Social Question

seawulf575's avatar

Why should we want Progressive leadership?

Asked by seawulf575 (5374points) 1 month ago

I came across this article:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-estate/2018/08/15/cities-where-middle-class-can-no-longer-afford-home-prices/37105219/

I realized that of the 20 cities on the list that are the top 20 of HUD’s list of least favorable to middle class are all heavily progressive/democrat cities. It appears as if progressive leadership leads to high income inequality and less ability for middle class and below persons to be able to live. If this is indeed the case, why would anyone want progressive leadership?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

93 Answers

flutherother's avatar

We want a country where everyone can enjoy healthcare, schooling for their kids and a house to live in. A country where such basic services are denied to the poor and even some of the middle classes is regressive, not progressive. We have been there before and the times were not good. We don’t want to go back there again.

LostInParadise's avatar

Maybe the prices are high because these are all desirable places to live, with thriving economies. You can probably find affordable housing in the rust belt, but who would want to?

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother So you agree progressive leadership is a bad thing, then? The citation I provided shows that in the most progressive of areas housing is not affordable. Middle class and below cannot even afford to live. These are cities where progressive leadership has taken control and in most cases has been in control for a long, long time. If progressive leadership were actually after the things you say, how would these conditions exist? Contrarily, I found that Utah where religion and conservative values hold sway, has the lowest income inequality in the country and a growing economy.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise If you look at the list and the read the article, you find that even the NYT calls Los Angeles a “third world country”. And San Francisco is battling human excrement in the streets. Does this sound like a desirable places to live? And the economies aren’t thriving…they aren’t even keeping up with the housing prices.

Yellowdog's avatar

Some people like watching really violent crime shows on television, and living in Detroit or L.A. is kind of like having it happening all around you, in sense-around. Some people like to poop outdoors and save on their water bill. So San Francisco might be for them. There are probably as many reasons as there are people who live in these “progressive” cities—it even sounds good to live somewhere ‘progressive’ and a product of ‘The Great Society.’

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , I did not see any description of Los Angeles as “a third world country”. The housing market, like any other market, is driven by supply and demand. If costs are high then there must be a correspondingly high demand. The prices would not be so high if people were unwilling to pay them.

ScienceChick's avatar

This is @seawulf575 fashioning a tool for himself to beat this broken drum of his.

Yellowdog's avatar

Well, all seriousness aside—I don’t think anyone ‘wants’ to live in these cities. But the poor are not as able to move out of them, or even desirous because that is their home, The same demographic remains, so nothing gets any better, and people tend to elect the same leadership over and over because they make the same promises over and over to problems that have not been dealt with.

Books about human societies document many periods of social problems such as this. Its just bad to see them in this modern era. In the 1980s I didn’t think ANY American or Western societies would ever get this bad again.

notnotnotnot's avatar

Sounds like someone is starting to express some discomfort with capitalism.

ScienceChick's avatar

Safest places in the world to live according to the Global Peace Index of 2018. Iceland remains the most peaceful country in the world, a position it has held since 2008. New Zealand, Austria, Portugal and Denmark also sit in the top five most peaceful rankings. All progressive places to live, with Portugal having the unique stance of legalising all drug use and treats addiction as an illness and not as a crime. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-peace-index-2018

Yellowdog's avatar

@notnotnotnot If you mean me, no—not discomfort with capitalism. But if the same demographic keeps re-electing the same leadership making the same promises that they do not or cannot fulfill for over fifty years, this is the result. I think things have definitely gotten worse in the past ten years,

MrGrimm888's avatar

The question seems to neglect massive, important variables. Lots of the changes people want, will need to happen on a federal level first. Take legalized marijuana. In Denver it started making major money, and increased the populations overall happiness, and increased tourism. To do that, it had to fight the federal government.

Something like universal health care, cannot work in a single city.

BTW. Low income inequality, just means there is less of a gap between incomes, it does not mean everyone is rich.

I think wanting any leadership, that clings to one type of thinking, is unwise.

Yellowdog's avatar

@ScienceChick Excellent list, and all liberal countries with progressive governments.

But look at what the population demographics are like. Very homogenous, peaceful cultures. You couldn’t import what they do there and expect it to work in Chicago, Detroit, or Memphis,

Let me make it clear also—I even think an ethnically DIVERSE culture could live like those nations, But not in Chicago or Memphis

MrGrimm888's avatar

Well. You’re ignorant.

notnotnotnot's avatar

@Yellowdog – No, I meant @seawulf575, who is expressing some concern about the ability of the market to produce affordable housing. He also seems to be painting income inequality as a bad thing. I welcome my new comrade to the red dark side.

Yellowdog's avatar

@MrGrimm888 You disagree (that’s what you usually mean when you call someone ignorant or worse things) so if I’m ignorant / wrong, then why haven’t the leftist, Democrat leadership of those cities been able to fix these problems? Why have they gotten so much worse in the past ten years? Twenty people shot in crime per night, feces on the streets, hypodermic needles, the homeless outnumbering occupied properties—all problems that have errupted in areas ruled by Democrats.

