Found it: labor unions want to keep the benefits they've bargained for. That's the main reason moderate politicians backed off from it. — frank

Yeah, one labor union in Nevada accounts for 30% of Democrats' opinions about M4A. Glad a quick Google search did the trick.

Go back to reading the NY Post and stop wasting everyone's time pretending to be interested in learning anything.

It's the 30 percent of Democrats I was asking about. I was hoping you'd have a thoughtful answer. — frank

The 30 percent of Democrats don't fall under "voters"?

Quite frankly, given the media coverage of M4A, and the general lack of knowledge about it, I'm shocked it's polling as well as it is not just with Democrats but nationally (51% favorability).

A good percentage of Americans can't identify the US on a world map. What do you suppose accounts for this? Thoughtful answers, please.

↪frank Do you mean voters or politicians?

If politicians, because their corporate donors tell them to be, because medicare for all weakens corporate power and threatens many big (medical and insurance) corporations’ profits.

If voters, because those politicians and the media tell them that medicare for all will bankrupt the country and implicitly make them pay taxes through the roof and so bankrupt them, and make them wait in literal lines outside the hospital while dying of cancer instead of... not getting any treatment at all, like they probably do now.

You know, the normal ways that people are made to support things against their or their constituents’ interests. — Pfhorrest

This is excellent.

I'm drawing a blank on why. Because it's not feasible? Because it's counter to American ideals? What do you think? — frank

Because they probably don't even know what it means. Which is yet another reason to push for it -- gets everyone talking about it and familiar with it.

I say it because it's nonsense
— Xtrix

You realize most people who oppose a view on this forum will claim they opposed it because its nonsense. That doesn't prove your point. — christian2017

What point? You asked meL "Why do you say that?" That's my answer. I go on to argue why, and provide evidence.

All the so-called examples of free-market capitalism (including the US) all turn out to be shaped by very heavy state intervention.
— Xtrix

That last sentence i would agree with for the most part, its actually many republicans who are shooting themselves in the foot, they want their taxes lowered but at the same time want to keep certain types of people out of their neighborhoods and they want their counties looking a certain way. These Republicans may as well call themselves Democrats. — christian2017

I really don't see the relevance of that remark.

Approaching a fantasy and actually living in a fantasy are two very different things. Do you understand that? — christian2017

I understand what you think that implies, yes. But it's complete nonsense. I'm not arguing that because we never achieve some ideal or some concept of perfection that it's not worth aiming for. I'm arguing that the pursuit of this so-called ideal has been used to justify neoliberal policies, which have devised the country for 40 years and has led to astronomical wealth inequality.

Let's stop pushing for this silly ideal to begin with.

In China the government is the corporate master and the government at the same time. In America there is so much red tape that we approach the threshold of being like china. — christian2017

China is a state-run economy. America is also a state-run economy, with some nice words about freedom of choice, free markets, etc. All fantasy. The concentration of wealth and power in this country gets everything they want from the government -- in a large degree they ARE in control of it. But even if you don't agree with that, it's impossible to look at the US and not see that the economy is directed by the government. Forget that China says they're "communist" and the US says it's a "democracy." Neither are true in any sense that matters.

Why do you say that. I assume you know what a spectrum is. Yes you are right an absolute free market has only ever existed when we had a band of 20 people living 500 miles from another 20 people, so by and large an absolute free market has never existed. Asking our society to move much closer to that end of the spectrum would be the best solution. — christian2017

Towards a fantasy, and one that always justifies eliminating Big Government "interference", always excepting the corporate masters, of course.

I say it because it's nonsense. All the so-called examples of free-market capitalism (including the US) all turn out to be shaped by very heavy state intervention.

Why is fiscal conservatism always given a bad name by many (not all) of the liberal elite? I fully understand that many republicans shouldn't be called republicans because they have no intention on embracing a truly free market. — christian2017

The idea of a free market is a fantasy. It doesn't exist and never has.

An argument that has been given for decades.
— Xtrix

The first American to "give" it was Benjamin Franklin — frank

I'm laughing at this comment. I realize it's not meant to be funny, but I guess that's partly why it's funny.

I worked with Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin was a friend of mine. You sir are no Ben Franklin.

who edited Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to avoid pissing off the south while they were trying to run a revolt. Do the revolt first, then worry about slavery.

