I think what you are saying is ideological. Keynesean economics works just fine in many circumstances. Mostly depending on what the perception is. But we can agree to disagree.
We have enough money and to spare for these things, but certain aspects of the budget are "bad manners" to talk about due to the preponderance of lobbyists for the other side. Such as the military budget, offshore tax loopholes and the carried interest loophole. Progressives, unlike liberals, are willing to discuss such "taboo" subjects. That's the difference in terms I mean, between liberals and progressives, mainly. The willingness to stand up to corporate power, and corporate lobbyist hordes.
So we should close tax loopholes. Sure, that makes sense. But I hardly think that's a partisan issue. I hear liberals and conservatives talk about that. It's just getting people to agree on what's a "loophole" and what's the intended effect of the rules that tends to be tricky.
We have more than enough money? Then why do we have so much national debt? Or do you mean we have enough money to do progressive stuff if we take money from somewhere else?
You think it's bad manners to talk about military budgets? I mean, in the context of local politics, it just doesn't exist, but in the higher offices the military budget is modified all the time.
So, in your mind, the chief difference between liberals and progressives is basically ability to say no to lobbyists? Do you have any examples of that? I mean those are fine campaign slogans and bumper stickers, but that's kind of like saying the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives will stand up for family values. That doesn't actually mean anything.
Correct. It's a democrat and republican establishment thing. Both libertarians and progressives are against it, for the most part.
I completely disagree with you that progressives are against a surveillance state, because it's necessary to enforce the censorship against "Violent speech" they want to stop. Libertarians are, but unfortunately libertarians do not have a full platform so it's hard to take their position seriously.
I don't like how many countries we are at war in. I don't like how much money we spend on military, lose trillions, not even know how, and act like it's evil to ever talk about. I don't like the militarization of police. I don't like how police can get away with abusing people if they're poor or black. But all these things are bipartisan, in terms of politicians. Although amoung the people, the opposition to the all is pretty bipartisan.
Well, nobody likes war, but could you give examples of the countries you think we are at war in? That might sound facetious, but I mean it, because you'll get a different number if you count all countries US forces are deployed in, or countries with active fighting going on. We'd have to discuss each one separately though, since obviously each conflict has different context and the ones people feel are justified are going to differ.
Can you explain what you mean about losing trillions spent on the military, which nobody knows where it went? I'd like to talk about trillions of missing dollars, regardless of who thinks it's "evil" (Who, by the way?).
I don't like how police get away with abusing people either, but like you said, that issue is pretty bipartisan, it's getting the sides to agree on any specific incident that's the problem. I do feel both conservatives and liberals are too easy on the police.
Idk, I could say a whole rant about it but I'll save it for now.
For real? Because "Everyone is losing their human rights" is basically the main progressive talking point, from what I see. How exactly do you expect to discuss this with the other side if you can't even explain what rights you believe are being lost, and by who. I'll give an example of a couple human rights I feel liberals and progressives are trying to take away: Freedom of speech. Freedom to defend your own life. Not coincidentally, I consider these to be the most important rights, without which none of the other rights can exist.
Reagan was the first Ayn Rand crack pipe smoker, in my opinion. The idea that corporations need unlimited power, so we can be "protected" from "big government". 'Your grandma doesn't need her social security, that would oppress her, we need zero taxes for Exxon instead because that gives "us" more "freedom".' Not saying you, but a lot of our Republican legislators get on this particular trip, and start ranting like they are in some kind of weird austerity church. Eisenhower didn't do that crap. He was still conservative but we need more heart in our ideology in this country, IMO.
Thanks!
OK, so I guess you're talking about the whole "Trickle Down Economics" thing when you say Ayn Rand crack pipe smokers. Yes, fair enough, that's pretty squarely on the conservatives, and it seems to be a flawed ideology, especially when taken too far.
Corporations need unlimited power... example please? I don't want the government subsidizing companies in any way, which the repubs and dems are both guilty of. But earlier you were talking about subsidies being a good thing, like for college. Colleges are corporations.
'Your grandma doesn't need her social security, that would oppress her, we need zero taxes for Exxon instead because that gives "us" more "freedom".'
Yeah, I wouldn't vote for the guy who said that. Please let me know which politicians said that so I know to never vote for them.
We need more heart and we need to not preach like an austerity church. OK, please give actual examples of how to have more heart (like real specifics). Give me an example of an austerity church law and how you would add more heart to it.
I can say I want the government to lower taxes, increase the strength of the military, make health care free, everyone should get a free education, everyone should get a living wage no matter what.... but the person I said that to wouldn't be wrong in saying "That's nice. How?"
