TexasTiger

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

i have my mothers bible. and not really. christ was about love and that is good enough for me. the bible has been used of the years to hurt others. hell  they used it to justify having slaves in the south.it has been used to hurt gays .also the book has been translated so many times not knowing certain meanings and getting it wrong like the rapture. you guys can laugh all you want but you believe what you want and i will keep my own beliefs. i have seen some of you folks that claim to be christian sling hate and even threats.

How did you learn Christ was about love? I learned from the Bible.

3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

but include Bill of Rights and the constitution.

As God originally intended, but damn human error.

12 minutes ago, alanevans said:

Read your Bible jackass

Sounds like Old Testament.

9 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Of course. Personal observation - to support it the indigenous culture must be rule of law oriented at a personal level (such as Scandinavia) or strong government models inherently corrupt, go kick back/ bribe crazy,  and becomes unworkable  (ie Russia, Latin America, Africa, SE Asia). Even French culture often struggles with this (ie Haiti and even historically New Orleans).

My only point is you’re suggesting a very nuanced and sophisticated model that is highly dependent on an educated and rule of law-based society. The US is such a cultural  hodgepodge, I’m not sure.

Again, I’m not suggesting blanket adoption. If I run a company, I’m scrutinizing the competition to see what they do well and what we may adapt. But the conservative default has long be  derisive dismissal. There are reasons for this, which at the point of origin, probably aren’t rooted in ignorance, but self interest. I was raised with this propaganda and largely believed it. Travel opened my eyes. Further research opened it more. All that said, I believe in democracy and you have to sell it. That’s a tall order and no one is doing it particularly well. Bernie was more effective than most, but still too ideological. There’s a pragmatic case to make for doing somethings differently. For example, focus on what’s not working— health care premiums, copays, out of pocket expenses. Focus on which alternative systems work best. Detaching health insurance from particular jobs frees entrepreneurial opportunity- there’s a capitalist case for universal healthcare, and I don’t mean just enriching insurance companies that most people already hate.
 

What elements make sense? What works better? What can we tweak or adjust? It’s poor management/leadership to not ask those questions. It’s poor management/leadership to not recognize the challenges to change, also.

30 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Scale, diversity, culture (US is WAY more about individualism and many currently distrust gov running things at any level), international role,  tax shock - many American would go nuts. Pretty different.

If your point is only about their healthcare system - maybe.  Though given the current debt the timing could be better.

Nonetheless,  you have fair point to challenge the status quo. 

But go nuts at what, exactly?

One of the selling points of federalism is having 50 laboratories to try things out and see what works and what may be adapted elsewhere. We’ve long thought that other countries should be more like us— and for years we had processes and approaches that others adapted. It’s obviously overly simplistic to expect a huge, diverse country with our history to adopt broad wholesale changes overnight based on much smaller, homogeneous countries, but I often see these countries dismissed out of hand with little (and usually no) analysis which seems unwise and counterproductive. I’m always curious about what other organizations (and in this case countries) do well and what can be learned.

A few years ago conservative social media went crazy over a report that McDonald’s paid $20 an hour in Denmark. It was broadly panned as “socialism” run amok and paying low skill menial labor too much. Then we soon after reached the conclusion such labor is “essential.”

I revisited Denmark shortly after and was curious about the McDonald’s. Visited a few different venues. Most efficient, well-run McDonalds I’d ever visited and the prices were pretty in line with ours. Even an attractive “value menu.” Employees were sharp, friendly, fast-moving and looked like folks who could work in any office. What’s the problem? Why the derision?

When certain countries consistently report the highest level of life satisfaction, surely they are worth examining for possible improvements, aren’t they?

8 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i have no use for the bible and all the translations it has gone through. so i cling to jesus and try to do right

Don’t you rely on the Bible to know Christ’s teachings?

27 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Dear lord not the Scandinavian counties again😇  I understand your point, I love Copenhagen (but translating that to the US…), and we agree the Dems have a potential opportunity. 

I don’t think we become Denmark for many reasons. But I see most people mischaracterizing “European socialism,” so I was wondering what your specific issues are with it. The stores and malls I visited were higher end than most here, well stocked and doing brisk business. The airports are much nicer. Even a country like Portugal, I’ve seen food courts in department stores that were mind blowing. Most Americans criticizing it have no clue, but I know you do— thus my question.