The next famous giver of the argument was Frederick Douglass, who argued that women's rights should be put aside to pursue black citizenship post Civil War.

It's an argument that makes sense and deserves more than "it's old." — frank

It's not that "it's old," it's that it's stupid, easy, boring, unimaginative, and shortsighted. It's been used over and over again to essentially keep the state of affairs within predetermined limits. Ask yourself: who determines the limits? And why do we accept them?

Why is Medicare for All radical, for example? Why can't we do it? People like you remind me of those nobles in Braveheart, always saying how impossible and reckless it is to do this and that. And you continually miss the point: even if we lose, even if it doesn't get through -- the very attempt changes things, and makes it even easier to get something else passed that we were all advocating to begin with. It's like the door-in-the-face compliance technique. Suddenly, after fighting this war, the battle over "fixing" medicare isn't so dire. If we settle for just fixing it, and demanding nothing more, then it's no wonder McConnell and others are getting away with setting the stage for "cutting entitlements." They're coming for social security, medicare, medicaid, and anything to do with the New Deal. Don't be fooled.

MFA is a distraction from the more pressing issue: save Medicare period. — frank

Yawn. People have been screaming for decades about saving social security, saving medicare. It's going bankrupt! Etc.

Medicare for All is a good idea and has majority support.
— Xtrix

Sure, but it's not going to happen. — frank

It will happen. But fine, take that position. Gives you a real sense of superiority. How incredibly realistic you are! A real straight-shooter!

You keep working on fixing medicare. That strategy has been a real winner so far. Way to advance the zeitgeist.

Shooting for the moon when we cant even get a ride downtown just undermines our ability to get anything done. — frank

An argument that has been given for decades.

I say the contrary: shoot for the moon. Who's to say what's "radical" and what isn't? Any of these things can be done. It makes sense, and it's what people want. Look at how far we came with marijuana, gay marriage, etc. Just a few years ago, there were people quite like you saying the same old stuff --- it's impossible, don't ask for it, settle for compromise.

Things have swung so far right in this country it's time for a shift to the left. At the very least it will help maintain balance in and stretch what's considered a "limit."

Medicare for All is a good idea and has majority support. Look at the plan in depth. John Oliver had a good segment on it, actually. If you can get by the silly humor, it's fairly well-researched:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z2XRg3dy9k

Yeah, because those Republicans do such a great job on a state level. Everyone is dying to live in Alabama, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Try to grow beyond your simplistic red/blue dichotomy view of politics. You'll find the world is a complex place.

The state of California generally recognizes that there is a homelessness crisis here... finally, after I’ve been screaming about it for well over a decade, ever since I first had to pay for my own housing, nearly couldn’t (spending a month homeless soon thereafter) despite making a median income already, did the math to figure out how long it would take to get free of that danger entirely, and realized the answer is “possibly never”. I’ve also been watching my elderly mother wavering on the edge of homelessness for years. I’ve been screaming about how can nobody see this doom coming for themselves and why isn’t anybody doing anything about it for all that time, and only now that said doom is actually starting to befall large numbers of people are they finally starting to acknowledge the problem. — Pfhorrest

Fair enough. I forgot you lived in California -- I believe you mentioned it before.

Interesting you cite this article. He's actually arguing that while Bernie is like McGovern in many ways, the context is so very different as to make the comparison essentially meaningless. Nixon was polling very well against McGovern, and was in general a popular president --65% approval rating prior to watergate. Trump is nowhere near those numbers, Americans are not feeling the "great economy" in real terms - no matter how many times the conservative AND liberal media rams this down their throats, and Bernie has a better campaign strategy.

Hillary is Humphrey, the centrist beating back the challenge from Bernie in 2016; and Bernie, if he wins, would be McGovern. — fishfry

Except there are stark differences, despite the similarities.

