Another War?

[JaneV2.0]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." ~ Norman Thomas, 6 time Presidential candidate representing the Socialist Party of America.

I'm proud to be a liberal/progressive. Liberalism has consistently promoted programs that have made life better for the majority of Americans--from protection for labor unions, to Social Security and Medicare, to environmental protection and so forth. If that makes me a socialist--in the tradition of European socialism--I'm OK with that. Socialism is central to a functional society, as I see it--the alternative is what? Oligarchy? Anarchy? Conservatism was admirable when it concerned itself with conserving resources, but now it's only all about a few people hoarding billions, as far as I can see.

[LDAHL]

Do “liberal” and “progressive” have roughly similar political meanings anymore? Some recent candidates seem eager to further progressive ends by distinctly illiberal means.

And I think a lot of people inaccurately call themselves “conservative” when they are really just another flavor of populist or nationalist.

I think our traditional understanding of what both major parties stand for needs some recalibration.

“Socialism” is another term that gets used in so many ways as to be practically meaningless: either as insult or aspiration. Bernie seems to think it might mean “the way the Nordics do things”, to which some of the Nordics took offense. To some people, it seems to mean anything paid for with tax dollars or government borrowing. Others hew to the stricter Marxist definition.

[catherine]

I'm proud to be a liberal/progressive. Liberalism has consistently promoted programs that have made life better for the majority of Americans--from protection for labor unions, to Social Security and Medicare, to environmental protection and so forth. If that makes me a socialist--in the tradition of European socialism--I'm OK with that. Socialism is central to a functional society, as I see it--the alternative is what? Oligarchy? Anarchy? Conservatism was admirable when it concerned itself with conserving resources, but now it's only all about a few people hoarding billions, as far as I can see.

In my list of best presidents ever, I do count a Republican among them: Teddy Roosevelt. He was a Progressive Republican who put policies in place to protect the common man from corporate interests and recognized the importance of conserving the environment. Why can't we find a Republican like him?

[JaneV2.0]

In my list of best presidents ever, I do count a Republican among them: Teddy Roosevelt. He was a Progressive Republican who put policies in place to protect the common man from corporate interests and recognized the importance of conserving the environment. Why can't we find a Republican like him?

Or Eisenhower, who was absolutely right about the military-industrial complex, and presided over a fair federal tax system.

[Alan]

Are you talking about the nuclear agreement?

Yes. That was the reason given but I'm still curious what pallets of cash had to do with the agreement.

The one agreed to by multiple European nations? (Hardly a unilateral move by President Obama...)

The money was a unilateral move by the Obama administration and had nothing to do with anything the European nations agreed to. It was delivered as pallets of cash on the same day Iran released 4 American hostages, although the administration insists they did not pay a ransom for them even though the hostages were not released until a few hours after the delivery. It probably took that much time to get a rough count on the money.

There seems to be a lot of detail missing from your AP story for some reason.

[flowerseverywhere]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." ~ Norman Thomas, 6 time Presidential candidate representing the Socialist Party of America.

say social security, Medicare, Medicaid, free school lunch, subsidized housing, ACA, food stamps, ssdi and any other social programs were phased out over the next ten years. What would happen to the elderly, poor, unemployed, underemployed, disabled or very ill and so on?

[JaneV2.0]

Yes. That was the reason given but I'm still curious what pallets of cash had to do with the agreement.
The money was a unilateral move by the Obama administration and had nothing to do with anything the European nations agreed to. It was delivered as pallets of cash on the same day Iran released 4 American hostages, although the administration insists they did not pay a ransom for them even though the hostages were not released until a few hours after the delivery. It probably took that much time to get a rough count on the money.

There seems to be a lot of detail missing from your AP story for some reason.

Here's the long answer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ed-by-u-s-law/

"One can certainly disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to send a jet with cash to Tehran on the same day that American detainees were released, but the action taken did not violate the law passed by Congress."

[JaneV2.0]

say social security, Medicare, Medicaid, free school lunch, subsidized housing, ACA, food stamps, ssdi and any other social programs were phased out over the next ten years. What would happen to the elderly, poor, unemployed, underemployed, disabled or very ill and so on?

We'll be finding out what the result of scrapping hundreds of regulations and safeguards will be, as Trump and his cabinet have made that a priority.

[iris lilies]

say social security, Medicare, Medicaid, free school lunch, subsidized housing, ACA, food stamps, ssdi and any other social programs were phased out over the next ten years. What would happen to the elderly, poor, unemployed, underemployed, disabled or very ill and so on?

Of course these will not be rolled back because they are now too ingrained in our society. Too many of us have paid into these ponzi schemes and have been given promises.

But we rational grownups with an eye toward the country’s finances are doing our best to keep more of the same creeping into our federal system. If the states want to give away their wealth, let ‘em, that is ok with me. It the feds need to just staaaaaaaahp.

[Alan]

Here's the long answer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ed-by-u-s-law/

"One can certainly disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to send a jet with cash to Tehran on the same day that American detainees were released, but the action taken did not violate the law passed by Congress."

Thanks for that, I'd forgotten that the entire amount under dispute had been previously found to be fair game for compensatory damages for victims of Iran's holy war against the west and that our government had already paid out the initial $400,000,000.00 in claims before that same money did double duty as ransom payments, not to mention the $1.3B in interest paid in unmarked bills as well, that whole rule of 72 thing really pays off doesn't it, especially when so much media spends so much time convincing us there's nothing to see here.