You could say its the people—but that’s what I said so you can’t agree there.
You could blame the leaders, but they’re Democrats and have been for many decades.
You could say these cities are fine Utopian societies or you could acknowledge the problem but say its racists, but racists have little influence in these cities.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise My apologies. I combined two articles. Here’s the one that calls into question the third world status

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/opinion/welcome-to-hooverville-california.html

ScienceChick's avatar

Are you saying Americans are not peaceful people and are warmongers? Which ‘diverse’ group is causing all your problems, praytell?

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Denver is #14 on the list. It isn’t as great as everyone thinks. Still difficult to find housing for poor-middle class people.

Demosthenes's avatar

In what ways do you think conservative leadership would solve income inequality?

What, specifically, would conservatives do to solve the issue of rising home prices driven by the tech boom in San Francisco?

seawulf575's avatar

@notnotnotnot I’m not fearing capitalism at all. I’m pointing out that in many places where liberal policies have held sway for a long, long time, things are not as idyllic as liberals like to say they would be. In fact it is the exact opposite. And it is liberals that scream about income inequality, not conservatives. Yet in those places where liberals lead, they have the worst income inequality of anywhere else in the country. So what I suggest is that we are seeing the natural end point of liberal policies….high prices, inability to afford reasonable housing, very much a we/they set up with the elite having everything and no one else able to even provide for themselves. So the question stands…with the bastions of liberalism being so inhospitable towards the majority of people, why would anyone want to keep supporting their leadership?

seawulf575's avatar

@Demosthenes I firmly believe there will always be some income inequality…there would need to be. But as I mentioned earlier, places like Utah have kept it more reasonable. It might be self-imposed or it might be sheer coincidence. But it might be worth looking at what they are doing that is working instead of continuing to beat the drum about ideals that are obviously not working.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise the problem goes beyond just affordable housing. CA is an interesting example.
https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation/2017/01/24/los-angeles-has-the-most-homeless-in-the-nation/97016140/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/us/california-today-states-homeless-population-drives-national-increase.html

I recently saw a documentary that highlighted the homeless situation in Los Angeles. There were block after block that made up what amounted to a homeless city. People living on the sidewalks in tents, boxes, whatever they could find. They interviewed one woman that worked as a registered nurse. Her income was not enough to enable her to find housing. She lived in the backseat of her car and showered at the local YWCA. When an RN can’t afford a place to live, there are serious problems.

ScienceChick's avatar

Those places, obviously, aren’t progressive enough. Increased minimum wage. Universal healthcare. Subsidised housing for low income. It should all help.

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChick San Francisco isn’t progressive enough???? Los Angeles isn’t progressive enough??? Are you serious? You are grasping at straws, girl. You suggest all sorts of ideas, but have no idea how to pay for any of them. As for increased minimum wage, that has been proven to hurt low income people, not help them. The problem isn’t that they aren’t progressive enough, the problem appears to be that they are TOO progressive. If it was the other way, then any of the conservative cities would be far worse than any of those on the list.

Demosthenes's avatar

@seawulf575 But you’re not explaining how.

Let’s take San Francisco as an example. Despite the statements that it’s “undesirable”, the population boom indicates the exact opposite. In fact, it’s because it’s so desirable (population rose from 805K to 884K in the last 7 years) that housing is becoming more scarce and prices continue to rise. This is compounded by the fact that the people moving there tend to be well-off tech workers, so landlords increase their rates more and more.

What specific conservative policies would address this?

I get that you’re pointing to correlations and insisting there must be a causation, but we’re looking at cities with completely different demographics, industries, and environments. I agree that the current progressive leadership of these cities is not solving the inequality and homelessness issues. But how exactly would changing the political affiliation of the leadership solve these issues? I’m not convinced that either side has much of a solution in mind.

There are some issues for which I think the argument may be more valid, i.e. crime. Maybe conservative leadership that was “tougher on crime” would make a dent in Chicago’s crime problem. Maybe it wouldn’t. But that’s one area where they have little to lose by experimenting with a different kind of leadership.

ScienceChick's avatar

I also don’t get the ‘Great places to live and very progressive, but homogeneous.’ has anything to do with anything. Does ‘progressiveness’ have a culture? Can’t any culture be progressive? It seems there is a correlation between progressiveness and level of education, but I don’t get what you’re getting at with the homogeneous culture and I really need you to explain that.

