A brits view on Trump

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I don't know if I agree to this being true. News coverage seems pretty comprehensive that leadership just want independence, not becoming a US territory. 

I can't find the original statements from the Greenlanders right now.  But the very first day that Trump posited the idea, there was a sentiment that they wanted independence so they were willing to listen to what kind of Deal Trump was offering.  At that time, they realized that they were so small that if they were completely independent, they would get taken over by hostile powers.  So, they needed an umbrella.

You are correct that no one actually said, "We want to be a US Territory."  I listened to what they said and recognized this as the status of a US Territory.  They have our protection.  But they are mostly independent.  Perhaps the Greenlanders don't realize that what they are describing is exactly what we would offer as a Territory.

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I don't disagree. Other NATO members should put more into military spending. For example British military currently has more admirals than warships, and more horses than tanks. Which I think is a disgrace. But the solution should not be to jeopardise the alliance. I'm not trying to suggest America is seeking isolation, like pre-great depression. I'm suggesting the overwhelming bad optics will lead to more distance. There has to be a more productive path forward. 

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

By this logic England should invade Egypt to reclaim the Suez canal, but when we tried that, there was no global backing, and I assume the same will be the case for any American attempts to reclaim the panama canal. The English golden age is long gone. The UK is simply not a world power these days, that privilege belongs to America and China. China's global soft power is magnificent and Xi Jinpin is an absolute genius. China basically owns Australia water supply, all of European shipping, huge swathes of manufacturing and construction, resource rights all over Africa. I honestly think China will be just fine with America out of the way, and I think Trump is allowing it. If I'm had to pick, I'd rather be an American puppet than a chinese one. 

It's not logic.  It was a condition of the treaty we had with them.  You don't seem to understand the difference between the treaty of the Suez Canal vs the treaty of the Panama Canal.  Similar situations, with different treaty conditions.

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I have unique position on Israel Gaza. I think this is a self made issue by Israel by forcing its entire Muslim population into 3 ungoverned zones, in a geopolitical area that hates your existence.

That's not true.  There are MANY Muslims who live in Israel in peace and live as citizens protected by law and military.

I would try to explain the entire history and how the entire world (backed by Israel) gave the Palestinians so many opportunities to either live in peace or build up a nation.  But that would take too long.

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

That said, Hamas, Hezbollah and all the rest are pure evil, and Israel was well within its rights to retaliate to rescue the hostages and now Hamas is being unnecessarily stubborn by refusing to hand them back over. .

We agree.

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

But here is what will happen, some day Hamas will be forced  into a position where it can no longer retain the hostages. Israel will withdraw, and neglect its Islamic ghettos, a new terror group will pick up steam, more attacks will happen. I fully support the Israeli war against Hamas, but it's their own fault in the first place, and the innocent, needless loss of life on both sides is tragic. 

I'm done trying to predict anything about this latest conflict.  But I hope they can get back to peace.

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I personally wouldn't describe myself as a socialist, more a capitalist who believes in a strong welfare state.

While TFP may have been teasing, this ^^ type of statement is exactly why I assumed you were a socialist.  Having a strong welfare state is exactly what results in government run socialism.

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

Unfortunately the UK economy is in the ----, and the welfare aspect is a mess too. 

Because of government run socialism.  So, you want the benefits of socialism, but you aren't willing to accept the mess it makes.  Well, good luck with that.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

People should be entitled to free healthcare/affordable healthcare, childcare and financial assistance in case they can't support themselves.

Why?

[Vort]

54 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Sorry, TFP, but this is a fail.  You demonstrated humor.  @HaggisShuu was talking humour.  (I think that's some French thing, but I'm afraid to google it. )

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Gray is a color. Grey is a colour.

(Saying it doesn't really help, though. People just stare blankly. They need to see it written out.)

Edited March 6 by Vort

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Hey, we've got common ground!

