Zone1 What "progressive" policies have turned out well in the past 50 years?

[Coyote]

the biggest problem I have with it is the feds doing it,, the states can easily take up the issue and do it within the authorities of the constitution,,

The problem is, states haven’t. At least not consistently.

 

[progressive hunter]

The problem is, states haven’t. At least not consistently.

doesnt matter,, the feds dont have authority to do it,,

if your state didnt do it then move to one that did,,

pointless now since its already happened and cant be undone,,

guess we are just going to have to let it fail and deal with another failed government program,,

 

[Coyote]

Pretty much everything that was once the purview of the private sector as the Founders intended, but that the government has meddled in--education, healthcare, etc.--has become less efficient, less effective, far more expensive and too often entitlement. And that has pretty much been entirely due to progressivism.

I’m going to respond to just this, because while there is a downside….the upside outweighs it.

Education. A free public education (primary and secondary) means everyone has the ability to get an education. Everyone in this country. And to some extent, it is standardized and accredited.

Compare that to other countries that do not have free primary and secondary education.

It may not be tbe “Cadillac“ education, but it means even if your parents are drug addicts or poor people working multiple jobs, their kids have a chance at an education. Can it be improved? Of course. But the problems aren’t with the concept or even at tbe federal level.

Is it an entitlement? You bet. Every child is entitled to a free education in this country.

Same with healthcare. In this day and age, access to affordable healthcare should be a right, not a privilege. Obamacare may not be perfect but it was the first attempt at something better than the horribly inadequate system we had and can always be improved upon. This is a progressive idea that has led to many many more people being able to get insurance, healthcare and preventive care that couldn’t before.

 

[Coyote]

doesnt matter,, the feds dont have authority to do it,,

if your state didnt do it then move to one that did,,

pointless now since its already happened and cant be undone,,

guess we are just going to have to let it fail and deal with another failed government program,,

Well, I disagree with you on that.

 

[progressive hunter]

Well, I disagree with you on that.

technically it has already failed and just being supported by stealing money from other sources,,

 

[otto105]

Sorry little shits like you depend upon the government to wipe your ass.

Hilarious

Now git off my street ya fuckup and brush yer tooth.

 

[Timmy O. Goodwin]

would you consider making it by choice and allowing people to opt out??

This is America, land of the free and so yes, I agree that individuals should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and Medicare if they choose, but they must acknowledge and contractually agree to relinquish any right to future financial or medical assistance or support from any government agency.

 

[progressive hunter]

This is America, land of the free and so yes, I agree that individuals should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and Medicare if they choose, but they must acknowledge and contractually agree to relinquish any right to future financial or medical assistance or support from any government agency.

youre combine two different things,,

very dishonest,,,

 

[Foxfyre]

I’m going to respond to just this, because while there is a downside….the upside outweighs it.

Education. A free public education (primary and secondary) means everyone has the ability to get an education. Everyone in this country. And to some extent, it is standardized and accredited.

Compare that to other countries that do not have free primary and secondary education.

It may not be tbe “Cadillac“ education, but it means even if your parents are drug addicts or poor people working multiple jobs, their kids have a chance at an education. Can it be improved? Of course. But the problems aren’t with the concept or even at tbe federal level.

Is it an entitlement? You bet. Every child is entitled to a free education in this country.

Same with healthcare. In this day and age, access to affordable healthcare should be a right, not a privilege. Obamacare may not be perfect but it was the first attempt at something better than the horribly inadequate system we had and can always be improved upon. This is a progressive idea that has led to many many more people being able to get insurance, healthcare and preventive care that couldn’t before.

Education for everybody is not a good thing if it doesn't educate. America once boasted the best education in the world at all levels. Once the federal government got involved it no longer is by a long shot and higher education has become unaffordable for most without government subsidies. It didn't used to be that way.

Healthcare for all is noble unless it is so inefficient and sometimes ineffective and when it is too expensive for most to afford without government subsidies. And under Obamacare the deductibles and copays are so high many people do not get life saving tests and treatments because they cannot afford them. We once had the best health care in the world. Once the federal government got involved that is no longer the case.

 

[Moonglow]

they sure do like teaching adult sexual behavior to children,,

Kids learn that from TV before they attend school.

 

[Moonglow]

Education for everybody is not a good thing if it doesn't educate. America once boasted the best education in the world at all levels. Once the federal government got involved it no longer is by a long shot and higher education has become unaffordable for most without government subsidies. It didn't used to be that way.

Healthcare for all is noble unless it is so inefficient and sometimes ineffective and when it is too expensive for most to afford without government subsidies. And under Obamacare the deductibles and copays are so high many people do not get life saving tests and treatments because they cannot afford them. We once had the best health care in the world. Once the federal government got involved that is no longer the case.