ScienceChick's avatar

@Demosthenes Good points. I also don’t think it helps to have progressive leadership in an area surrounded by less progressive leadership. No city in the US is an island, unto itself (with apologies to Jon Dunn)

seawulf575's avatar

@Demosthenes I would suggest, as I did before, looking at why it works one place and why not in another. Maybe it is better growth planning. Maybe it is better tax rates. Maybe it is any number of things. I have stated that the first thing would be to gather the facts. Right now, it appears that despite the promises from the politicians, progressive policies are failing miserably. When you have people living on the streets in increasing numbers, have to warn pedestrians to watch where they step so they don’t step in human feces, when you have working people that cant afford a place to live, something is wrong. If you are going to keep following the same path and expect to get to a different destination, you are fooling yourself. Things aren’t working….time to try something different. Time to find where they are working and see what you can glean from that place.

ScienceChick's avatar

Education always seems like a great place to start. How about supporting the party that promotes more affordable education? Hmmm… who has that been? Oh, right. The progressives.

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChick One thing….progressives aren’t a party. Sorry. But you claim to be a professor or at least an education person. Let me ask: Do children do better with their education when the parents are involved or not? I can tell you that the Dems in this country have floated the idea that parents shouldn’t have anything to do with raising or educating their children. Does that sound like the recipe for success to you?

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

When we print trillions of dollars like we do, it devalues the dollar, making it harder for low and middle class income people to survive, especially in the area where wealth is concentrated.
The biggest beneficiaries of the printing of trillions of dollars are the very corporations who enhabit these cities and areas.
If you work for these corporations, especially higher up in the company, the easier it becomes to survive because you can keep up with the devaluing of the dollar a more.
Both parties are guilty of it, so I do not believe more “progressive” leadership is needed.

ScienceChick's avatar

@seawulf575 I don’t give marks if my students make claims of fact without citation. Try again. (also, you put Progressive with a capital, so I took it to mean a type of political party that is known for its progressive values, like the Social Democrats. There are parties in other countries called the Progressives and the Conservatives, fyi)

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . “I can tell you that the dems in this country have floated the idea that parents shouldn’t have anything to do with raising or educating their children.” You can “tell” that to whomever you want. It’s up to them if they want to believe your COMPLETELY BASELESS LIES.

@Yellowdog . No we do not have a disagreement. Your suggestion that minorities are responsible for all the bad things in big cities is as ignorant, as it is insulting. I grow tired of pointing out YOUR OWN WORDS, as proof of your racism. It’s not a difference in opinion. You are racist. Racism is wrong. Period. Nothing to debate.

People shit in the streets, because they’re homeless. Not because minorities want shit in the streets. There are drugs, and violence, as a direct result of poverty. Not because minorities are inferior, violent, and easily addicted people.

kritiper's avatar

Just raising the minimum wage doesn’t help much, in the long run. Oh, sure, it helps for now, but sooner or later, that wage increase will affect everybody, and then the minimum wage has to be raised again. And around and around it goes!

LostInParadise's avatar

The opposite of the California economy is the Kansas experiment, which followed the conservative playbook of cutting taxes. The result was a disaster. The Republican-controlled legislature was forced to raise taxes after Brownback left office. California’s overall economy is doing well. What they need is more progressivism, not less. There may be some lessons to be learned from the Scandinavian countries, which provide free health care and secondary education.

MrGrimm888's avatar

California would be doing even better, if the state didn’t have massive wild fires… I’m sure that those are the result of progressive leadership…

seawulf575's avatar

To all you that are looking for a citation on my last statement (@ScienceChick, @MrGrimm888), how about this one:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2013/04/09/msnbc-host-claims-society-should-raise-children-not-parents/

Now…you don’t get much more Dem than Melissa Harris-Perry. Sorry lady. But you bring up an interesting question: What do you give your students credit for? If a conservative student were to put forth a paper or an opinion in one of your classes and followed it up with citations and facts, but the topic was abhorrent to you, would you give them full credit or would you nit-pick their paper to ensure they got a substandard score? Or do you sit as god in your class and decide which facts you will allow?

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 you really are trying to say that the recent wildfires are responsible for the homeless situation that has existed for a long time in CA? And you accuse me of being foolish!

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise Liberals love to bring up the Scandinavian countries as an example of how socialism works so well. There are several major differences and at least one big fact that is ignored when those statements are made. The differences are mainly about the size of the country and the population. For example, there was a debate about how to run a prison. One of the Scandinavian countries had used a progressive method of creating a prison that had space for each prisoner, including private apartments. The prisoners were given space to grow and were given jobs to help rehabilitate them. If you were to take the prison population of that country and ratio it to the US, you would have to take a space about the size of California, just for the prison. Even then it wouldn’t be big enough. Another problem that is missed is that nations like Sweden were doing great before socialism took control of the country. Since that time, their quality of life has dropped and the costs have gone up. Right now they are facing a crisis in that they will need some 220,000 more government employees soon just to administer the socialist programs. Also it is generally ignored that some of the big business moved out of that country when the Socialists took over. Now the government is taking on more capitalistic policies to try keeping companies there. So while liberals are pushing for us to be more like them, they are moving more towards us.

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 I believe progressive leadership is a good thing and necessary to improve the quality of life of all citizens. For that to be meaningful though we need progressive leadership not at city level but at the very top in the White House but there is no sign of that happening for a few years.