Atlantic ran a good article about this. For those without access, here's a snippet:

No comparison of Sanders and McGovern is sufficient without acknowledging that McGovern’s campaign in the summer of 1972 was a one-of-a-kind disaster. At the national convention, McGovern faced widespread opposition from major Democratic figures, including future President Jimmy Carter. After securing the nomination in a messy war for delegates, he struggled to find a prominent Democrat to serve as his running mate. Senator Ted Kennedy, widely seen as the most popular choice, rejected multiple offers. When the convention finally agreed on Senator Thomas Eagleton, it was so late that McGovern famously didn’t take the stage to deliver his acceptance speech until after midnight on the East Coast. And this was all for naught: Within days, it was reported that Eagleton had received electroshock therapy for severe depression, and party officials urged him to quit the race. Eagleton withdrew from the ticket, the first vice-presidential candidate to ever do so, and McGovern went into late August down one running mate and 20 points in the polls.

If Bernie shows up in Milwaukee with a plurality but not a majority of the votes, then the superdelegates will have their way. — fishfry

I agree with most to your post, but I wasn't being facetious: if you know how the process works, what evidence is there that suggests this is most likely to happen? I realize the DNC doesn't want Bernie, but Bernie will end up with most of the delegates in the end. I have a hard time believing that the DNC is stupid enough, given the delegate numbers, to simply hand it over to Bloomberg. That's a disaster.

You could be right, but I need more. Bloomberg plotting against Sanders we knew from the beginning.

You seem overly worried about homelessness. It's not an irrational concern, but in my view if you're fairly intelligent and resourceful enough, you can make your way -- even if that means working the menial jobs. There are a lot of ways to survive in this country. The point that it's getting harder to merely survive, let alone to live by the same standards we had 60 years ago, is obviously true.

I was talking about income there, as apparently the mean personal income (which I approximately make) falls at around the 75th percentile of personal incomes, i.e. 75% of people make less than that. — Pfhorrest

Well good for you. :)

What's so essential about a house and a car? You don't need either to find someone to love, or to raise a family.
— Xtrix

You need a home big enough for two people to live in if they're going to be a family, even if they're not planning on having kids (which we're not). — Pfhorrest

A home in the sense of some kind of dwelling place, yes. Not necessarily a house.

We're scraping by because she lives with family on super-discounted rent and I own a tiny one-room mobile home in a shitty trailer park that's also rent-controlled; when either of us visits the other, we can at most bring a backpack full of stuff to the other's place, and even that just sits on the floor in the way and constantly needs to be moved to get about, so there's no way we could actually live together on a long-term basis unless one of us was just living out of a backpack indefinitely. — Pfhorrest

I'm sure your situation is shared by many Americans. How old are you, if you don't mind my asking?

An apartment big enough for two would leave us scraping by paycheck-to-paycheck, not saving anything for the future, and so when we're too old to have paychecks to pay toward that rent anymore, would leave us out on the street. The interest alone on a mortgage on the cheapest available house in the area would be just as bad, never mind paying down the principle. — Pfhorrest

My wife and I still rent and have been postponing buying a house. Mortgaging a house is in many ways the better alternative because you are at least paying down the mortgage and building equity as opposed to simply giving away money every month and owning nothing.

So I hear you on all of this, but my point was that none of this in itself should be an end in itself -- weather owning a home or saving money or having a retirement plan or making sure you're secured when you're old, etc. I think all of that is fine, but that the emphasis, the stress, that has been placed on these objectives is and has been out of whack for a long time.

It's simply taken for granted that having a billionaire dollars makes you "successful," for example. I hear this all the time in reference to Bloomberg. But I ask: why? Maybe in the domain of business, where the game is "won" by accumulating more and more profit, does this metric make sense, and even there this is arguable. But applied to a person's life generally is absurd. Moreover, what's frustrating is that my fellow countrymen will take this for granted while at the same time professing agreement with the proverbial "money can't buy me love" and "money is the root of all evil"-type stuff.

Anyway, I wasn't meaning originally to contradict your point, but to emphasize that things were even worse than you're already making them out to be, to double down on your original point. — Pfhorrest

I understand. So you're right, of course. The "American Dream' has indeed become more and more elusive, especially since about the 1970s. But even if we were in the 1950s again, my point would be the same: that our highest aspirations as Americans, in the form of the American Dream of a steady, well-paid job, a house and car, and a wife and family, is itself a mistake. Not that it's morally or financially wrong to want a family or a house, but that the ideal itself is a mistake and is given too high a priority.

I think Warren has had a bit of bad luck in the sense of running alongside someone with similar ideology but also more experience and already existing, large base of supporters. That's one strike. Another strike is simply being a woman. As correct, intelligent, articulate, and confident as she is, I think there's a bias about both her looks and her delivery that works against her in much the same way it did for Hillary. I don't think that's fair, but I see it all around me and feel it in myself at times -- seems too calculated.