The article defines 'corporate welfare' as "a broad definition of corporate welfare, which includes direct cash subsidies and indirect industry support"

That's a more sane definition than I'm used to.  The '80's and '90's and 2000's were full of Dems claiming that not-taxing-corporations-as-much-money-as-we-used-to was included in that definition.    It was easy to refute.  No, leaving an entity with more of it's own money, is NOT the same thing as the government giving money to that entity.

Dems had a good reason for getting vocal about corporate taxation starting in the 80s. 

We've had 40+ years of Reaganomics, and this is where it's gotten us.

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I guess the devil's in the details.  What's "indirect industry support"?  Is that a reference to the military-industrial-complex?

From the article:

And that $181B is just at the federal level. The two main state-level issues that we're working on are 1) Opposing tax incentives for new data centers, and 2) Eliminating state funds from the reinsurance pool that health insurance companies use to help cover high cost claims without jacking up premiums. It's basically additional insurance for insurance companies. As someone with a multi-million dollar skin repair job, I can certainly appreciate the need for such a fund. I just don't think taxpayers should be footing the bill for a multi-billion dollar industry, and Minnesota is one of the few states that has it set up that way. Most states don't have a reinsurance program at all, and most of the ones that do make insurance companies pool their own money.

Edited March 6 by Phoenix_person

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Gray is a color. Grey is a colour.

Touché. (Stinking French!)

1 hour ago, Vort said:

(Saying it doesn't really help, though. People just stare blankly. They need to see it written out.)

[NeuroTypical]

26 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

We've had 40+ years of Reaganomics, and this is where it's gotten us.

Look at that lovely chart!  Look at how absolutely everyone, even the poorest and most destitute among us, have consistently climbed upwards and to the right.  It's interesting to think about how the number of millionaires America creates is always "more" as we move from year to year, decade to decade.  

From my perspective, that's what success looks like.  I get that an ever-expanding gap beween ultra- and everyone else isn't sustainable.  But I also get that hating on folks who build wealth for themselves and families is 85% of the personality of most lefties.  

Quote

Ok, but then in your next paragraph you move away from the definition and into the trap that has consumed the left for at least half a century: 

26 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

1) Opposing tax incentives for new data centers

Again, letting a data center keep more of it's profit is NOT industry support.  It is not the government writing a check to a corporation.  It is not taxing me and giving my tax money to a corporation.   It is not what the CATO article is talking about.   

 

So yeah.  Common ground on that CATO article.  Let's talk farm subsidies and cheese caves and government involvement in the insurance industry.   But there is no common ground possible when we disagree on whether govt taking is the same or different than govt giving.

Edited March 6 by NeuroTypical

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

For me, Trump is a mix of things I've hoped for since the 1980's, and stuff that worries the crap out of me.   

 

 

Most people are trying to play checkers with Trump.  A few are playing chess.  Trump is playing 3D chess (ala Star Trek) and most people do not realize that is the real game.  I do not think he is as scary as the boogey man the media is trying to paint.

[HaggisShuu]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Why?

My Grandmother had a stroke not too long ago. Being of age a full recovery is totally out of the picture. In an ideal world, a family would take her in, and we did for a time, but it became quickly apparent that we didn't have the resources to facilitate the round the clock care she would need. So we started to pay for a live in care team to help, but she continued to deteriorate. So she was moved into a care home, we paid for as long as we could, but the money ran out, so we sold her house to be able to continue to pay. Again, the money ran out. Now the state pays for her care. As a working class family, we haven't the resources in time, space or cash to care for her, and if it weren't for the free care she received now, she'd be languishing in a chair. 
 

A state which educates it's children, creates a more skilled work force, and one which looks after its population makes a healthier one. The state shouldn't have to do much, but there are people who cannot do these things for themselves. 

Edited March 6 by HaggisShuu

[HaggisShuu]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

but you aren't willing to accept the mess it makes.  Well, good luck with that.