MollyMcGuire's avatar

We shouldn’t, and we don’t. We have to remember that so many of the whiners and screamers are are part of this generation of people who were taught they were special and, yes, entitled. They were bred for the movement in which we find ourselves to be in the middle. We didn’t realize it was happening in the schools across the country. We blinked and this is the result. It will take time. But I trust America will stand strong.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . First off. The fires cost amazing amounts of money to contain. So no. It’s not a bad reason to bring them up. Secondly, nope, only YOU made that odd connection between homeless people, and wildfires. Lol. Stupid analogies, won’t help.

@seawulf575 . I hope I haven’t accused you of being foolish. Ignorant, maybe hopelessly biased is more likely. A jelly above me commented on California’s economy. I commented about the effects of multi-billion dollar fires, that occur frequently there, but not many other places. It’s an anomaly, as far as most state budgets go. It’s VERY relevant.

Prison population.
Again, you wrongly look at statistics. Are we simply on of the world’s most criminal countries? Or… Are there multiple variables, such as privatization or prisons, laws, and punishment that are excessive, more of the real issue?

Sweden needs 200,000 jobs? Trump would be screaming this from every roof top. That’s job creation.

notnotnotnot's avatar

@seawulf575: “I’m not fearing capitalism at all. I’m pointing out that in many places where liberal policies have held sway for a long, long time, things are not as idyllic as liberals like to say they would be. ”

You’re not being specific about these “liberal policies” because you’re full of shit.

@seawulf575: “And it is liberals that scream about income inequality, not conservatives.”

Yet here you are complaining about and comparing income inequality.

@seawulf575: “Yet in those places where liberals lead, they have the worst income inequality of anywhere else in the country. ”

Of fucking course. Liberals (as in social issues) tend to gain power in areas of economic and educational development. This same trend leads to gentrification and we have plenty of people who are left behind. What you are complaining about here is capitalism. The areas of the country that drive the economy are those that reveal the largest localized income inequality.

@seawulf575: “So what I suggest is that we are seeing the natural end point of liberal policies”

Policies that you refuse to mention.

@seawulf575: ”….high prices, inability to afford reasonable housing, very much a we/they set up with the elite having everything and no one else able to even provide for themselves.”

Of fucking course, again. This is the economic system you seem to like. Own this shit.

@seawulf575: “So the question stands…with the bastions of liberalism being so inhospitable towards the majority of people, why would anyone want to keep supporting their leadership?”

What the fuck does “Liberalism” mean to you in economic terms. You share the same economic ideology with liberals. Tell me – specifically – what “liberal” policies are causing the great income inequality and inability for working people to afford housing in this shitty country?

MrGrimm888's avatar

Whether alert. A deflection storm is imminent, in this thread now. There are strong chances of bullshit, and a Obama warning has been issued. The current Hillary watch, will continue until conservatives leave the thread to go get their bullshit sandwiches. Then. We’ll hear the next ridiculous regurgitation, from FOX “news.”...

ScienceChick's avatar

hahahaha… Sorry I’m late to this… I can’t stop laughing at @seawulf575 ‘s citation being a blog quoting some tv programme host. hahahahahaha You get an F and are kicked out of my class.

ScienceChick's avatar

@seawulf575 I’ll be sure to remind my Scandinavian friends they would have been better off ruled by a Danish King or Neapolitan. I don’t know where you get these stories from other than pulling them out of your ass. Did you know that Norway had universal healthcare since before 1920? They consider their universal health care to actually have started with the Danes ruled during the plague years. 1608 to today. So, essentially, Norway has always had free healthcare. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1369017/ I don’t have to tell you how broken the US system is.

Also, they don’t incarcerate at the same rate as the US.. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. The world. They house 4.4% of the world population in their prisons and jails. https://www.prb.org/us-incarceration/ Tell me if that is a bug or a feature of your country. Maybe that progressive idea of justice reform could help.

Everything is a matter of scale. Sure, they are smaller countries. They have indigenous populations. They have immigrants and refugees. They have racism and bigotry. They also have a better education system than much of the US. I know it is controlled State by State. I also know there is national testing so when a student applies to study over here, we can take that into consideration with their test scores, but right now, we are letting in more students of Southern Asia. They’re better students. They’re better travelled and in many cases, their English is better. So, this progressive professor’s advice is, fix your education system and the rest should follow. Stop the predatory student loan system. Offer your high school students another year so they can start University studies on the same footing. Most students here in Europe have 13 years of school before they start university, not just the 12 offered in the US. But you’ll dismiss everything I say and make up some excuse about ‘racial mix’ which is thinly veiled racist speak for ‘The blackies hold us back… waaahhhh wwaaahhhhh’.... I’m sick of the excuses. It’s nothing but greed, selfishness and racism. Your primary and secondary schools are underfunded. Your teachers are forced to work in a war zone. I’m not writing to another disappointed student and their parents when they complain about missing a spot. No means no, Brock. I don’t care how well you swim. Stop with your over privileged bullshit whining. I gave your spot to a brown kid from India because he’s 100 times the student you will ever be. (Not that I would ever say that… I figure these people have enough to deal with and I’m not going to feed the latent racism.)