But the main reason is just getting less of a share of the progressive vote, and that's because of Sanders. For me, it's because he's been around longer and in that time has been far more consistent in his ideology and has been therefore consistently on the right side of history, even when the choices were extremely unpopular even within his own "party."

What helps me when thinking about these things in particular (or about the past in general) is to say to myself that the time just wasn’t ready for (X). The situation or circumstances (for whatever reason, fair or not) were not completely ripe. Maybe now it is ripe for a change. If so, then it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop the flow of the river that was once a tiny trickle of water. — 0 thru 9

True, and it's also important to remember that YOU are a part of that river. We all have far more influence than we think, in my view. The state of politics in this country is at a very interesting stage, and hasn't always been this way.

We've become alienated from politics in a way similar to other fields, yet many more people have opinions about it that are becoming more and more rigid, dogmatic and fanatical.

So while we're equally alienated from, and possess the same level of understanding as, say, physics, there are many more political "buffs" and "nerds" out there than there are physics buffs, in the sense of a hobby. That's a dangerous phenomenon. It's dangerous because politics isn't simply an academic subject one studies in school in an abstract, theoretical way. What happens in what's called our political realm has real-world consequences, and so our participation in the process matters all the more. It doesn't take a degree in "political science." All you need to do is look around at your own life and the lives of the people around you, the laws being passed, the distribution of wealth and resources, the quality of life of various groups (or "classes") of people. You don't have to know who Machiavelli, or John Locke, or Adam Smith, or Karl Marx, or Aristotle is, you don't have to read esoteric journals, and you don't have to know the history of every country. All of that can help, of course, but it's not necessary to seeing the truth and describing it accurately. It takes no greater level of intelligence than understanding sports.

This is a particularly good example in the US, because there are for more sports enthusiasts out there than even political hobbyists, and while perhaps most have a very detailed knowledge of the sport and can give vehement arguments about a team or a player, they're as equally removed from actual participation as political hobbyists like you and I (if that's a fair label). We don't run for anything or organize people in any way, and probably don't follow or contribute to an organization either. There was an excellent article in the Atlantic about this I'll link below. It opened my eyes even wider to how little influence all my thinking, reading, writing and talk about politics actually has on the state of affairs compared to concrete action, organization and collaboration with otherpeople in the real world.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/political-hobbyists-are-ruining-politics/605212/

Once you get to the second round and the superdelegates take over, Bernie is certain to be screwed. — fishfry

Explain why you think this is true. I don't see it.

Personally, that's still something I aspire to... like, the bare minimum I aspired to have had already well over a decade ago, and am still very slowly struggling toward, despite making better progress at it than like 75% of the country if the statistics are to believed. — Pfhorrest

What statistics? What metric are you referring to here? Yearly salary or something, or are you saying that 75% of Americans don't have a partner and steady job?

I think it should be either bare minimum as it once was (an economy that allowed for people to have a car and house and savings on a one-salary family income with inexpensive or affordable education and healthcare), or else given up on if it becomes too costly to personal well-being and living a good and happy life.

In other words, trying to keep up with the Jones or the standard idea of the "American Dream," if it means having to work non-stop, get into extreme debt -- why bother? And what's the dream, exactly? What's so essential about a house and a car? You don't need either to find someone to love, or to raise a family. Plenty of people all around the world and throughout history have done just fine without most of what we view as "essential." They may have been the standard way of American living in the 50s or something, but we live in a very different world and should therefore adjust our expectations and ambitions. Why are we still going for "success" in the form of money, material status, and having a family?

That was my point.

I certainly sympathize with this point of view. I too was very disappointed in 2016 -- I voted for Clinton as the least damaging candidate, although I couldn't stand her. I think I was in very good and very large company. It was those friends of mine that felt that there was no big difference between candidates that swung the election; despite being ridiculous to me, for them there was not enough contrast between Clinton and Trump. They convinced themselves, or were convinced by the equivalence argument. Others stayed home because Clinton wasn't their 1st choice.

