebranding of socialism.

The distinction is real enough.

The radicals blaze the trail.

The progressives build the cabins.

The liberals move in after the showers have been installed.

You keep saying that.

But progressives don't build shit, they get the government to go shove a gun in someone else's face and take it from them.

And the liberals (actual liberals not the socialist you like to pretend are liberals) are the radicals.

No, to build a progressive majority. Wasn't that clear enough? As a substantial minority, progressives could get their way sometimes, but not "dictate" anything.

Of course they would dictate as the majority and their objective is to do exactly that with regard to how everyone else spends their money.

The page you linked....

https://ourrevolution.com/issues/


The whole "progressive" platform revolves around progressives spending everyone else's money for them. Dictating how everyone spends their money is the CORE principal of your politics.

QUOTE=Tristyn;89862229]It's not what we want, it's what we need.

It's time for single-payer healthcare
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1447190[/QUOTE]

No.

We've done just fine.

It's a shame you don't feel the American people deserve access to quality, affordable healthcare.

They have it.

He has his (as long as his spouse works). Fuck everyone else!

How is that "fuck everyone else"?

They can pay for their HC too...just like everyone else.

 

[SpeareChucker]

This is an utter lie, as usual.

No, it was a point that went over your head. I am so very sorry.

 

[Kirkrapine]

And you hate Ivanka because she is pretty. You are not.

Everybody hates Ivanka, and not because she's pretty.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Yep, activist-interventionalist government, which is why the meltdown over Kavanaugh.

Some of their more destructive interventions were the Progressive income tax, the 17th Amendment and most of what FDR did.

Now, what's wrong with any of those things?!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh, please show me where any Republicans made efforts to improve health care when the ACA was drafted.

Why should they?

It's not what they support.

Question is why did the Democrats decide to go with a butchered (R)epublican scam instead of a decent HC system???

Oh noes asking that question would grind your partisan brain into dust now wouldn't it?

This is an utter lie, as usual.

Then name the Republicans who voted for ACA you cowardly shit.....

 

[Kirkrapine]

Of course they would dictate as the majority . . .

Just as the Republicans do now. SFW?

 

[Kirkrapine]

Question is why did the Democrats decide to go with a butchered (R)epublican scam instead of a decent HC system???

Because even with Dems in control of the WH and Congress, the health-insurance lobby was too powerful to ignore. Note how quickly Obama caved on the "public option."

If progressives were in control, that might play out differently.