Political Humor Only Please

[Michael]

[meeks]

Why is it everyone asks "how are we going to pay for it?" When it's for the working class, but when trillions are gifted to the elite no one bats an eye?
This isn't even about asking for more money... It really boils down to using our tax dollars that we've already paid to benefit those that paid the most (working class) rather than using it to buy (for example) ammunition from those that voted to have it spent on companies they own shares in, thereby voting to line their own pockets.

[Michael]

One reason could be that national defense and security, the military, etc., is normally considered a state function and not a market product, a service, or a commodity, whereas health care and any other market is just part of the normal economy. This is the historical trend as well.

Let me give an example of these two "services", but inverted, in order to show the historical trend that answers part of your question. Conscription* for military service is normal and payment for the service is nowhere near market value for hours worked, but this is also accepted. The question of why don't we change the market commodity of health care to something provided by the state (and the latest proposed legislation in the House right now forbids private health insurance) is just as radical as asking why don't we make a constitutional amendment to ban conscription, and then also ban military recruitment access to anyone under 21 years of age, which would force the US military to pay market wages for skilled and unskilled labor, whether in time of war or not. Both ideas are radical in US tradition.

Considering the current context of a $22 TRILLION debt for a country that has such a large, world-wide military presence and budget, and one that has misplaced $21 TRILLION, I could really not disagree with AOC when she was asked where will the money come from and she answered rhetorically that it could come from the same place as the funds for the other expenditures. Although I suspect she basically answered out of ignorance, the logic of her reply is congruent with existing spending habits.

Many of her ideas are on topics that need to be front and center and given a fresh look. That said, I don't think blanket free health care or education is the best solution; there are better ways to deal with the scarcity of those resources, IMO, but the need to make them less scarce is as important as having military bases in 90-something foreign countries. Most of these problems have been obvious for 30-40 years and have just been ignored.

* I am fully aware of the legal status of conscription in the USA since the draft stopped in 1973 and the Selective Service Registration Act of 1979. The fact remains that every male citizen of the USA is legally obligated to 8 years of military service.

[Michael]

I forgot my conclusion. State provided health care is a little bit like conscripting the people who provide those services. It all depends on the rules of the system, but there is a valid comparison. I think when you compare reversing each system from being state mandated to part of the market, you can see why such an idea takes time to get used to.

[grzegorz]

[Michael]

[Michael]

[Bill]

[Bill]

[Bill]

[grzegorz]

[meeks]

I forgot my conclusion. State provided health care is a little bit like conscripting the people who provide those services. It all depends on the rules of the system, but there is a valid comparison. I think when you compare reversing each system from being state mandated to part of the market, you can see why such an idea takes time to get used to.

Thanks for the response. I'm not going to ask why the USA spends more money on war and weapons than the next 10 countries combined... It's about which manufacturers are heavily connected with those in power that are slated to make money by voting for war. Lets not pretend the foreign policy is about being an overly protective neighbor when it's about resources, normally oil and pipelines.
I'd point out how f-ing ludicrous it is that the next 10 countries all offer universal health care to their citizens while Americans have it beaten into them like a drum "socialism! Socialism! Socialism!" Making them vote against their self interests in favor of voting for more war, thereby.lining the pockets of those in power even more.

"But who's going to pay for it..?" It doesn't matter whether its federal or state level...only when it comes to healthcare or education...you know..the working class. Otherwise it seems to never be a question of where the money comes from. It's simply "we will allocate funds..."

No one asked "who's going to pay for it" when Trump gifted trillions in tax cuts to himself and his friends. Why? Because the media didn't beat that drum into people.

And while people are asking "who's going to pay for it", and yet trump gifts trillions in tax breaks to his family and friends "I just made a lot of you very, very rich" was his speech to them... Flint still has no clean drinking water. We need to change our direction and start voting towards those that are courageous enough to say "enough is enough " ... The ones that dont worry about getting corporate donations for reelection.

[grzegorz]

Why is it everyone asks "how are we going to pay for it?" When it's for the working class, but when trillions are gifted to the elite no one bats an eye?
This isn't even about asking for more money... It really boils down to using our tax dollars that we've already paid to benefit those that paid the most (working class) rather than using it to buy (for example) ammunition from those that voted to have it spent on companies they own shares in, thereby voting to line their own pockets.