Education for everybody is not a good thing if it doesn't educate. America once boasted the best education in the world at all levels. Once the federal government got involved it no longer is by a long shot and higher education has become unaffordable for most without government subsidies. It didn't used to be that way.

It used to be only the wealthy were educated because it cost a lot of money. Mass education was created because mass production was created industry needed people who could read, write, and talk in mass quantities, and armies needed literate people.

 

[Timmy O. Goodwin]

youre combine two different things,,

very dishonest,,,

Imagine the government's budget as a complex web, woven from various sources like taxes from our paychecks for Social Security and Medicare, along with other taxes and fees. These aren't just separate streams; they're interconnected, each one crucial to supporting the whole system. But even with all these contributions, it often seems like the funds aren't enough, leading to borrowing to fill the gaps. This situation highlights a challenging truth: our social safety nets and public services, essential as they are for preventing economic disaster, are always stretching to meet needs. Without these supports, our economic stability would be at risk, showing just how vital but strained our financial system is. So, it's not dishonesty at all. It is a reality. Each relies on the other.

 

[Greenbeard]

We once had the best health care in the world. Once the federal government got involved that is no longer the case.

Who has the best health care in the world?

 

[progressive hunter]

Imagine the government's budget as a complex web, woven from various sources like taxes from our paychecks for Social Security and Medicare, along with other taxes and fees. These aren't just separate streams; they're interconnected, each one crucial to supporting the whole system. But even with all these contributions, it often seems like the funds aren't enough, leading to borrowing to fill the gaps. This situation highlights a challenging truth: our social safety nets and public services, essential as they are for preventing economic disaster, are always stretching to meet needs. Without these supports, our economic stability would be at risk, showing just how vital but strained our financial system is. So, it's not dishonesty at all. It is a reality. Each relies on the other.

I am not going to image anything,,

you say if I opt out of one program I am not allowed to receive from any other program I pay into with all the FUCKING taxs I pay,,

now what about the people collecting those benefits that have never paid a dime into any program??
do they just get to receive without contributing???

see this is the problem with you fucking socialist,,
youre to generous with other peoples money and want to dictate who can and who cant,

 

[Timmy O. Goodwin]

I am not going to image anything,,

you say if I opt out of one program I am not allowed to receive from any other program I pay into with all the FUCKING taxs I pay,,

now what about the people collecting those benefits that have never paid a dime into any program??
do they just get to receive without contributing???

see this is the problem with you fucking socialist,,
youre to generous with other peoples money and want to dictate who can and who cant,

My, you are a testy one, aren't you? To begin with, I am not personally a socialist. I am an independent-democratic thinking individual who votes for integrity and professionalism in politics and lives by the same to the best of my ability. Furthermore, I do not use abusive language with you, and I believe I am due the same mature respect. Moving on, we all pay our taxes and our way in life because that is what keeps our democracy and our nation afloat and thriving. It takes a well-oiled, meaning financed, ship to stay afloat on seas of change. I look at it this way: I pay into everything because one day I may need the help myself, or maybe not, but I know I have paid my way if I do, and if I never need help, then I have helped my nation and its citizenry. I may complain myself at times about high taxes and high entitlement dues, but I will never stop paying taxes or entitlement dues and fees because they are the lifeblood of our nation, without which we would not have a nation where we are free to live, come and go as we please, and speak out as we do, even on this forum. This forum would never be allowed in China or Russia, so I count my lucky stars.

 

[progressive hunter]

My, you are a testy one, aren't you? To begin with, I am not personally a socialist. I am an independent-democratic thinking individual who votes for integrity and professionalism in politics and lives by the same to the best of my ability. Furthermore, I do not use abusive language with you, and I believe I am due the same mature respect. Moving on, we all pay our taxes and our way in life because that is what keeps our democracy and our nation afloat and thriving. It takes a well-oiled, meaning financed, ship to stay afloat on seas of change. I look at it this way: I pay into everything because one day I may need the help myself, or maybe not, but I know I have paid my way if I do, and if I never need help, then I have helped my nation and its citizenry. I may complain myself at times about high taxes and high entitlement dues, but I will never stop paying taxes or entitlement dues and fees because they are the lifeblood of our nation, without which we would not have a nation where we are free to live, come and go as we please, and speak out as we do, even on this forum. This forum would never be allowed in China or Russia, so I count my lucky stars.

so if I opt out of one program it I dont get to use any program that I did pay into,,
but someone can never pay into any system and they can use any program they want,,

yeah that sounds fair and efficient,,

 

