Dems against blue collar workers?
- Thread starter Herkmeister
- Start date
R's are very good at convincing people that voting for their own interests is really bad for them. It's simply amazing that struggling workers think that cheaper college and healthcare are "bad".
There has to be a term for what this dynamic duo is doing in this thread. They are trying to muddy the waters with ignorance and fantasy all at the same time.
You make excellent points. And the liberal tenured professor is fight like a dog to maintain his high salary. And let's not turn this into a sidetrack argument related to protecting tenure. My point is that protecting one's assets will eventually become an asset. Liberty lets each of us determine to whom we wish our money to go. Socialism lets the gov take our money and tell us to whom it will go.
Your liberty is an illusion, Herk. Mixed economies actually seem pretty good at making the illusion less, uh, illusive.
Speaking of illusive…
Unions equal liberty under your definition and the military equals socialism. Just saying...
I'm not "at all".
Take a look at Hormel Foods in Austin, MN. Hormel was abusing their people with ridiculous production rates. Those people needed the protection of a union.
I do not believe unions should be able to force workers to join, which we might not agree on.
Look Huey, there are great employers in this world. There are awful employers. There are good unions, and there are awful unions.
Does our gov need to control capitalism? Absolutely. Does it need to monitor unions? Absolutely.
Are wages going up due to low unemployment rates? Absolutely.
Do you really want to vote for a President who is going to guarantee people jobs? It's so epically stupid I can't imagine how they can garner any support.
You take issue with the government being an employer of last resort? Do you prefer they just go on welfare by default?
It's kind of funny that employer of last resort is similar to a republican idea of making people on welfare work in public works type jobs to earn their welfare.
You beat me to the punch. Welfare over workfare was the first thing that popped in my head, too.
I have listened to Bernie in every debate. Not once did I hear him say "employer of last resort". Though I may have missed it. I have heard him talk of nationalizing companies, and I have interpreted the jobs of which he spoke to be these. I would strongly favor working for benefits as I think that is ultimately healthy for people, but I can only imagine the management problems this will cause and the legal problems it will initiate.
I think they realize that the only money a gov has it what they take from citizens.
You think gov makes great decisions. I don't.
You may call military socialism if you wish. You'll call infrastructure the same.
This is not what Pocahontas and Bernie have in mind.
I'm simply using your definition of the term. If you don't agree, then you should revise your definition.
blue collar workers are certainly going to pay for free college for others
Man, damn, fatalism rooted in, among other things, perspective bias and accompanying selective memory—never mind self-fulfilling prophecy type shit. I would rather believe we can make our government do what we want it to do, and then set about to do it—you know, self-governance type shit—and then hold accountable those who we find are fücking it up (especially when doing so to favor themselves and/or their pals). Step one in this would be for us to unite behind campaign finance reform, plain and simple. In our lifetime there has been a redistribution of wealth and narrowing of power. Time to correct. This rhetoric of "wealth redistribution" always cracks me up. Over the last 40-50 years wealth was pulled out of the middle class… for what? To whom? Look at every wealth distribution data representation that encapsulates the last 50 years. Yeah, we need to once again "redistribute" or we'll be so top-heavy, well, this shit is not sustainable.
Debates aren't a great place for information.
I assume by "nationalizing companies" you are referring to filling the void of obsoletity that will be created with insurance companies greatly reducing in size? I'm okay with that. At the end of the day we are paying double for health insurance when compared with other developed nations. We are propping up a for profit middle man who in return is parasitic to our wallets. In the US life expectancy is dropping even though we are paying double for healthcare. Canadians, who I hear sometimes are on long waiting lists, live nearly 4 more years than Americans.
Sounds like our decision to stick with for profit insurance companies isn't a great decision.
I wonder, are you on Medicare?
I think you have made it abundantly clear that you are arguing from a position of ignorance in this thread.
Boy, you really lost me here.
Right now, today, the government takes our money and tells us to whom it will go. It goes to the military and entitlements. Is that what you consider socialism?
A "properly functioning government"
taxes it's citizens and decides where to spend it to make the City, County, State or Country better for all. Defense, infrastructure, education, etc. Making health care and college more affordable is for the betterment of all - it's not even close to socialism.
Yep, those "debates" are a construct of the very thing we supposedly all think sucks—mainstream media. And yet, mofos watch thinking they're getting something valuable. Lol. Fückin' TV. Man fück that thing, lazybrainbox.