Anyone in a swing state that cares about climate change, to take one of the most important examples, and who didn't vote for Clinton in 2016 -- these are the people who angered me the most. They made a huge mistake, and essentially helped contribute to the last 3 years' policies which further accelerated the possibly of killing our species off (and this is not exaggeration, alarmism, or hyperbole-- this is real life). I'm hoping they are the ones who show up this time around.

But to your point -- yes, losing those people and costing us the election in 2016 may indeed be a blessing, but remember that Bernie could have been the nominee that year as well, and was polling better than Clinton was versus Trump. It's hard to forgive the DNC for that, in that case. But this is all speculation in the end -- maybe 4 years of Sanders would have resulted in an even more extreme Republican nominee, or 4 years of Clinton just status quo inaction and apathy on the Left and the continuation of Right's dominance of state and local politics through grassroots organization (I think that would have been far more probable).

I think it's time to pull more to the left now, because it's the only way to bring balance back after such a rightward shift for the last 40 years, culminating in this administration and embodied in the Great Opportunist, Donald Trump. There are still many in the middle, but best to provide the "middle" and all the "independents" out there with a real contrast: not deep red and reddish pink, but deep red and deep blue. I think most independents naturally get tired of the party in charge. Granted, that's normally been the case after 8 years, as most incumbents get re-relected, but Trump is an animal all of his own.

I digress.

Yes, and it'll be very hard to defeat Trump, win congress, get things passed, etc. But what's the alternative? Lay down and die? Passivity? Apathy? That's been tried. We call it the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. We see what we got for aspiring to be nothing more than television watchers working steady 9-5 jobs with the hope of meeting someone, buying a house and starting a family. There's a big world out there and it's worth understanding and, more importantly, worth fighting for.

So yes, it'll probably be slow going and is an uphill battle. No doubt. We knew it from the beginning. We've gotten THIS far, though. Would we have dreamed of being this close even 6 years ago?

I really wouldn't worry about it. Like I said earlier, the DNC are indeed sleazy, but they're not completely blind. They don't like Sanders, but they'll very easily recognize what a big mistake it is, especially this time around. And Sanders will most likely get the plurality, yes -- but others will drop out as well along the way, leaving some distance between his delegate count and the count of the potential second-place finisher, making it even more striking if they simply declare a winner other than Sanders. In other words, if he ends up with 1400 delegates, it's not as if second place will have the remaining 1591 or whatever it is. The rest will either vote according to who their the candidate who dropped out endorsed or can vote however they'd like at the convention -- but the point is, the distance will be sufficiently large, and this in itself will almost force the DNC's hand to give it to Sanders.

Yes, Pete seemed to cruelly and unnecessarily twist the blade when confronting her about her forgetting the name of Mexico’s President. She looked shocked, but recovered nicely. — 0 thru 9

I think she looked rattled and weak. She appeared on the verge of tears almost. Her line about "Do you think I'm dumb, are you mocking me?" was kind of pathetic. Why not just say "I forgot, mistakes happen" strongly, and then move on. This was terrible for her. Pete looked like an ass, too, but he was still successful in making her shake.

Just watch. It'll come down to Sanders and Bloomberg, but only because the latter has the money to waste.

Too much talk about a brokered convention. If by chance that happens, it won't be so close as to be reasonable to give it to someone other than the delegate leader. It would be suicide if they gave it to Bloomberg or whoever instead of Sanders, for example. There's no sense getting worked up about this. The DNC is sleazy but not that stupid.

I thought Bernie handled the attacks well. The "socialist millionaire with three houses" was bound to be brought up, and plays very well unfortunately. Better to get it out of the way and give Bernie some practice, because Trump will undoubtedly use this as well (ironically, another billionaire). I don't think "billionaires shouldn't exist" plays well either, and I wish he would be more clear about how he will pay for Medicare for All -- have some response that's quick. If citizens buy into "Mexico will pay for it," then they'll buy anything -- it doesn't matter, but say something and say it quickly.

Otherwise, he did fine as usual, and it was good to have a billionaire contrast on the stage.

I don't know about needing to die, but I don't like him buying his way into this race either.

I think Biden has almost no chance at this point. It's going to end up being Bernie or Bloomberg, which is a disaster. But let's hope Bernie pulls away with the delegates so it doesn't come to the shenanigans.

