What on earth was Gerald Ford?

[Dena]

Where does that different view say anything about what we're talking about?  What's happening in the U.S. (and elsewhere) is called a plutocracy, where those with money make the laws, usually to their own benefit.   Trump's recent health care act in the U.S. is a perfect example of this, where the government takes from the average person and gives benefit to the wealthy.  It's just another example of Reaganomics.

I try not to argue politics on the site because it can cause hurt feelings and that's something that a moderator shouldn't do. I will say that I have studied this in great detail and where we are now is the result of about 150 years of history. The transition point for what we have today started with the 16th and 17th amendment when we went from the government our founding fathers envisioned to what we have today. The 18th amendment cut off a major source of government funding and the 16th replaced the funding with a far more lucrative source putting the money into politics.

[Deborah]

And just because Jesus said he wanted to help the poor doesn't make it any more right or wrong for the government to do so. I doubt he had the government in mind.

The Republicans are continually harping that this is a Christian country founded on Christian values.  If that is truly so the the government certainly should reflect that in more ways than simply restricting abortion.   Providing universal access to decent healthcare would be a start.

I guess they just like the sound of their words without embracing all they connote.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

[Cindy]

Let us be careful where this interesting discussion is going and maybe try to keep it on track in non-partisan way?

May I put forward a point from maybe a wild field.

Politics and in particular democratic and socialist political point of views have not weathered well with the opening of debate from 'commoners' through social media and the internet. Our values as humans seldom change. We are born, we need nutrient, we breed, we die. How we do this is the basis of social evolution.

Ignoring local issues, as in USA, v Russia v Europe v Asia, (and the local politics involved) how do we as humans who now transcend countries deal with the remnants of an archaic local political system.?What is the forward vision rather than the clinging to the structures?

I'll have sensible debate and comment but let us be mature and sensible. Please!

[Barb99]

how do we as humans who now transcend countries deal with the remnants of an archaic local political system.?What is the forward vision rather than the clinging to the structures?

Cindy, I love this view point! This is the kind of thing we should all be thinking about.
I have worked in manufacturing for many years and I firmly believe that we will someday get to the point that we have eliminated most jobs through automation. When we get to that point and no one has to work much anymore what happens to all of our economic systems? How do we prepare for something like that.

Something like this may be closer that we think. Manufacturing jobs over the last 50 years have been eliminated through automation and process improvements. The majority of those lost jobs didn't go to other countries, they simply don't exist anymore. For those of you not involved in manufacturing, there are some amazing things being implemented now that will continue to drive down costs and eliminate even more of those jobs.

[Deborah]

I believe it's coming too.  It will require a wholesale restructuring of the economic system as capitalism will no longer be relevant.  The biggest obstacle we will face will be changing the way people think since for a large segment of America capitalism is thought of in nearly religious terms.

Unfortunately, as much thinking as I have done on the subject, I have failed to come up with a solution.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

[AnneK]

When we get to that point and no one has to work much anymore what happens to all of our economic systems? How do we prepare for something like that.

It wasn't that long ago, that people worked 5.5 or 6 days per week.  As productivity increased, the work week was shortened.  This meant the increased productivity was shared with the employees, instead of all the benefit going to the top.

I'll have sensible debate and comment but let us be mature and sensible. Please!

Aww, Gee...  That's no fun! 

[Dena]

I believe it's coming too.  It will require a wholesale restructuring of the economic system as capitalism will no longer be relevant.  The biggest obstacle we will face will be changing the way people think since for a large segment of America capitalism is thought of in nearly religious terms.

Unfortunately, as much thinking as I have done on the subject, I have failed to come up with a solution.

The reason it's so difficult is because people are greedy and favor taking care of themselves or their family before they would consider caring for others. Capitalism is the best was to allocate resources when greed is a part of the system. Unless you can figure out a way to override the basic human nature of greed, you will find it very difficult to replace capitalism.

If you consider this view wrong, then let me ask you a question. Would you give up the money used for your medical treatment so that another could receive treatment? I thought not. There isn't a problem with greed unless you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. Greed is healthy and it keeps you alive as long as it doesn't harm another.

[Deborah]

I agree with your diagnosis.  It is Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy which is the cornerstone of conservatism today.

I believe your question is flawed.  The issue for the future is how to provide for a growing population where the work no longer exists for them to earn money for anything.  Capitalism has worked in the past because work existed for people.  Under future conditions where work is scarce, capitalism relegates an ever increasing segment of the population to homelessness, starvation, and death.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

[redhot1]

No, there is conservatism and libertarianism. Conservatives are more about the enforcement of tradition or norms, but libertarians are more like live and let live. There is a little difference.

[Dena]

It isn't capitalism that's causing these problems, it's government interference. Paying people not to work and then importing labor to fill the jobs that nobody is taking is a major portion of the problem. In addition, with so much of the profits transferred from companies to the government, there is little incentive for business to expand. It's possible that some day in the future the need for labor will be reduced but that could be solved by a shorter work day or a shorter work week.

One of the issues with the homeless dates back to Lessard v. Schmidt (something I know a great deal about having lived with the stories most of my life). It's no longer possible to help people who need mental help if they don't want it. Many of the people on the street need medications which they are unwilling to take thus resulting in a major portion of the homeless population.

[AnneK]

In addition, with so much of the profits transferred from companies to the government, there is little incentive for business to expand.

