Unelected

#151
#151
volinbham said:
It may have just been dumb luck then that the positions opened at the time were already held by that ideology. I just don't recall an instance (over the time I've paid attention) where a con retired and a lib took his/her place or vice versa. There may have been some room around the margin - say a right-moderate replacing a left-moderate or vice versa.

As I say - may have just been dumb luck or a combo of luck of who retired and composition of the Senate at the time.

Whichever (Sotomayor or Kagan) that replaced Souder was a bit of a change but not too drastic.
Click to expand...


IIRC, The con justices always have retired while a GOP was in White House and the lib justices always retire when a DEM is in White House.
 
#152
#152
volinbham said:
It may have just been dumb luck then that the positions opened at the time were already held by that ideology. I just don't recall an instance (over the time I've paid attention) where a con retired and a lib took his/her place or vice versa. There may have been some room around the margin - say a right-moderate replacing a left-moderate or vice versa.

As I say - may have just been dumb luck or a combo of luck of who retired and composition of the Senate at the time.

Whichever (Sotomayor or Kagan) that replaced Souder was a bit of a change but not too drastic.
Click to expand...
Moderates, yes, but the margin is where it makes the difference. Most SCOTUS justices even in the last century have been politically moderate relative to the party under which they were appointed, but the court has definitely made a shift over the last seventy years. It was much, much more progressive at the end of the FDR presidency than it is now.

NEOCON said:
Dont think the country was polar opposite back then as it is now.


Yes we had a civil war but I think the country as a whole was more on the same page.
Click to expand...
I think there may have been an even greater spectrum of ideals. Proper socialism was actually a mainstream ideal. Hell, Kansas was the country's biggest hotbed of populist socialism at the turn of the 20th century.

There was a political scientist out of UGA (I think) that was basically able to map political polarization over the last 150-ish years, and there was a great deal of political polarization from the Gilded Age up to WWII, while we experienced a great deal of moderation and overlap from Ike through Carter. Right now the level of polarization is back to what it was just prior to FDR.
 
#154
#154
milohimself said:
Moderates, yes, but the margin is where it makes the difference. Most SCOTUS justices even in the last century have been politically moderate relative to the party under which they were appointed, but the court has definitely made a shift over the last seventy years. It was much, much more progressive at the end of the FDR presidency than it is now.


I think there may have been an even greater spectrum of ideals. Proper socialism was actually a mainstream ideal. Hell, Kansas was the country's biggest hotbed of populist socialism at the turn of the 20th century.

There was a political scientist out of UGA (I think) that was basically able to map political polarization over the last 150-ish years, and there was a great deal of political polarization from the Gilded Age up to WWII, while we experienced a great deal of moderation and overlap from Ike through Carter. Right now the level of polarization is back to what it was just prior to FDR.
Click to expand...

socialism is a mainstream ideal now. we just dont call it socialism anymore we call it "making sure everyone has a chance."

paying 50% tax when someone else pays only 0% and gets money from the government ontop of paying no tax is a form of socialism no matter how it is labeled
 
#155
#155
In no way does that fit the definition of socialism. From 100+ years ago, I'm talking full-on nationalization of major industries. Steel, agriculture, etc. etc.
 
#156
#156
how does it not fit?

it is re-distrobution of wealth.

I see your point but redistrobution of wealth (when not equal across the board) is a form of watered down socialism.
 
#157
#157
Bernie Sanders is the only person I know of holding any federal office that you can actually call a socialist and be accurate.
 
#159
#159
As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Social democrats advocate redistributive taxation in the form of social welfare and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy.[7] In contrast, anarchism and libertarian socialism propose direct worker's control of the means of production and oppose the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state


Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#160
#160
I'm not taking the time to go google actual socialist writings so this was the quickest.
 
#161
#161
Social democrats =/= socialists

It would be like grouping libertarians with anarchists

State control of means of production is the key. That is socialism. The US is socialist in areas like defense and roadways.
 
#162
#162
Gramps said:
IIRC, The con justices always have retired while a GOP was in White House and the lib justices always retire when a DEM is in White House.
Click to expand...

Rehnquist died on the bench. If Gore had won the election, the majority would be liberal
 
#163
#163
milohimself said:
Social democrats =/= socialists

It would be like grouping libertarians with anarchists

State control of means of production is the key. That is socialism. The US is socialist in areas like defense and roadways.
Click to expand...

then tell wikipedia, alot of books, writers, and bloggers that because I've seen it lumped together very often.