[Timmy O. Goodwin]

so if I opt out of one program it I dont get to use any program that I did pay into,,
but someone can never pay into any system and they can use any program they want,,

yeah that sounds fair and efficient,,

In a hypothetical situation, it might be challenging to navigate the complexities of who contributes and who doesn't. However, if someone wanted to opt out of Social Security but keep Medicare, or vice versa, technically, it could work. This would involve choosing to forgo either Social Security retirement benefits or Medicare benefits, respectively. Implementing such a choice would mean adjusting how funds are allocated, which could be quite a logistical challenge, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. The real question is how such changes would impact other essential services like education, highways, or environmental protections, especially if these areas faced budget shortfalls. If Medicare or Social Security funds fell short, finding ways to cover these shortfalls would be crucial. While the effects are uncertain, exploring the feasibility of such adjustments is an interesting idea.

 

[progressive hunter]

In a hypothetical situation, it might be challenging to navigate the complexities of who contributes and who doesn't. However, if someone wanted to opt out of Social Security but keep Medicare, or vice versa, technically, it could work. This would involve choosing to forgo either Social Security retirement benefits or Medicare benefits, respectively. Implementing such a choice would mean adjusting how funds are allocated, which could be quite a logistical challenge, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. The real question is how such changes would impact other essential services like education, highways, or environmental protections, especially if these areas faced budget shortfalls. If Medicare or Social Security funds fell short, finding ways to cover these shortfalls would be crucial. While the effects are uncertain, exploring the feasibility of such adjustments is an interesting idea.

lets not play hypotheticals and deal with the reality right in front of us,,

you say if I opt out of one program I cant use any other program that I pay for with all the other taxs I pay,,
but someone thats never paid a dime into any of the systems and has no intentions of ever paying into them can receive all the programs,,

what gives??

 

[Timmy O. Goodwin]

lets not play hypotheticals and deal with the reality right in front of us,,

you say if I opt out of one program I cant use any other program that I pay for with all the other taxs I pay,,
but someone thats never paid a dime into any of the systems and has no intentions of ever paying into them can receive all the programs,,

what gives??

It's not that simple. The reason we all have to contribute through taxes, even to services we may not directly use, is founded on the principles of collective responsibility and solidarity. This approach ensures that society can support those in need, contributing to overall social stability and security. Which is paramount to a healthy nation. It's built on the understanding that everyone's well-being is interconnected, and aiding those in need benefits society as a whole, including contributing members, by fostering a safer, more stable, and equitable community. If we did not have programs like social security and Medicare the strain on the private industry would be phenomenal and the individual states and counties would in many cases fail to function properly.

In the American context, these social programs are integral to a mixed-economy framework. The United States, while operating on a capitalist economy, incorporates such programs to address social needs and economic inequalities. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and various forms of public assistance for low-income individuals and families serve as a safety net for all citizens. They provide essential support during times of old age, disability, poverty, or unemployment and reflect a societal agreement to support each other, especially the most vulnerable among us, to ensure that basic needs are met and to maintain stability.

This approach is distinct from that of a socialist system, where the government plays a more extensive role in controlling the economy and redistributing wealth. In the U.S., the focus is on maintaining a market-driven economy while utilizing social welfare programs to address specific needs and promote general welfare, illustrating a balance between individual responsibility and collective support.

 

[progressive hunter]

It's not that simple. The reason we all have to contribute through taxes, even to services we may not directly use, is founded on the principles of collective responsibility and solidarity. This approach ensures that society can support those in need, contributing to overall social stability and security. Which is paramount to a healthy nation. It's built on the understanding that everyone's well-being is interconnected, and aiding those in need benefits society as a whole, including contributing members, by fostering a safer, more stable, and equitable community. If we did not have programs like social security and Medicare the strain on the private industry would be phenomenal and the individual states and counties would in many cases fail to function properly.

In the American context, these social programs are integral to a mixed-economy framework. The United States, while operating on a capitalist economy, incorporates such programs to address social needs and economic inequalities. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and various forms of public assistance for low-income individuals and families serve as a safety net for all citizens. They provide essential support during times of old age, disability, poverty, or unemployment and reflect a societal agreement to support each other, especially the most vulnerable among us, to ensure that basic needs are met and to maintain stability.

This approach is distinct from that of a socialist system, where the government plays a more extensive role in controlling the economy and redistributing wealth. In the U.S., the focus is on maintaining a market-driven economy while utilizing social welfare programs to address specific needs and promote general welfare, illustrating a balance between individual responsibility and collective support.

it is that simple,,

and np long drawn out rant will change that,,