That goes back to Reaganomics, cut taxes, create more jobs and everyone benefits.  The problem is it has long been shown to be nonsense.  Unless taxes are excessive, and they're no where near that, then tax cuts will only help the wealthy and corporations, precisely as has happened over the past 3 decades.  When the money is transferred to the government, what happens to it?  Does it just disappear in a puff of smoke?  Or does it get spent helping people, building infrastructure, buying stuff from businesses etc.?  No, it doesn't just disappear, it gets moved into a different part of the economy, to where it's needed.  Throughout most of history, the money has always moved up, benefiting only the few, with the bulk of the population barely surviving.  By redistributing the wealth, the standard of living for the entire population improved.  It's not hard to make the argument that the government has the responsibility to help everyone, not just the privileged few.  They do that through taxes, with the wealthier paying a greater share.  That is the only way forward, with declining employment.  Unchecked capitalism is the cause of many problems.  While I am certainly in favour of capitalism, it must be moderated, so all benefit.

[Dena]

That goes back to Reaganomics, cut taxes, create more jobs and everyone benefits.  The problem is it has long been shown to be nonsense.  Unless taxes are excessive, and they're no where near that, then tax cuts will only help the wealthy and corporations, precisely as has happened over the past 3 decades.  When the money is transferred to the government, what happens to it?  Does it just disappear in a puff of smoke?  Or does it get spent helping people, building infrastructure, buying stuff from businesses etc.?  No, it doesn't just disappear, it gets moved into a different part of the economy, to where it's needed.  Throughout most of history, the money has always moved up, benefiting only the few, with the bulk of the population barely surviving.  By redistributing the wealth, the standard of living for the entire population improved.  It's not hard to make the argument that the government has the responsibility to help everyone, not just the privileged few.  They do that through taxes, with the wealthier paying a greater share.  That is the only way forward, with declining employment.  Unchecked capitalism is the cause of many problems.  While I am certainly in favour of capitalism, it must be moderated, so all benefit.

Warren Harding/Calvin Coolidge at Andrew Mellon's recommendation  did it and it resulted in the roaring twenties.
Congress forced Truman to do resulting in the real end of the great depression and it resulted in the Eisenhower years of prosperity.
John F Kennedy did it and it resulted in a healthy economy which helped pay for the Vietnam War.
Art Laffer studied Warren/Coolidge, coming up with the Laffer curve which pulled us out of a really deep depression and because of a Republican congress, made Clinton look very good.
There is a chain of history that is often overlooked and it's unless you look at all of history, it's easy to simplify the solution resulting in more damage instead of a fix.

[Deborah]

Congress forced Truman to do resulting in the real end of the great depression and it resulted in the Eisenhower years of prosperity.

Not to mention the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII and still recovering through the 1950s.  That alone enabled our manufacturing base to operate throughout that period with no competition.  That is arguably why the 1950s were prosperous regardless of the tax rate.

Those economic conditions no longer exist. 



Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

[Dena]

Not to mention the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII and still recovering through the 1950s.  That alone enabled our manufacturing base to operate throughout that period with no competition.  That is arguably why the 1950s were prosperous regardless of the tax rate.

Those economic conditions no longer exist. 



Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

I would agree that's somewhat true however we were also spending to rebuild Japan, Germany and Europe. Also after WWII we returned to the an economic slump and something was needed to kick start industry as it was no longer powered by a war time economy. The Truman tax cut wasn't large and the resultant tax rates were still pretty high but at that level, any reduction in taxes helped.

[redhot1]

Did this thread turn into a debate between capitalism vs socialism?

[SailorMars1994]

Did this thread turn into a debate between capitalism vs socialism?

Looks like it xD

Back to Ford, he is the only President to survive TWO assassination attempts... Can you say da' Boss? lol

[SadieBlake]

Dena, I'd disagree on quite a few of your points of causation however I have neither the stomach nor the inclination to take up that debate here.

Your original question in this thread was a strawman about how I'd allocate my own healthcare $. Let me say, since we're talking politics, not economics I feel the better question is do I vote my wallet or my conscience.

I have yet to vote my wallet over my conscience. Whether casting a vote against Tip O'Neil (arguably the most corrupt polnof his day and very good at bringing federal $ home to my state) or in voting for liberals when I was well off and conservatives when I was poor.

I will also say I choose to spend my money toward the greatest good. I don't buy anything from Walmart, where possible i buy local and where possible i buy US manufacture. I only eat organic both for my own health and the health of the planet. I don't eat meat from feedlots (fed by tax subsidized corn and requiring huge doses of antibiotics just to tolerate the unnatural feed).

All of these choices mean I have less stuff than I might otherwise. I'm happier and healthier with the simpler life I have now.

[SadieBlake]

@sm ford was cool enough however I don't forgive his choice to pardon dick Nixon.

Also, I forget who posted it but the America first movement was a shameful thing in our history. Roosevelt was supporting Britain long before Congress allowed and the America firsters wanted to keep us out of the war for selfish, not pacifist reasons.

[jentay1367]

It's actually hard for me to even consider Gerry a Prez since no one elected him to do the job and they threw him out at the first opportunity for a Peanut Farmer. No other person that held the office was not elected at least once. Hence, I see Mr. Ford as a caretaker between Nixon and Carter.