On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:14 PM, kirby urner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Paul Tanner wrote: > > << SNIP >> > >> >> > I'm not sure how to get out of this mess. >> > >> >> We're in this mess because of how people voted - enough people voted >> for enough conservatives over time to kill some progressive laws that >> served us well, those laws created under great progressives like >> Franklin Roosevelt. >> > > Voting is a quite distant form of control, more like the remote control > channel changer. >
So what? Therefore don't vote? It's the only form of control the average Jane or Joe has over what laws we do and do not have. (If you are an average Jane or Joe and do not vote and if I run for office and find out, then you think that I'm going to do anything other than ignore you?)
>> Note: If you have voted for the more conservative Republican >> alternative when you vote, then you have partly caused this mess. >> > > I'd say all the presidents since Eisenhower have been trapped in the post > WW2 system for priming the economy, which is / was through defense > contracting, with the pork distributed to all 50 states in exchange for > various levels of cooperation. >
I'd say that this is flat wrong.
You claim you like Medicare. But it's a fact that every last Republican back then voted against its creation every last step of the way until the very last vote when its final passage was assured. Only then did some switch to try to cover their asses.
So if you say that voting is not necessary or that voting for the right people is not necessary, then there are so many examples in history that prove this wrong, it's beyond belief why anyone would believe it.
>> The only way to get out of this mess is to have enough people vote for >> the most progressive alternative over enough election cycles, to >> change the laws back to the progressive side, to keep going. >> >> Also: >> ... >> >> > This discussion takes me back to Paul's pathetic attempts to have us >> > think >> > the USA could ever be like Sweden, >> > >> >> I'm only talking about voting: I'm talking only about whether people >> vote for more liberal or the most liberal or more conservative or the >> most conservative candidate. > > > Voting might just be how people fool themselves into thinking they're doing > their part for democracy. They pull a little lever once every two or four > years and think that's the sum total of their contribution. >
Therefore don't vote or don't vote for the right people?
>> My arguing that people should vote and my wanting them to vote for the >> most progressive candidate among all the given choices says nothing as >> to whether I would think that enough people would vote in such a way >> over enough election cycles to cause the US to have the same type of >> laws as the Scandinavians. >> > > It's not just about "laws".
So what? Therefore don't have laws or don't have the right laws?
Medicare and all good things like that from government is "laws" - without which the level of suffering and premature death from lack of health care would be much greater.
Are you OK with taking away Medicare? You claim to be for it.
You can have all the laws on the books but if > you don't have police to enforce them or budget to implement them, then > they're just nice rules for a society that only exists on paper.
So what? I repeat: Medicare and all good things like that from government is "laws" - without which the level of suffering and premature death from lack of health care would be much greater.
> > To have universal health care at a high standard, you need way more than > "laws" and way more than "money": you need a lot of highly trained health > care workers with equipment and facilities, happy enough practicing health > care to want to contribute their professional services. >
So what? Don't expand Medicare to all to stop the suffering?