Which candidates have campaigned on lowering the cost of education? I have seen quite a few campaign on having other people pay for others to go to college. There has not been a single proposal I have seen that would actually lower the cost. In fact it would have the opposite effect. We would likely see college costs double in short time under most current proposals. It's basic supply and demand.
The dirty little secret (ok, maybe it's not a dirty secret) about trade skill jobs, training for them often requires hard work and significant academic work that the people who "don't need no college education" forgot to get while in High School. Then they typically go on facebook and post memes about how schools should teach how to do taxes and shit like that never realizing that if they had spent 10 minutes paying attention in math and english they would already have the skills to do those things.
Not to mention, trade skill people that make decent money also work their asses off. If kids are just lazy, they don't make it.
The government may make mistakes, but programs that lower college and healthcare costs are in the public's interest. Our government funds a lot of programs that improve our lives. I think it's better for all of us to help pay for roads, police, public education, military protection, national parks, etc. than for only those who are wealthy enough to afford those services to have access. Do you seriously think corporate America has everyday Americans' welfare at the top of their priorities?
Last edited:
America is not ready for the socialism of
Bernie Sanders. He wants to make taxes
so high on the wealthy that there would be
a redistribution of wealth. Capitalism has
done well in America for those who are
willing to work hard and not expect a free
handout from the government.
Bernie Sanders. He wants to make taxes
so high on the wealthy that there would be
a redistribution of wealth. Capitalism has
done well in America for those who are
willing to work hard and not expect a free
handout from the government.
Capitalism can't always do it all on it's own. Under FDR there was the WPA.
Bernie is a social democrat much like FDR. He is not a post capitalistic socailist.
In the spirit of MLK Junior day, let's see a quote from another great social democrat.
"And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…”
Democrats have hated labor for a long time now. They sure use them but the hate it there. The condescending everything. Simply look at how they talk about those that believe in God. Those that didn't attend college or are in trades or jobs that don't require a degree. Those that own guns. The Democrats call them deplorable. Say they are too stupid to know their own best interests.
Who do you think voter for trump?
Who do you think voter for trump?
1. More people go to college, fewer to trades. Supply goes down.
2. More people go to college. Incomes go up. More demand.
My dad was a pharmacist. He owned the store. He went to school following WW2 and got his degree. He then worked at the drug store he later bought. He got up and opened his store everyday at 0800 and locked the doors at 1800 hrs. He did this 6 days a week. He was closed on Sunday. He used his degree to finance his purchase. He worked his azz off. That really was his business. He paid the bills. He was no hero...the town was full of folks like him. He was a Roosevelt Democrat in a Coolidge Republican town. He survived. He could tell you a million reasons why the world needed unions. He could tell you a million reasons why unions were bad, too. He never really ever focused on the negative. He just concentrated on stuff he could do and set about doing it. He taught me the most important thing to accomplish goals is to concentrate on the goal...and forget the ego.
Today’s world has a whole of “ego” in it...
Today’s world has a whole of “ego” in it...
Dems are losing the Blue collar vote more and more due to the fact that the average blue collar union workers, isn’t woke, doesn’t GAF about transgender issues, has always had jobs and the economy as their number 1 issue, often work in non-eco friendly jobs that are under attack and are starting to feel like they don’t have a home in the Dem party anymore. Much like small government conservatives feel about the GOP.
Maybe I misunderstood. So money going to “colleges” doesn’t include the training of a trade?
Gotcha.
It could and, under the proposals out there, would cover trades, as it should. However, the original post assumes otherwise (“wants them all to have college degrees”) and was the basis for my claim.
It’s interesting. Helping make education (trade, undergrad or professional) affordable lessens the value of the education for those that have it. If there were 50% fewer plumbers or oral surgeons, imagine what they could charge.
I’d like to see education costs further subsidized but only for those with decently strong qualifications. That would drive a more merit based (v daddy had the right job or inheritance) student body makeup and drive truer competition.
I’m a huge believer in the idea that anything that moves us closer to a meritocracy causes our society to be not only more just, but closer to being economically optimized.
Last edited:
Republicans want to eliminate all public education. K-12, the University of Iowa, all off it, because they oppose socialism. And none of that wussy Pell grant crap, Stalin lover.
And because of fox news these things are presented as bigger things than they are. Sadly, because these outlier things drive ratings, the other dumbassness of tv pick it up. If people weren’t into candyass tv and candierass social media and am radio, none of this stuff would stick.
Similar threads