So, there’s my shillings worth. I’m more than tired of the KKKFox rhetoric from wolfie and yellowmutt, so I’ll leave it there.

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChick Understood…you would fail any student who disagrees with your narrow-minded opinions. Pretty much what I thought. Now…are you honest enough to tell them that up front or do you torpedo one or two just for the fun of it?

ScienceChick's avatar

What I tell them is that they can have any opinion they want, but they can’t have their own facts. Also, I’ve luckily never had to face one as arrogant or as ignorant as you.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Come on people, I can’t believe you fell for this. @seawulf575 doesn’t want a debate or an answer – he is a troll, and he was trolling for fun today to see how many people would get riled up.

A conservative like the OP is never going to understand progressive thought. Sure, he’ll introduce a couple of so-called facts that were copied from some conservative website and that will be the red herring to provoke this massive troll.

@ScienceChick – I didn’t think you would fall for it. Oh well.

ScienceChick's avatar

It’s not for the OP’s sake I’ve answered. There are other people here. I stated unequivocally ‘This is @seawulf575 fashioning a tool for himself to beat this broken drum of his.’ I know what this question was and who wulfieboi and yellowpunk are.

LostInParadise's avatar

Wikipedia article on the Nordic model

The United Nations World Happiness Reports show that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.[22] The Nordic countries place in the top 10 of the World Happiness Report 2018, with Finland and Norway taking the top spots.[

Note that the poverty rate of Scandinavian countries before government transfer is comparable to the U.S. (Denmark is actually higher). After tax transfers, the poverty rate in the U.S. is about twice as large.

johnpowell's avatar

Studio apartment in Portland Oregon or McMansion in Norman Oklahoma?

Not going to Oklahoma.

And I have friends that went to the midwest after college and bought houses. Took them a few years to come right back.

Most of my friends have actual black friends. And don’t care if you are gay or whatever.

And sadly. That doesn’t really fit. So they bounce back to the coast.

Smaller dwelling. But you can respect your neighbors.

stanleybmanly's avatar

What your list of cities is telling you is that smart educated people in this country can live where they choose. Every one of those towns has a huge concentration of just such people, and the resulting gentrification is predictable. As for the homeless population—would you rather be broke in The Redlands or San Francisco? People are increasingly being priced out of their homes in the Bluelands, but a substantial percentage of that homeless population has similarities to our immigration situation—they come here, because they believe theycan do better. If I’m broke, I want to be in a place with at least some pretense of a social safety net.

But the real significance of that list is about the persistent and accelerating income equality in this country. Progressives recognize the significance of this as the greatest problem we face. THIS is the REAL reason Trump’s inept ass is parked in the White House today, and unless we reorder the way this society operates, you can bet that worse things than Trump are headed our way.

tinyfaery's avatar

Los Angeles is not a war zone, only someone who doesn’t live here would say that. And I’ve been to Detroit. Los Angeles is no where near so destitute. And if it’s so shitty here why do people from the rest of the oh so wonderful conservative parts of the country move here, all the frickin’ time? And no it’s not to become famous. I always ask. No place is perfect.

Yellowdog's avatar

@tinyfaery: Los Angeles is not a war zone, only someone who doesn’t live here would say that.

Who can live in ANY of those places? I get killed every time I go to any of them.
Instead of Hell I go to Memphis every time I get killed. Same difference.

Meatloaf must’ve been inspired by Memphis when Bat Out of Hell was composed.

ScienceChick's avatar

@Yellowdog gets killed and doesn’t stay dead? What magic is he hiding from us?

Yellowdog's avatar

Cats have nine lives. Yellow dogs have dead dog lives. Ever heard of dead dog killer zombies?

rojo's avatar

You guys can argue all day long about progressive vs regressive, liberal vs conservative, democrat vs republican but it will do you no good in the long run.
You need to realize that it is Rich vs Poor. Class warfare guys. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, not so simple since those with the resources (the rich and powerful) have managed to turn us all against each other and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Who pulls the strings? Who sets the agenda? Who runs the government and continues to keep us out?
The problem is the moneyed elite and until you can grasp this single, most important factor, nothing will change.

ScienceChick's avatar

@rojo Oh I understand. I grew up in the UK during the 60’s and 70’s with several different influences. I am just trying to pry the truth from the ones that lie constantly.

gorillapaws's avatar

Let’s clarify a few points: Democratic Party ≠ Progressive. Many of the elected Democrats in California (despite pretending to be progressive) actually fight hard against progressive policy and candidates. Pelosi and Feinstein are perfect examples of California politicians who are very much opposed to Progressivism. There really are no examples of a progressive part of the country that’s analogous to the Republican “utopia” of Kansas under Brownback. In many of the areas mentioned there are billion dollar corporations that have a lot of pull with the legislature.