I remember when the Great Recession started and some here were in denial calling reports of a tent city near Sacramento propaganda. I wish it were. But these tent cities still exists. I took a train from Northern California to LA and as we went through a lot of the more red counties of state where a lot of our food is grown I saw a lot of towns completely devastated that reminded me of a third world country with people living out of tents along the tracks and downtowns full of empty shops. Once in LA it's no different. LA is lot more interesting than it used to be with a lot of neighborhoods unfortunately becoming gentrified much like the bay area but you will also find whole city blocks of homelessness and tent cities.

It used to be that when you went to a city park in you would a get break from the city and get some nature but now you will see a homeless person cursing out their 3 year old kids. Hard to watch knowing that kid will probably turn out very similar and become a product of their environment.

It's going to take a lot of fix this and I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon but if we can fund the rich and corporations and the military industrial complex we can certainly house and feed the poor, mentally unstable, seniors who can't work, handicapped, in between jobs, experiencing a medical crisis and others to get them to a place where people are looking for job to improve their situation instead of a pain killers or a needle.



This is pretty much what I saw as I rode the train through small towns.

The irony is that conservatives use photos of these tent cities to dismiss California but the fact is California has a housing crisis because wealth inequality. It isn't "liberals" destroying California it is the extremely rich buying up California making impossible for wage earners to find a place to live.

[meeks]

Yup. Often we have the resources to help each other, but if the wrong people aim to have their profits reduced, help never comes, and the "spin" hides their lack of effort.
A perfect example of this is the potato famine of Ireland. Potatoes were wiped out by a blight that arrived from a shipment of American grown potatoes. The farming class relied on potatoes for their own sustenance and the land owners were more reliant on grain exports, when the potato crops failed, leaving many farmers starving, rather than reducing exports to sell grain locally, they actually increased grain exports because the value of grain went up.

Complicating matters further, historians have since concluded, was that Ireland continued to export large quantities of food, primarily to Great Britain, during the blight. In cases such as livestock and butter, research suggests that exports may have actually increased during the Potato Famine.

In 1847 alone, records indicate that commodities such as peas, beans, rabbits, fish and honey continued to be exported from Ireland, even as the Great Hunger ravaged the countryside.

It's always about money, there's no such thing as true "nationalism" that gets hoisted like a flag at political conventions. If it did exist, flint would have drinkable water. Puerto Rico would have utilities. Roads in USA wouldn't be crumbling. Schools wouldn't be looking at a 4 day week to conserve resources.. Meanwhile "I just made a lot of you very, very rich".

And here in America, the democrats are just a little left of the far right republicans (ie, business class). We need the new grass roots movements (Bernie Sanders, AOC, etc) that aren't suckling at the teat of huge corporate oil and weapons manufacturing to take the wheel because their political donations come from the working class.

[Michael]

I think it's obvious that the USA is an empire. It has the money (because it prints the world's reserve currency) to afford a military with a budget greater than its rivals combined, and the ability to project power physically around the world. It has many client states, it seeks hegemony, and it is the sole globally capable super power at this time, and really has been since the end of WW2.

Not paying for health care nor its own crumbling infrastructure reveals that a lot of its resources are not directed to the benefit of its people, which is a trend going back it seems 50 or 60 years, with an acceleration of less and less being spent to benefit normal people and families as time goes by. During this time, other priorities are very frequently put ahead of their problems, which are never solved and often just ignored.

Why are these other interests a greater priority than its own people? Are we on auto-pilot with a broken compass or are we being steered wrongly by the captain? Does it appear the Congress is in control and has the capability to solve problems? What are the problems to which they react with the greatest urgency?

The many wars since and including Vietnam, their length, cost and outcomes are clear examples of a total failure of leadership to achieve expected results. In fact, they do not usually even operate with a coherent plan for victory, only for the protracted sustenance of the war machine.

Here's a ten minute video review from a gentle Irish man about a book on the rise and fall of empires: The Fate of Empires by John Glubb. The main point is about the stages of the rise and fall of empires, as well as including some markers that can be identified about where you are in the time line. One of the markers to decadence I would like to add is the destruction of beauty.

(d) The stages of the rise and fall of great nations seem to be:
The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
The Age of Conquests
The Age of Commerce
The Age of Affluence
The Age of Intellect
The Age of Decadence.

(e) Decadence is marked by:
Defensiveness
Pessimism
Materialism
Frivolity
An influx of foreigners
The Welfare State
A weakening of religion.

(f) Decadence is due to:
Too long a period of wealth and power
Selfishness
Love of money
The loss of a sense of duty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNWXhH9Q0g8