Noam Chomsky on the 2020 elections and Bernie Sanders:


"We have a short-term problem: what lever do you push in November of this year? Simple question. What you do is pick the one that's least damaging. OK, after having spent five minutes figuring that out, you now go back to work trying to develop the basis for much more substantial changes to develop popular movements which will be active, engaged on real issues, never stopping or restricting themselves to the quadrennial extravaganza, but working all the time on the ground in communities, in education and in organizing activism to create the larger scale changes that are needed.

These are not alternatives. We shouldn't be trapped by the doctrinal system which identifies "politics" as showing up every couple years to push a button to select one or another candidate picked by the powerful. Yes, that choice makes a difference -- makes a significant difference -- but after making that choice (which again should take you five minutes to figure out), you get back to work.

In fact, it's no secret that the mainstream Democratic establishment are very concerned that Bernie Sanders might gain the nomination, they're doing everything possible to undermine him. Why? I don't think it's because of his policies. The fact of the matter is that his policies are an expansion of the New Deal, which wouldn't surprise Eisenhauer -- our last conservative President. But what really is bothersome is that he's breaking with the condition that the public are supposed to be occasional participants who's role in the political system is to pick one or the other of the dominant class. He's breaking with that."

I just checked, and no it was not you. I was commenting on another posters message. — Nobeernolife

Fine. The point stands.

So why do butt in, and in such rude manner? — Nobeernolife

Because it's a public forum. If you want to have private discussions, you can. If you don't want others reading or responding to you, that's the way to go.

As far as being "rude," fine. I get this a lot. I'll agree to try and be better if you (and others) agree to toughen up a little.

So in what respect are Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, Belize and Greece better? They all have their number of problems too. — Nobeernolife

Which is exactly my point. We have our problems, they have theirs. We have our virtues, so do they.

And how is asking which country you find better after call one awful a "fatous question"? Looks like a relevant question to me. — Nobeernolife

Who called the United States "awful"? I certainly didn't. But who cares anyway if someone did? Why should you get defensive about that? It's as absurd as getting upset if someone "insults" your favorite sports team -- may be annoying, but the more interesting question is why they're doing that. Sometimes there's good reason. If there isn't, and they're just prejudiced, then in my view the proper response is to ignore them, not engage in a pissing contest about what country is "better."

Don't forget the big one: do you want to exist somewhere? Well unless your wealthy parents just gifted you a house the moment you became an adult, you have to exist somewhere owned by someone else indefinitely, paying them whatever they demand for the privilege, or else eventually borrow enough money from someone else to buy a place of your own and then spend your whole life paying that back, plus however much else they demand for that privilege. — Pfhorrest

Exactly. One can see this everywhere. In the prices of goods and services, in the rise of debt and credit cards, in the rise of tuition in public (and private) colleges and universities (and thus student loan debt), in rent prices, in mortgages, in car loans, in the limited choices we're given as "consumers," and on and on.

I grew up in Andover, MA. Right next door was Lawrence, an old mill town and much poorer. I could see very clearly what money can buy, from better schools and nicer stores and less police involvement on down. But it's hard to miss even without living with that contrast. I think a large part of it is that people don't like discussing class and money.

The government, on the other hand, can take from you what they wish, and enslave you, steal from you and kill you if you refuse to comply. — NOS4A2

True, because the laws are created by the government and law enforcement (from the FBI on down to local police) therefore has to exist. But ask yourself who's creating the laws (to be enforced in the first place), and who makes up the court system that interprets the law?

It's been shown that the government is in bed with private wealth and power, and thus you will see this reflected in the types of laws that get passed, the types of rulings that are handed down (Citizens United, Janus, etc), and the varying severity of punishment and use of force. (Also look at the spreading of news and information, now done mainly through the media.)

All of these factors therefore come into play when discussing power in the country. If you believe the "buck stops" with the President, or with Congress, or with the military and law enforcement, you're missing a bigger picture. Neither the government nor private power can exist without the majority of people, and everyone in business and everyone in government knows this. Your point about violence is simply one piece. There are other structures in place: indoctrination systems (like "education") and propaganda. This is especially true of a relatively free society like ours.

I'm sure Rand probably noticed the power of owning the media, but you're right -- she never emphasized that. But this is a huge piece of keeping the public complacent, confused, and apathetic. (There's also a lot of "political hobbyism" going on.) Power is also welded through our schools, of course.