Also causation has not been established. It could be that Progressivism is causing housing to increase, it could also be that the increase in housing costs have driven more people to progressive values, it’s also possible that a third (or more) factor is involved that is driving one or both, or otherwise involved in a complex relationship of causation. For example, there were several factors that lead to the explosion of the homeless population in CA, such as the Vietnam war and the defunding of mental health facilities. A history of interventionism in Mexico and Central/South American countries has created/contributed to political and economic crises in those countries that has produced large volumes of undocumented workers and refugees, etc.

tinyfaery's avatar

Wow, I must die very day and come back to life. I’ve been doing it since I was born.

Yellowdog's avatar

Then you’re as weird as me. I’m SERIOUS.

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChickWhat I tell them is that they can have any opinion they want, but they can’t have their own facts. ” You imply, of course, that I tried creating facts. Are you trying to say, then, that Melissa Harris-Perry did not say that it should be a community and not parents that raise children? I know you are desperate to believe it isn’t true because it really hurts your arguments. I noticed that you attacked the source and not the substance of my citation. Funny how you dodged the facts, isn’t it? Here, doll, let me help you a little more:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/13/melissa-harris-perry-promo-children-msnbc_n_3076195.html

Yep…she just doubled down on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAAMGatMHss

Oops…her words, out of her mouth.

So what “facts” are you debating? No, you are a close-minded fool that is so lost in your liberalism that you cannot see past it to anything else. And when someone points out how horrible an idea from that liberalism is, you immediately try to find some way to hide it…to make it not true…to use your own facts. I pity your students.

ScienceChick's avatar

@seawulf575 She’s a media punter, not a maker of policy. That’s like someone quoting you and saying ‘Conservatives think they die and come back to life.’ I mean, you were both educated by the church, so… there’s that.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I notice in your analysis of the “failures” of Scandinavian socialism, you don’t deny that the average individual fares better than here. And let me point out that a California sized prison would be required here only because we have a peculiar habit of incarcerating folks at a rate 10 times that of our Swedish competition. In fact, our per capita incarceration rate is just another in the string of embarrassing statistics where we lead the world. But never mind any of that. The primary reason we should want progressive leadership is that the present setup is visibly failing us through concentrating wealth at the direct and invisible expense of the public good

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 Melissa Harris-Perry was talking about educating children. Children have been educated at schools or by private tutors since time immemorial and it isn’t a ‘horrible idea’ nor does it conflict with the idea that children should be raised by their parents.

stanleybmanly's avatar

If the conservative dummies were paying attention they might also notice that she is making their argument for them on the matter of abortion. But as to why we should want progressive leadership, I should think it would be that progressive leadership might result in PROGRESS.

Yellowdog's avatar

@stanleybmanly A lot of people use Scandinavia as an example of the successes of Socialism—but the more I study the society from afar, the more I see that these are capitalist societies that have high taxes, but taxes with great benefits. Volvo and Ikea would not be possible in a socialist country. They are not socialist, As hip as it is to throw the word around, the Nordic countries are capitalist, and there are better words that identify the mindset and spirit of Scandinavian government, society, cultural norms,and economics,

True Socialism would be heavily regulated and the government would be in control of utilities, redistribution of wealth and means of production,

As for your cute remark about ‘progressives’ most who occupy centrist positions are polite enough to call people what they want to be called. But the label ‘progressive’ is also applicable to diseases as well. So lets be clear: “Progressive” is in contrast to Traditional or Conservative. Including a traditional or conservative view of the constitution or nation’s laws or morals. It doesn’t mean that society is moving into a new and bright tomorrow, Just that it is moving from what it was originally.

LostInParadise's avatar

There are no purely capitalist or socialist countries, but.the Scandinavian countries are much more socialist than the U.S. The tax rates are much higher as are the governmental benefits. We would do well to follow their example.

rojo's avatar

@Yellowdog Would Social Democracies be the term you are searching fo to describe the Scandinavian countries. (In general)?

Yellowdog's avatar

egad—two helpful and completely civil responses to a political statement! There’s hope for Fluther yet.

I suppose so—but I have my doubts that a population as humongous and diverse as the United States would covert well. I am wanting to study what REALLY makes Scandinavia work and where it falls short. Scandinavians and Brits all seem much more polite than Americans. I can have a civil conversation with an atheist from those places but rarely from the U.S. Although I am finding that even the more civil parts of the world are becoming more hostile and militant.

The question is, would the U.S. actually work as a Social Democracy—and as nice as that sounds, I think BOTH sides are too polarized…

stanleybmanly's avatar

The U.S. is already a social democracy, as are all of the other first world nations on the planet. The glaring inconsistency with the United States is that while it is the richest of all social democracies, it has the worst statistics on the well being of its individual citizens. Why do you suppose that is?