I quite disagree. There is a balance to be made. The UK just has horrible leadership at the moment. The unchecked immigration is crippling housing and healthcare, and wasteful spending is sapping resources. But these aren't the only issues, the NHS has a bloated team of bureaucrats, and there is an issue of people in the capital buying second and third homes all over the country as a dedicated "holiday home" they spend 2 weeks in a year. These aren't a capitalist/socialist issue. Just bad governance. 
 

If the UK had been a bit more like Trump (willing to close borders and deport illegals) and cut the silly foreign spending as you suggested, the situation wouldn't be quite so dire. 

[The Folk Prophet]

14 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I do not think he is as scary as the boogey man the media is trying to paint.

I totally agree...but.... I think the potential consequences of it all are terrifying. In other words, it's the ridiculous, nonsensical, extreme, unhinged reactions to Trump that are scary. And it's not just far leftists.

The number of good, faithful, honest, intelligent, righteous people I know that blindly DESPISE Trump is shocking to me. And they're the good people.

It's very worrisome.

I've never reserved my points of view in pretty much anything with friends, family, etc., until now. Now when I have family get togethers, if politics and Trump come up...I don't say a word.

And I'm no Trump fanatic. But the fact that I think he's doing mostly well and don't hate him makes me one, apparently, in many eyes.

Edited March 7 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

56 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

There is a balance to be made.

History says otherwise.

[Carborendum]

14 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I quite disagree. There is a balance to be made. The UK just has horrible leadership at the moment. The unchecked immigration is crippling housing and healthcare, and wasteful spending is sapping resources. But these aren't the only issues, the NHS has a bloated team of bureaucrats, and there is an issue of people in the capital buying second and third homes all over the country as a dedicated "holiday home" they spend 2 weeks in a year. These aren't a capitalist/socialist issue. Just bad governance. 
 

If the UK had been a bit more like Trump (willing to close borders and deport illegals) and cut the silly foreign spending as you suggested, the situation wouldn't be quite so dire. 

I hope that what I'm about to say does not get misinterpreted.  I'm not calling all socialists thieves.  I'm saying that the "system" is based on the philosophy of theft.

Capitalism says: You give of your time, talents, & energy.  The system gives back proportionate to the benefit you give society.
Socialism says: I have a right to your stufff just because you have, and I don't.

If you don't think that's what socialism says, let me remind you:

18 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

People should be entitled to free healthcare/affordable healthcare, childcare and financial assistance

From a "property rights" perspective, what is the difference between this philosophy vs. theft?

If the system's fundamental principle is that theft is ok if people "really want it," (Think Rocket the racoon) then the society believes that theft is acceptable in a civilized society.  You just need to lust after it enough.

[Carborendum]

15 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Dems had a good reason for getting vocal about corporate taxation starting in the 80s. 

We've had 40+ years of Reaganomics, and this is where it's gotten us.

From the article:

And that $181B is just at the federal level. The two main state-level issues that we're working on are 1) Opposing tax incentives for new data centers, and 2) Eliminating state funds from the reinsurance pool that health insurance companies use to help cover high cost claims without jacking up premiums. It's basically additional insurance for insurance companies. As someone with a multi-million dollar skin repair job, I can certainly appreciate the need for such a fund. I just don't think taxpayers should be footing the bill for a multi-billion dollar industry, and Minnesota is one of the few states that has it set up that way. Most states don't have a reinsurance program at all, and most of the ones that do make insurance companies pool their own money.

WoW! I'm agreeing with you all over the place... except that I would not call this "Reaganomics."

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Capitalism says: You give of your time, talents, & energy.  The system gives back proportionate to the benefit you give society.

I wouldn't say either of the sides of your equation here are accurate. Capitalism doesn't care about time, talent, or energy. Nor does it care about benefit. It's simply you sell what you can, and buy what you want. And that's it. If you can sell a lot, somehow, regardless of time, talent or energy, you make money. And if others don't want to buy what you have to offer, it doesn't matter if it's beneficial or not.