Is this your adolescent son talking?

What a juvenile and petty response. If it's truly you I'd be embarrassed, even with the anonymity of the Internet.

The only things private ownership has power over is its own property. They cannot force or otherwise coerce the government to do what they wish. They cannot force their employees to work for them. They cannot force you to purchase their products or services. — NOS4A2

Here your use of the word "force" is I think too limited.

(1) Private ownership and private wealth do indeed exert influence and control over the government, as is well documented. If the people of the government who control what laws get written and passed -- the members of the House and Senate -- are beholden to "special interests," then these special interests have power over government. I never said it was complete power and total control.

(2) Not "forcing" employees to work for them. True, and this line is often used to justify the greed and maltreatment of workers that you see all the time. It's used to justify low wages and shortened hours to avoid benefits, etc. People don't "have" to work for these companies, after all. What do they do if they can't find anything else? They have the right to starve, I suppose.

(3) Same for "forcing" us to use their products and services. Sure. So you want high speed internet, and the only company in town is Comcast. No one is putting a gun to your head to buy high speed internet, after all. Or if Wal Mart and Shaws and CVS are the only general store and supermarket and pharmacy near you, you have a choice to drive farther and find something else, etc. etc.

Great logic. Put all the burden, all the responsibility, on the workers and consumers.

You're a good example of how propaganda turns people into apologists for concentrated power. It's terrible apologetics, in my view. All the more so because you're not one of them.

Philosophical and moral arguments were given for the justification of slavery, as well. Believed by slaveowners, yes -- but also by the slaves themselves. That's worth remembering.

It is pretty awful in some respects, but I am curious if you can list the places that are better? — Nobeernolife

Sweden. Denmark. Germany. I like Canada and Belize a lot, too. Greece is really amazing. Etc.

So there's the answer to your absurd, disingenuous question. Now please go on to highlight the problems of the aforementioned countries and completely miss my point*.




* Hint: asking what country is "better" is a fatuous question, at best.

Classic example which makes is totally clear is the title of Noam Chomsky's first political bok from 1967: "The Resonsibility of Intellectuals". Cannot make it more clear what his agenda is. — ssu

And what would that be? The Responsibility of Intellectuals is a very interesting read indeed, if you take the time and make an effort to understand what's being said.

Chomsky is arguing the intellectuals throughout history have usually been on the side of the powerful and of the elite, that those who dissent are usually ostracized and persecuted (despite what we may now learn about them-- favorably-- from history books), and that this continues to the present day. I would include Chomsky himself in with these dissenters. It's no wonder he's not a Fox News or CNN pundit or gets to write for the NY Times, etc.

Your views on government are laughable.

You want to give away your own power and give it to the government. That explains your level servility. — NOS4A2

I don't want to give up my power to the government either. Don't be ridiculoius. The difference between you and I, and why I mentioned your position is laughable (which shouldn't be taken personally), is that I'd prefer most of the power be in the hands of an entity we have a little more say in (and all too little) rather than in the hands of private ownership, where we have zero say, unless of course we own the majority (or significant amount) of shares. This is big business in the form of the (fewer and fewer) corporations that dominate banking, agriculture, drugs, energy, entertainment, sports, etc. You know this. These are not small, family-owned, local businesses.

If you're truly in favor of, or at least prefer, the real power lying in the hands of unaccountable corporations, then you're basically in favor of totalitarianism. Think about it. Not exterminating or deliberately starving people, but run in a totalitarian fashion where orders come from the top-down and where the vast majority of workers have no say whatsoever and ultimately answer to a small, removed group of people that own and make the major decisions for the company.

Consequently, I wouldn't be so quick jumping on "Big Government" liberals for their wanting to "give up" power, because you seemingly do as well, if reluctantly -- the difference, again, is that you simply can't see that of two bad choices, private tyranny or government, government is the by any measure the preferable choice. (At least if you care, as is often professed, about democracy -- what the majority of people in the country [the working and middle class] want, what most of them say they want and what most of them vote for. If you don't care about democracy, fine -- then you're in good company with James Madison and John Jay.)

Yeah, I don’t know. He’s been harder on them than anyone else. — NOS4A2

Ah, a Trump supporter. That explains the level of understanding about history and politics. Should have known.