MrGrimm888's avatar

@Yellowdog .Perhaps you could study what makes America’s diverse collections work so well. It’s not near what you describe….

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Yellowdog Of course the United States SHOULD be the world model as a functioning social democracy. In fact it is only the socialistic aspects of this country which presently allow it to distinguish itself from third world status. Of course Scandinavians are polite. They’re content and relatively secure. They can afford to be both polite and tolerant. But I think it’s time to switch these conversations from liberal vs conservative and notice the Scandinavian success in arresting the transfer of ever more wealth from the bottom to the top of their societies.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly And yet, in Sweden at least, the current trend is going the other way. They are moving away from the Socialist policies due to the damage they are doing. They were driving away industry and have had to change policies to keep companies from leaving. They are moving back towards capitalism again. The part of the equation you fail to grasp when you get caught up in these rants about wealth inequalities is the part that asks the why question. Why would I try to build and operate a business if I am supposed to give all my profits to those that did not? If I am putting forth my time, money, and ingenuity to create something, why should I not be allowed to profit from it? If I have to reward all those that did not take the same risks or build my business to the point where that reward is coming out of my pocket, why should I keep my business in that sort of environment? Why should I build it at all? It is those questions that were impacting the Swedish businesses and driving them away.
Now…that being said, I will support you 100% if you tell me that you think the average CEO salary and bonuses are idiotic in this country. They are. I compare some of what I have seen with what goes on in Japan. Here, a CEO can make millions in salary and even more in bonuses each year. In Japan, the top CEOs almost never see even $1M in bonus and their salaries are not as high as those in the US. Yet companies like Toyota, Honda, Sony, Nintendo….as successful as they are don’t lavishly reward their top people and put that money back into the operation of the company. I would wholeheartedly support seeing that ideal take root over here. But I would resist to the bitter end seeing the government force it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You want to talk about trends and incentives? The Swedes may be having trouble reconciling their socialist paradise with real world human greed, but their prospects appear a great deal brighter than our own. As things stand, it looks like you shouldn’t worry about the government forcing a more equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth. Clearly those with the wealth OWN the government. Trump’s election and the rise of the wingnut right are the clear signals that if the government fails to address the disparity issues, other and certainly more extreme measures are in our future, and I’m not talking about the distant future. What I’m saying is that the process is well underway. Considering his history and qualifications Tump is indeed an EXTREME measure in regard to our Presidential history. But besides being a literal joke of a President, he is a joke compared to the severity of what awaits us if the economic displacemnent is allowed to continue.

ScienceChick's avatar

‘Sweden at least, the current trend is going the other way. They are moving away from the Socialist policies due to the damage they are doing. They were driving away industry and have had to change policies to keep companies from leaving. They are moving back towards capitalism again.’ – @seawulf575 Please, a credible source would be fantastic to back up such a broad, sweeping statement.

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChick do your own research. I have already found that it really doesn’t matter what source I give you, you are not going to believe it. Not going to waste time on your closed mind.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly You make a statement: Clearly those with the wealth OWN the government. There is truth in that. In fact there are some (probably many) in congress that enter the office moderately well off and soon become multimillionaires. That is on both sides of the aisle. Kinda surprising given a salary of around $200k/year and having to maintain a residence both in their home state and in Washington DC. That smacks of corruption…i.e., The Swamp. You have gone on to acknowledge that the government fails to address the disparity issues. So let me ask…given the supposition that much of DC is corrupt and that they aren’t doing their jobs, why do you insist on wanting to give them more power and control? Do you really think they will suddenly start behaving differently?

ScienceChick's avatar

That’s now how making statements work. If you make a statement, it isn’t up to us to research it. It’s YOU who has to prove it. And now that I know you’re a Hitler apologist, I won’t reply to anything you have to say because you’re worse than dog shit on my shoe.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Lol. @seawulf575 . You made a friend!