Time, talent, energy, and benefit are useful tools. But they're not, on an individual basis, mathematical certainties in capitalism.

That being said, in the long-term and the grand scheme of capitalism, that does tend to work out, as the market will equilibrate on the whole. But in the individual case it won't necessarily play out as an, if-you-work-hard-you-will-win situation. And that's one of the problems with the way some look at it. They see it, definitionally, as -- anyone who works hard WILL succeed -- and that is shown to be false pretty quickly. But the fact that it's false doesn't negate the reality that it's still the best system which allows for growth and potential to succeed based on hard work. But that's really missing the point in a way. It's less about the individual's potential (the so-called American Dream, if you will), but more about an overall system that best allows for overall growth of economy and benefit. Individually what capitalism gives back may not work out. But societally, what capitalism gives back with the broad input of time, talent, and energy IS beneficial to society at large, of which the individuals (even those without specific success from their time, talent and energy, or even input of those things at all), partake. That, of course COULD be true outside of capitalism as well...but it simply is not. Because the one missing component that all other systems (except one) seem to have is motivation. The reason capitalism works is because of the POTENTIAL that it will give back based on your time, talent, and energy. And, moreover (another false point in your equation above), the POTENTIAL that it will give back significantly beyond "proportionate" to the benefit offered.

Simply put, the hope of getting rich, because it's actually a possibility, drives the value of capitalism. Yeah...most won't get rich. But the "dream" of it pushes the time, talent, and energy more than other systems.

There's solid motivation for effort.

There's a three-tiered hierarchy of motivation. At the bottom is fear of punishment. At the top is love and altruism. In the middle is hope for reward. Socialism and similar ideologies (communism, welfare states, etc.) claim love as their motivating factor, but they're delusional, and so must relegate to the lowest tier and motivate through fear. In an ideal world -- the generally fictional utopian only seen twice that we know of in all of history motivated by pure love and goodness -- all would be motivated without fear or hope for reward, by pure love. But in the real world, people are motivated by hope for reward -- a lower tier than the ideal, but one that works much better in this fallen world.

[Carborendum]

33 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Time, talent, energy, and benefit are useful tools. But they're not, on an individual basis, mathematical certainties in capitalism.

Read The Wealth of Nations

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

WoW! I'm agreeing with you all over the place... except that I would not call this "Reaganomics."

This might be a tomato tomahto thing, but I'm curious what you would call it. Reaganomics was about more than tax cuts, sure, but the tax cuts were a crucial part of it.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Read The Wealth of Nations

No. 

 

[zil2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

From a "property rights" perspective, what is the difference between this philosophy vs. theft?

If the system's fundamental principle is that theft is ok if people "really want it," (Think Rocket the racoon) then the society believes that theft is acceptable in a civilized society.  You just need to lust after it enough.

This isn't theft, it's slavery.

[The Folk Prophet]

37 minutes ago, zil2 said:

This isn't theft, it's slavery.

And slavery, as we all know, is approved of in the Bible.

[mirkwood]

Correct, socialism = theft, with governmental controlled slavery thrown in.  No thanks. 

 

Since we are using healthcare as the example.  You have a right to healthcare.  You do NOT have a right to free healthcare.

[HaggisShuu]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

Correct, socialism = theft, with governmental controlled slavery thrown in.  No thanks. 

 

Since we are using healthcare as the example.  You have a right to healthcare.  You do NOT have a right to free healthcare.

My baby had several complications in delivery, that without proper healthcare  "in the wild" would likely have killed my daughter and wife. In your ideal world view, do I just lose my family for not being able to afford medical bills? 
 

I'm being provocative on purpose now, because I have no idea how people have managed to reach the assumption that free health care, is slavery. 

I don't believe that theft is justified. I definitely, do not believe in wealth redistribution, or shared ownership, or eat the rich or anything like this. I just don't think it's a tall ask, to use taxes to fund hospitals, schools and quality of life for the disabled or infirm. 

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

My baby had several complications in delivery, that without proper healthcare  "in the wild" would likely have killed my daughter and wife. In your ideal world view, do I just lose my family for not being able to afford medical bills? 
 

I'm being provocative on purpose now, because I have no idea how people have managed to reach the assumption that free health care, is slavery. 

I don't believe that theft is justified. I definitely, do not believe in wealth redistribution, or shared ownership, or eat the rich or anything like this. I just don't think it's a tall ask, to use taxes to fund hospitals, schools and quality of life for the disabled or infirm. 

 

Let's try this again.  YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE HEALTHCARE.  Not that difficult to understand.

 

Now you have attempted to make an emotional argument which does not change the reality that YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE HEALTHCARE.  

 

I unabashedly reject your emotional argument that it does give you a right.  It does not.  Period.  End of story.  Full halt.

 

Is that clear enough for you?

 

I'm being provocative because that is the route you chose.  If you would like to shift to a non confrontational mode let me know in your response.

[NeuroTypical]

Another way to put it:   

"I'm considering becoming a pediatric doctor.  I hear that means I am promising to labor in my trade for anyone who wants, regardless of who can pay or not, whether they're dangerous or not, whether I will be able to pay my bills or not.  Because apparently healthcare is free, and which means me and the other pediatric doctors don't get a say in the matter.   I wonder what the penalty is for refusing service.  Does the government get involved?  Will they try to pressure, coerce, or force me to ply my trade even if I have good reasons against it?  Will they imprison me, or seize my medical license, or fine me, or tax me until I comply?

Nah.  I think I'll become a tax accountant instead.  At least until the government decides that tax accounting is a right that must be provided for free because we live in a just and equitable society."

[HaggisShuu]

23 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Another way to put it:   

"I'm considering becoming a pediatric doctor.  I hear that means I am promising to labor in my trade for anyone who wants, regardless of who can pay or not, whether they're dangerous or not, whether I will be able to pay my bills or not.  Because apparently healthcare is free, and which means me and the other pediatric doctors don't get a say in the matter.   I wonder what the penalty is for refusing service.  Does the government get involved?  Will they try to pressure, coerce, or force me to ply my trade even if I have good reasons against it?  Will they imprison me, or seize my medical license, or fine me, or tax me until I comply?

Nah.  I think I'll become a tax accountant instead.  At least until the government decides that tax accounting is a right that must be provided for free because we live in a just and equitable society."

But this is not the case at all. There exists in the UK private healthcare companies, which offer privately funded treatment, alongside the public service. Private employees aren't forced into the public service because government said so. People entering the field may choose whether or not they wish to work in the private or the public sectors. 

Many public employees also do work for private companies, often in the same hospitals. I'd hardly liken it to slavery. 

[HaggisShuu]

51 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

Let's try this again.  YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE HEALTHCARE.  Not that difficult to understand.

 

Now you have attempted to make an emotional argument which does not change the reality that YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE HEALTHCARE.  

 

I unabashedly reject your emotional argument that it does give you a right.  It does not.  Period.  End of story.  Full halt.

 

Is that clear enough for you?

 

I'm being provocative because that is the route you chose.  If you would like to shift to a non confrontational mode let me know in your response.

I promise I started this thread, and in fact my last post, with pure intentions. Life is a battleground of ideas, and often in these sorts of situations, behind the screen, my views evolve and adapt as new information becomes available. I don't think this is one of those situations. 
 

I think the difference here is purely cultural. In America, I don't have a right to free healthcare. In England I do. You are happy with your system and quality of life and I am happy with mine. Everybody wins. I've realised debating politics with Americans is entirely pointless, not for any bigoted reasons, we just live so far away. And what I've been doing is applying my experiences and the understanding of my system, to yours. It's an entirely pointless exercise as the 2 cannot be compared. 
As I say, my original intention was just to understand the Trump media hype a bit more. 
 

P.S. I still maintain I am not a socialist. (Not by British standards anyway.)