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

As has been mentioned before, there is current vacuum on economic ideology  - with both sides almost fixated on social issues.  While I disagree with Bernie’s  European socialism, a lot, I agree that there is an opportunity for Dems to reengage with labor along these lines. Beyond grade school protectionism/tariffing - maga has no clue or message on this dinner table topic.  

Let’s take Denmark, for example— what do you like? Take issue with?

On 5/13/2024 at 2:38 PM, homersapien said:

By Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz is a professor of economics at Columbia University and winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics. His newest book is “The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society.”

Amid another election season, our impulse to debate American democracy through a single political lens is understandable. But we’d be better served considering a second closely related question too: Which economic system serves the most people?

On one side of the economic debate are those who believe in largely unfettered markets, in which companies are allowed to agglomerate market power or pollute or exploit. They believe firms should maximize shareholder value, doing whatever they can get away with, because bigger profits serve the common good.

The most famous 20th-century proponents of this low-tax/low-regulation shareholder-centric economy, often referred to as neoliberalism, are Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. These Nobel Prize-winning economists took the idea beyond the economy, claiming this kind of economic system was necessary to achieve political freedom.

They worried about the growth of government in the aftermath of the Great Depression, when under the influence of John Maynard Keynes, the state was taking on new responsibilities to stabilize the economy. In “Capitalism and Freedom,” Friedman argued that “free markets” were indispensable to ensure political freedom. In Hayek’s words, government overreach would lead us down “The Road to Serfdom.”

We’ve now had four decades of the neoliberal “experiment,” beginning with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The results are clear. Neoliberalism expanded the freedom of corporations and billionaires to do as they will and amass huge fortunes, but it also exacted a steep price: the well-being and freedom of the rest of society.

Neoliberals’ political analysis was even worse than their economics, with perhaps even graver consequences. Friedman and his acolytes failed to understand an essential feature of freedom: that there are two kinds, positive and negative; freedom to do and freedom from harm. “Free markets” alone fail to provide economic stability or security against the economic vagaries they create, let alone allow large fractions of the population to live up to their potential. Government is needed to deliver both. In doing so, government expands freedom in multiple ways.

The road to authoritarianism is not paved by government doing too much but too little.

The surge in support for populism, especially of the ugly nationalist variety, has many causes. It would be overly simplistic to ascribe it just to economics. Still, it is no coincidence that populist nationalism is a graver threat in countries such as Israel, the Philippines and the United States than in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, where high-quality free public education, strong unemployment benefits and robust public health care free their citizens from the common American anxieties over how to pay for their children’s education or their medical bills.

Discontent festers in places facing unaddressed economic stresses, where people feel a loss of control over their destinies; where too little is done to address unemployment, economic insecurity and inequality. This provides a fertile field for populist demagogues — who are in ample supply everywhere. In the United States, this has given us  Donald Trump.

We care about freedom from hunger, unemployment and poverty — and, as FDR emphasized, freedom from fear. People with just enough to get by don’t have freedom — they do what they must to survive. And we need to focus on giving more people the freedom to live up to their potential, to flourish and to be creative. An agenda that would increase the number of children growing up in poverty or parents worrying about how they are going to pay for health care — necessary for the most basic freedom, the freedom to live — is not a freedom agenda.

Champions of the neoliberal order, moreover, too often fail to recognize that one person’s freedom is another’s unfreedom — or, as Isaiah Berlin put it, freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep. Freedom to carry a gun may mean death to those who are gunned down in the mass killings that have become an almost daily occurrence in the United States. Freedom not to be vaccinated or wear masks may mean others lose the freedom to live.

There are trade-offs, and trade-offs are the bread and butter of economics. The climate crisis shows that we have not gone far enough in regulating pollution; giving more freedom to corporations to pollute reduces the freedom of the rest of us to live a healthy life — and in the case of those with asthma, even the freedom to live. Freeing bankers from what they claimed to be excessively burdensome regulations put the rest of us at risk of a downturn potentially as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s when the banking system imploded in 2008. This forced society to provide banks hundreds of billions of dollars in the largest bailout ever. The rest of society faced a reduction in their freedoms in so many ways — including the freedom from the fear of losing one’s house, one’s job and, with that, one’s health insurance.

Sometimes, how these trade-offs should be made is obvious: We should curtail corporations’ freedom to exploit workers, consumers and communities. Sometimes the trade-offs are more complex; how to assess them is more difficult. But just because they’re difficult is no reason to shirk addressing them, to pretend that they don’t exist.

Some cases of unfreedom can benefit a society as a whole, expanding the freedom of all, or at least most, citizens. Stop lights — which curtail my freedom to cross the intersection — provide a good example. Without them, there would be gridlock. Their intrusion on my freedom enhances that of all of us — in a fundamental sense, even my freedom.

This reasoning applies broadly. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reminded us that if we are to be free from the fear of harm coming from outside, we need defense, and that has to be paid for. We also need money to make the necessary social investments for a 21st-century economy — in basic research and technology, in infrastructure, in education, and in health. (Much of the country’s success evolves from initial research done at our universities, all either state-supported or nonprofits.) This all requires tax revenue. And taxation, as we know, requires compulsion to prevent the free-riding by some on the contributions of others.

Neoliberal capitalism has thus failed in its own economic terms: It has not delivered growth, let alone shared prosperity. But it has also failed in its promise of putting us on a secure road to democracy and freedom, and it has instead set us on a populist route raising the prospects of a 21st-century fascism. These would-be authoritarian populists reduce our freedom while failing to deliver on their promises, as the form of crony capitalism offered by Trump illustrates. The elimination of Obamacare or a tax cut for billionaires and corporations funded in part by a tax increase for the rest of us would decrease the security, well-being and freedom of ordinary Americans. Trump’s first administration gives a glimmer of what a second might look like.

There is an alternative. A 21st-century economy can only be managed through decentralization, entailing a rich set of institutions — from profit-making firms to cooperatives, unions, an engaged civil society, nonprofits and public institutions. I call this new set of economic arrangements “progressive capitalism.” Central are government regulations and public investments, financed by taxation. Progressive capitalism is an economic system that will not only lead to greater productivity, prosperity and equality but also help set all of us on a road to greater freedoms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/13/stiglitz-captialism-economics-democracy-book/

Bernie hit a chord in 2016– on progressive economics with little mention of identity politics. If democrats could hone that message they’d get a lot more traction.

40 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you believe what she said or what is in the written policy?

 

Link that for me, instead.

Pretty low key, perfunctory boom. No punctuation, but at least he capitalized the first letter.

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What’s the point with States Attorney like this:

 

 

Not what she actually said.

9 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I was in a small town in Ga once with a group of poorer folks. Some were talking to me and worrying if they afford feeding their kids. And then a couple of them proudly showed me their new high end Glocks and Barettas they had just bought earlier at a gun show. Probably several weeks salary.

For them it wasn’t cultural, it was almost primal.

Sad. Also tribal. And that’s a change from 40 years ago.

14 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

And on top of it, high powered guns have become so cultural they’ve become adult cuddle toys for many.

This. When I was young, folks had guns, but few had gun fetishes. Gun fetishes are common now.

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t have a solution, but just blaming the gun is the easy way out.  Any, you’re right, it would take a concerted effort that would last a long time.  The entertainment industry would have to be fully on board.

Like the debt— stop making it worse.

It took Ross Perot doing 30 minute commercials to sell the American public on taking action on the debt. Since him, few politicians have wanted to risk prescribing unpleasant medicine. Part of me thinks a clear thinking, common sense, non partisan candidate could have some success with a no-nonsense problem solving approach. That won't happen as long Trump dominates the Republican Party. He has no interest in solving problems. Every instinct he has is totally self-serving. He will poo poo any solution and for some unknown, bizarre reason he has a strangle hold on the GOP. Reelecting him kills any chance of solving anything. If he loses again, maybe a problem solving "conservative" can get a toe hold. Such a person who doesn't alienate independents will put pressure of the Dems to be problem solvers. Strengthening Trump is a disaster for the country. Biden winning doesn't really strengthen Democrats or any other candidate. It would begin the 2028 election on both sides.

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

I would have never done business with the guy. Can’t believe he had opportunity to bankrupt so many “high profile” projects. Most developers are a bit sketchy iMO. If they can beg investors and borrow they will bulldoze and build.

I very much question Trumps ability to manage the debt. Are we to a point were it unmanageable? Seems we need tough decisions and some type of reset.

We need to stop adding to it at the very least. Hopefully, over time and the growth of the economy (a long, long time) the impact of it will lessen. It starts with working toward a balanced budget. That requires more revenue and cuts. The last President to run on raising taxes was Bill Clinton. Joe wants to raised them now on higher income folks. Trump wants to slash them. Slashing taxes is popular. Dubya set us on this unsustainable path. Affable guy, total disaster as president. 

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

He is not honestly factual with Trump. Trump has never personally bankrupted. He has been involved with develop ventures that filed. Perfectly legal and often the right thing to do. Not desirable but fairly commonplace with development. 
 

With the debt I don’t read anything that says Biden will work on it.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4389558-joe-bidens-extremist-spending-is-a-danger-to-the-us/
 

“The Biden White House dishonestly blames GOP-led tax cuts under Donald Trump for “90% of the debt increase.” For the record: under the Trump administration, the debt went up significantly only after Congress passed relief measures aimed at keeping the COVID-impaired economy afloat. In his first three years, the debt rose by $3.3 trillion — too much, for sure, but nothing compared to the $6.25 trillion jump in debt during Biden’s first three years. And there has been no emergency to excuse Biden’s spending.  

Here is the truth: Joe Biden’s entire legacy is built on doling out unprecedented amounts of money.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/06/politics/fact-check-biden-cut-debt-surplus-corporate-tax-unemployment/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/05/14/biden-national-debt-payments-social-security/73670903007/

 

“The national debt is already at $34 trillion and is quickly hurtling toward $35 trillion (it was roughly $27 trillion when Biden took office). “

And I won’t argue with you or anyone else saying there’s little to no evidence Biden will work on the debt. 
 

I do think your “well he never personally  went bankrupt is disingenuous. Would you do business with a guy that’s had 6 businesses go bankrupt? Would you question his ability to manage debt?

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Perhaps the threat to abolish the 2nd all together is needed to create that compromise.

That threat assures they’ll be no compromise. But that threat is also impossible. Repeal is amending. Same process. Virtually impossible.

16 hours ago, aubaseball said:

What exactly does this even mean?  You can “hunt people “ with anything.   If people aren’t going to change behavior, nothing will prevent killing.  

Would you rather be hunted with a knife or AR15?

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, it's not difficult to understand where the "repeal the 2nd" sentiment comes from, when gun fetishists want to openly carry assault rifles (for example)  - and pass laws allowing it - all based on 2nd Amendment "rights".

It's an amendment that we have outgrown as a society from a purely technical aspect (muskets v. assault rifles and semi-auto pistols).

We refuse to interpret in a more restrictive way, as arguably the founders intended (see the preamble.)  

Any potential changes to the amendment would be the result of compromise. The challenge is a willingness to compromise.

12 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

I think a LOT of good is done by Samaritans Purse. It is quite an operation and almost always the first helpers to get to a disaster situation.

I haven't knocked it. It's unfortunate he chooses to be polarizing.

Just now, Son of A Tiger said:

I guess we just disagree. I think son Franklin is a good guy and Samaritans Purse is a great charity operation bar none. I give them a  lot of money.

Some good may come from his actions. But his dad strived to be nonpartisan in a way that made him able to reach more people. Franklin is deeply partisan and divisive. His father was far more "Christ-like".

5 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

You seem to lump all evangelists together, And yes there are GOP politicians who follow their Christian values/beliefs. A statue of one of the greatest evangelists of our time, Billy Graham, was unveiled in the Capitol this week with several GOP politicians paying tribute.

[VIDEO] Billy Graham Statue Points to Christ in U.S. Capitol

He was a decent man. He died six years ago and stopped being active long before that. Hid son’s little acorn brain fell far from the tree. A crazy wind must’ve blown it far from his father’s roots.

55 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

No compromise is currently possible because some want to repel the 2nd amendment.

A relatively small group wants to outright repeal the amendment. More would amend it because of its vagueness and recent interpretation— it’s a mess. That’s where much opportunity for compromise lays. But there are others which most Republicans steadfastly refuse to consider. And they use arguments like this to do it.