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChick Imagine how much sleep I will lose knowing I don’t have your approval.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I tend to have that effect. I suspect it is that I am far less tolerant than I was in my youth.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Understandable.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Listen, when it comes to the disparity issue, you are correct. In fact to my mind the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats will at least pay lip service to our economic inequities, because its base is OPENLY CONCERNED with the issue. If you can ever get your side to recognize the issue and rearrange its priorities from depriving people of food stamps and unemployment benefits, to addressing the one issue that will destroy the country faster than any racial divide ever could. The thing that is missed by you & I down here squabbling over Hillary’s emails & Trump’s porking porn stars, is that is THE GOVERNMENT which decides which class in this society will prosper. The rich cannot grow fatter at the expense of everyone else without the direct participation of the government. We may forget, but the minority reaping the rewards NEVER forgets and since they are hopelessly outnumbered understand that their ownership of the government is absolutely essential.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I think what you are missing is that “my side” (whatever that is) sees the problem and actually is pushing for specific solutions. I don’t believe they are pushing hard enough, but still, looking for solutions. I think part of the disparity between us is what we see as a solution. Or maybe what we see as the problem.
I don’t believe for one second that all men are created equal. I believe they were all born with the same inalienable rights. That’s not to say that everyone starts at the same place other than they all have life and the right to pursue whatever their “happiness” might be. I purposely left out liberty because as our world gets more out of whack, I feel that there is a certain amount of infringement into that being felt around the world. But everyone is born and has life. And I believe that everyone has the right to seek happiness. But that might be where we first start to veer away from each other. What you see as happiness varies from person to person. Some people want simplicity in their lives, others want great wealth, others want power, some want as much sex as they can get…you get the idea. But they all have the right to pursue their dreams. But pursuit takes effort. It might take sacrifice. It might not always be the happiest of roads in life. But if you make a choice and follow it, you are pursuing your dream.
The government has a part in how you pursue your dreams and/or what roadblocks you will face. Every decision a government makes will negatively affect someone’s efforts. Pick one and you will see it is true. Want to make minimum wage $15/hr? That might help the entry level worker, but it can also hurt the small business owner. Look at the recent case identified by Ocasio-Cortez. She recently went back to a coffee shop she first started working at to visit before they closed their doors for the last time. The reason they stated for going out of business was the recent passage of a law to make minimum wage $15/hr. They just couldn’t afford to pay that and keep the staff necessary to keep the business running. So they closed their door. Now, some people might benefit from a bump in minimum wage, but this company didn’t and it negatively impacted the owners’ dream of owning their own business as well as the workers who are now out of a job and have no income with which to pursue their dreams. And in the end, the government continues to muddle through, doing damage at every turn. We blame Trump for the immigration issues. But the immigration issues have been ignored by both houses of Congress from the beginning. They aren’t doing their jobs, and as a result, they are impacting many peoples’ dreams.
So we agree that the government is corrupt and causes problems. including the “disparity” between the social castes. So what to do? The easiest, quickest, and probably the most effective solution is to push for term limits. Our elected leaders are corrupt because they have a situation where they benefit from being corrupt. If you take away the ability to get re-elected again and again, you take away the incentive for bribing them. Someone looking for a favor now has to bribe more and more people to get them to support whatever angle they are pushing. Oh, I don’t mean bribery as in slipping the Senator an envelope filled with money, but large campaign contributions are effectively the same thing. Another possible solution would be to limit how much could be spent on elections. It is inherently wrong to spend $2B on a campaign for an office that will only gross you $1.6M. That makes no economic sense and favors only the uber-wealthy. Limit the campaign spending to $2M or some other random but significantly more reasonable amount. Especially in today’s interconnected world of the internet and electronic formats, the campaigns can be run for a lot less. Not to mention, if you limit the amount that can be spent, you have a harder time hiding who is contributing to your campaign. If you end up with one or two contributors that are giving you the bulk of the contributions, now everyone can see who is trying to buy elections.

rojo's avatar

Common ground @seawulf575

Term Limits for each office. Reasonable ones that might mean adjusting existing terms. And perhaps a limit on the total number of years a person can be engaged in “public service”

Limit the amount of time allowed to begin campaigning. No more of this starting to run again as soon as you are in office. National elections begin three months before the vote, max. State Elections two months, Local Elections 1 – 2 months prior.

Spending limits on campaigns:

Limits on how much political parties can donate to a particular candidate

Elimination on the ability of PACS or Superfunds to influence campaigns or at a minimum their ability to fund, or assist fund, campaigns

Elimination of corporate donations.

Elimination of all on the job perks. You get a salary from your constituents, all else is bribery.

Minimum 5 year gap between holding office and being able to lobby after leaving.

Minimum 5 year gap between leaving office and being employed by a company that is or was directly affected by legislation you took part in.

Political donations only from constituents you will supposedly represent, no outside influence (this includes contributions from political parties).

Legislation ending Corporate Personhood. People are people, Corporations are businesses.

Legislation overturning Citizens United and the earlier Buckley vs Valeo and clarifiying, once and for all that money is not speech.

Legislation requiring financial disclosures (including tax returns) for federal office candidates for four years prior to taking office, during each year in office and three years after leaving office.

Now, how do we get our legislators, you know, the ones who directly benefit from all of these things we do not want, to pass legislation that is against their own interests even if it is good for the country.

seawulf575's avatar

@rojo That last is the real sticking point. I’ll have to research a little to see if it is possible to propose legislation as a citizen, not as a legislator. I’m not sure what the process is.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Wow would term limits help the country.
Trump said he would work on getting term limits. I haven’t heard a thing about since he took office. Probably not a good time to do it now, as congress may have to consider his impeachment….

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 If he proposed it, I’m sure the media would go crazy saying he was trying to obstruct justice…

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Yeah. I guess I’ll give Trump a pass ,in this instance. It sucks, that one of the only ideas that he had, that I supported, is probably not going to happen…

Uugh… I should have voted…

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther