Trumpcare failed because not conservative enough

[Terraceth]

What is it with you and being gratuitously wrong? I don't like to call them "safety nets". Why do you make wrong statements for the sake of it? I just did a search and couldn't find a single post on this site of me ever using the term "safety net", so goodness only knows what wires are crossed in your brain to come up with that idea.

Well...

You realize that the rest of the Western world has unemployment benefits that don't cut off after 6 months, right? And that the rest of us generally regard the US lack of a proper social safety net as barbaric?

Whether Sanders himself truly qualifies as 'socialist' is actually an interesting question - a lot of people argued he was misusing the term and is a "social democrat" (=left wing, believes in strong social safety net and high taxes but no fundamental changes to the structure of how businesses work) not a "democratic socialist" (=all of the previous, plus thinks employees and/or the community should have a level say in how businesses are run, and a level of ownership of them, and it shouldn't just be the person with the money ordering other people around. e.g. having a law mandating employee representation on the boards of companies like Germany does is socialist, and having employee shareholding schemes is socialist, and co-ops are socialist).

So in terms of the best economic system, history seems to show clear data that strong government welfare systems, and a strong social safety-net, make for the best and happiest societies.

LOL, well yeah I guess "fiscally liberal" is a bit of an ambiguous term. It could be meaning "the sorts of economic policies that people who call themselves 'liberal' generally have - e.g. strong social safety net, high taxes etc", or it could be meaning "the economic policies traditionally labelled 'economic liberalism'".

In fairness to the last one, other people were already using the term in that topic before Starlight did.

[Starlight]

Hmm, interesting that those hits didn't come up when I googled it. Anyway, as you can see only 4 of my posts in over 4000 have used the term so you can see it's not a term I favor using or use regularly. I view "safety-net" terminology as being a bit of an Americanism, and it's not a term I like, so I almost never use it. Only when I'm trying particularly hard to rephrase my ideas in language an American might appreciate more do I use it. So, again, BtC's statement of 'or as you like to call them "safety nets"' is nonsense, because no, I don't like to call them that, and it's not at all a term I regularly use.

[lilpixieofterror]

I was stating a general moral principle. You disagreed with it.

Hey psychopath, still trying to lecture people about morality while you want it legal to execute born children? If I want to be lectured by a psychopath on morality, I'll go and watch crime TV and listen to their serial killer segments. Come back and try your lecture on another group monster.

What is it with you and being gratuitously wrong? I don't like to call them "safety nets". Why do you make wrong statements for the sake of it? I just did a search and couldn't find a single post on this site of me ever using the term "safety net", so goodness only knows what wires are crossed in your brain to come up with that idea.

As it has already been shown, yeah you have.

There have been plenty of scientific studies on the subject as I've previously discussed: Welfare almost never "makes people lazy". Your argument is a stupid one made up by stupid people and is as wrong as your claims that I like the term "safety nets".

Considering how it has been shown that you have used the term 'safety nets' several times, why anyone should believe a word that comes out of your mouth? Anyway, beyond being a keyboard warrior, who insults any conservative or Christian not worshiping at your feet while having psychopathic fantasies about murdering children, what have you personally done for the poor?

[lilpixieofterror]

Who you trying to fool BtC, because your self serving argument about "lazy people" and "government handouts" isn't fooling anyone with an actual moral perspective. You say you want the government to give people the skills to be self sufficient, but I'll bet you don't support public education and free college, right.

I don't support school being used as a propaganda tool, that turn out kids that are functionally illiterate, that can't do basic math, and sets them up for failure for the rest of their lives. Before you try to blame conservatives for it, the US leads the way in school spending and schools are pretty much liberal bastions. Do keep trying Jimmy.

[Tassman]

Sorry, Capt. Keebler, but your wishy-washy idea of what is "immoral" and what actually IS immoral with an actual solid moral foundation are wholly different things. When you mentioned that it was immoral to "not care about others in your society", we were in the midst of discussing government handouts... or as you like to call them - "safety nets". It is thoroughly immoral to perpetually support someone without giving them the skills and the incentive to be self-sufficient. But you'd continue to facilitate their laziness and exploitation. That is why I said it is not immoral to not want to give government handouts to everyone.

“Handouts” is merely the 'put-down' for the "I'm alright Jack" selfishness of the conservatives. The US has one of the most inequitable distributions of wealth in the developed world. Consequently it has a huge underclass, which is highly unlikely to rise above their environment without govt. assistance along the lines of what Australia does with its generous welfare payments. To dismiss the victims of an inequitable society as “lazy” and “irresponsible”, is self-serving rationalising and ultimately detrimental to the nation as a whole.

[Bill the Cat]

I was stating a general moral principle. You disagreed with it.

In the context of the discussion.

What is it with you and being gratuitously wrong? I don't like to call them "safety nets". Why do you make wrong statements for the sake of it? I just did a search and couldn't find a single post on this site of me ever using the term "safety net", so goodness only knows what wires are crossed in your brain to come up with that idea.

Oh, I don't know... maybe this:

Source: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-11696.html

Starlight

08-07-2016, 09:01 PM

Every time I've heard of fiscal liberalism, it refers to generous government spending, esp. support of the social safety net. That is, fiscal liberalism is neither neoliberalism nor economic liberalism.LOL, well yeah I guess "fiscally liberal" is a bit of an ambiguous term. It could be meaning "the sorts of economic policies that people who call themselves 'liberal' generally have - e.g. strong social safety net, high taxes etc", or it could be meaning "the economic policies traditionally labelled 'economic liberalism'".

© Copyright Original Source

Or this (which is a description that you say "gets you right"):

Source: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6521-Conservatives-can-be-nuts-too/page7

http://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-typology/
That seemed very generalization-based. Not sure I liked it, although it clearly gets me right:
"Generally affluent and highly educated, most Solid Liberals strongly support the social safety net and take very liberal positions on virtually all issues. Most say they always vote Democratic and are unflagging supporters of Barack Obama. Overall, Solid Liberals are very optimistic about the nation’s future and are the most likely to say that America’s success is linked to its ability to change, rather than its reliance on long-standing principles. On foreign policy, Solid Liberals overwhelmingly believe that good diplomacy – rather than military strength – is the best way to ensure peace."

© Copyright Original Source

Or here:

Source: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8844-Ranking-of-humanity-s-problems&p=260142&viewfull=1#post260142

I think what makes 'communism' a bit confusing to study from a historical point of view, is that the regimes that have existed have been a mixed bag of communism as a political system in contrast to democracy, communism as an economic system in contrast to capitalism, communism as conformism in contrast to individualism, and communism as authoritarianism in contrast to libertarianism. In terms of analyzing what worked or didn't work about communist countries in the 20th century, it's a bit hard to know how much to blame each of those respective ideas for the failures of the system.

That's why I find it much more useful to look at the countries that have worked well, such as Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Canada, Sweden etc. What these countries have in common is thriving democracy, commitments to human rights, and being very "liberal-left" / "democratic socialism" / "social democracy". So in terms of the best economic system, history seems to show clear data that strong government welfare systems, and a strong social safety-net, make for the best and happiest societies. Of the Western world, those countries that have gone the furtherest to the liberal-left, are those countries where the people have been happiest, and which tend to do well across the board in international comparisons of diverse measures of success.

© Copyright Original Source

So, your incompetence is on display, yet again, Abe. Every time you claim I am "gratuitously wrong", I've replied to show just how right I am.

There have been plenty of scientific studies on the subject as I've previously discussed: Welfare almost never "makes people lazy". Your argument is a stupid one made up by stupid people and is as wrong as your claims that I like the term "safety nets".

Sorry, but your study does not address the habitually and generationally reliant. It is immoral to keep people reliant on the government, and drastically increases the likelihood of subsequent generations' reliance on welfare:

Source: https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2015/01/21/parents-reliance-welfare-leads-more-welfare-use-their-children-study-finds

In a new study published recently in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Mogstad and his co-authors at University of California, San Diego, and the University of Bergen in Norway investigated family welfare cultures in the context of Norway’s Disability Insurance System. From 14,722 parent-child observations, they have found strong empirical evidence that reliance on welfare in one generation is likely to cause greater welfare use in the next generation.

© Copyright Original Source

So, you are wrong... yet again.

[robrecht]

Trumpcare failed because the Republicans thought Hillary would win. They didn't have a serious replacement plan ready to go even with 7 years to prepare it.

The individual mandate at the core of the ACA is a Republican plan, originally heralded by the Heritage Foundation in 1989 and then brought forward as the Republican alternative to First Lady Hillary Clinton's initial health-care proposals in the early 90s, which she later adopted in the 2008 campaign, and which Obama opposed at that time. Ultimately, the public option was too liberal for enough Democrats in the Senate, however, so we ended up with what was initially a Republican plan, even though no Republicans would support it by the time the Democrats were willing to adopt it.