I dont see it the way you see it though. I see it as either the leap before true socialism or an extended arm of socialism.
 
#165
#165
NEOCON said:
then tell wikipedia, alot of books, writers, and bloggers that because I've seen it lumped together very often.

I dont see it the way you see it though. I see it as either the leap before true socialism or an extended arm of socialism.
Click to expand...

It gets thrown around far too much in a number of incorrect ways. During healthcare, for example, if the Democrats were proposing a system similar to the British NHS, then that would have been socialism. Forcing people into the private market is not. The ACA is not socialism, and Obama is not a socialist.

That bit you just posted was explaining the differences. One can be both, but they are not the same thing.
 
#167
#167
Gramps said:
That is true.
What i was saying is they always retire when their party is in office.

I wasn't talking about death. We could have one or all nine pass away this week. That is something we don't know.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying. Ginsburg is old as dirt. If Obama doesn't get a second term.... let's just say that there would be a solid "conservative" majority.
 
#168
#168
milohimself said:
It gets thrown around far too much in a number of incorrect ways. During healthcare, for example, if the Democrats were proposing a system similar to the British NHS, then that would have been socialism. Forcing people into the private market is not. The ACA is not socialism, and Obama is not a socialist.

That bit you just posted was explaining the differences. One can be both, but they are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

webster:

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


milo you are a very bright guy so I'm gonna make jumps here that I think you can follow.

if you tax someone higher than another and then take that tax money and use it to provide goods (food stamps etc) you are distributing goods.

i understand that you are taking it in a literal, natural sense of the terms where goods being manufactured are distributed by the government and businesses are owned by the government but one could even leap again and point to GM.

there are parts of socialism that are inbedded in our society
 
#169
#169
There are most definitely some socialized aspects, one of which is even codified in the constitution. But I'm just calling a spade a spade. Perfectly legitimate to have beef with redistributive policies, but I think criticism should be leveled accurately. :hi:
 
#170
#170
milohimself said:
There are most definitely some socialized aspects, one of which is even codified in the constitution. But I'm just calling a spade a spade. Perfectly legitimate to have beef with redistributive policies, but I think criticism should be leveled accurately. :hi:
Click to expand...

agree
 
#172
#172
milohimself said:
It gets thrown around far too much in a number of incorrect ways. During healthcare, for example, if the Democrats were proposing a system similar to the British NHS, then that would have been socialism. Forcing people into the private market is not. The ACA is not socialism, and Obama is not a socialist.

That bit you just posted was explaining the differences. One can be both, but they are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

ACA is socialistic though - it's not full on ownership but the government via regulatory framework highly constrains the nature of insurance which it forces citizens to buy and highly controls procedures and practice via appointed commission system what will determine standards of care. The docs and insurers aren't state employees but their work product is more highly controlled by the government under ACA than it currently is.
 
#173
#173
Highly regulated, yes -- socialized, no

Some aspects as I believe the net for medicaid will grow some if the law stands.
 
#174
#174
Medicaid is an interesting animal. On average, it pays something like 80% of cost. Other than "guaranteed" payment, medical providers don't have much incentive to accept Mediciad enrollees.

IL will be intererting to watch for tht reason. They're cutting like $2B from Mediciad and their significantly (I believe over a year) in arrears. Inner city hospital directors are trying to figure out how they're going to keep their doors open, b/c they lose money accepting Medicaid enrollees but most people in these "poorer" areas don't have alternative means of paying. Hospitals could pursue "self pay" patients in collections, but reimbursement rates hover around 20% - nationwide, in a poor neighborhood I imagine the rate is much lower. So... something will have to give. It wouldn't surprise me to see hospitals that live on Medicare and Medicaid start to shutter their doors.

I don't think ACA was the right solution, but kicking the can is only going to amplify the problem later on. I think IL could be a harbinger of the country's future if both sides don't get serious (not rhetoric) about the deficit, entitlements, etc.
 
#175
#175
IMO the ACA started off a worthwhile endeavor; I don't actually believe that most Republicans are cool with just going back to how things were, most of them recognize that health care is a significant issue that needs to be addressed immediately. Not that it will get addressed.

The bill wound up turning into a cluster-eff of concessions to and between special interests.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top