A questionnaire on political and economic issues

[TokenLiberal]

Since, for a forum ostensibly about politics, there is hardly any discussion about politics, I figured it might be nice to post a little list of questions for us to answer, as a discussion starter. It would be great if you answered them all, but feel free to be selective, or just to reply to my answers if you wish.

1) On a scale from -10 (conservative) to 10 (progressive), where would you put yourself on the political spectrum?

2) On a scale from -10 (communism) to 10 (anarcho-capitalism), where would you put yourself on the spectrum of economic theory?

3) Rate the performance of the 21st century presidents (Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden) on a scale from -10 (very bad) to 10 (very good).

4) What are your main sources for news?

5) What do you think is the most important political or economic issue facing the world today? How would you fix it?

6) What do you think is the biggest systemic problem in American politics? (In other words, if you had to pick one thing, what would you change about the US political system?).

7) Would you support tax reform that would lower taxes on incomes below $200.000 and increase taxes on incomes above $200.000, such that net revenue stays the same?

8) Do you think the US department of education is underfunded, overfunded, or funded just right?

9) Would you reform the US health care system on a federal level and if so, how?

10) Would you reform the US immigration system and if so, how?

11) Which side do you want to "win" the Russo-Ukrainian war?

12) Do you think SCOTUS' Citizens United vs FEC decision should be reversed?

13) In the 1980s, a global political order dominated by neoliberalism was started. It's now coming to an end. Rate its effect on the global economy from -10 (very bad) to 10 (very good).

14) Do you think Trump's tariffs, if kept, will be good or bad for the US economy long-term? Why?

15) Do you think it's good or bad that Trump is concentrating power in the executive branch? Why?

16) What is the last non-fiction book on either politics or economics that you've read? What did you think of it?

17) What is the biggest thing in politics that you've changed your mind about in the last decade?


My answers:

1) On a scale from -10 (conservative) to 10 (progressive), where would you put yourself on the political spectrum?
5

2) On a scale from -10 (communism) to 10 (anarcho-capitalism), where would you put yourself on the spectrum of economic theory?
6

3) Rate the performance of the 21st century presidents (Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden) on a scale from -10 (very bad) to 10 (very good).
Bush: 0
Obama: 7
Trump: -8
Biden: 4

4) What are your main sources for news?
Mainly these subreddits:
/r/TrueReddit
/r/Longreads
/r/Economics

5) What do you think is the most important political or economic issue facing the world today? How would you fix it?
Wealth inequality. I would overhaul taxation systems globally so that wealth past a certain point is more heavily taxed and introduce economic policy that redistributes this taxed wealth to the lower and middle classes.

6) What do you think is the biggest systemic problem in American politics? (In other words, if you had to pick one thing, what would you change about the US political system?).
Primaries lead to weak parties and corruption. Get rid of them.

7) Would you support tax reform that would lower taxes on incomes below $200.000 and increase taxes on incomes above $200.000 by some small to moderate amount, such that net revenue stays the same?
Yes.

8) Do you think the US department of education is underfunded, overfunded, or funded just right?
Badly underfunded.

9) Would you reform the US health care system on a federal level and if so, how?
Yes, I'd introduce a public health insurance option that would compete in the market with private corporations. This gives the government a chance to negotiate terms with health care providers that would be beneficial to the people, and force private insurers to curb their money-grabbing, predatory practices or face being outcompeted.

10) Would you reform the US immigration system and if so, how?
I would mostly focus on immigrants being processed more efficiently and giving them more clarity about their path (or lack thereof) to citizenship.

11) Which side do you want to "win" the Russo-Ukrainian war?
Ukraine.

12) Do you think SCOTUS' Citizens United vs FEC decision should be reversed?
Yes.

13) In the 1980s, a global political order dominated by neoliberalism was started. It's now coming to an end. Rate its effect on the global economy from -10 (very bad) to 10 (very good).
-3

14) Do you think Trump's tariffs, if kept, will be good or bad for the US economy long-term? Why?
Bad. Free trade is in the US' best interest. Trying to bring local manufacturing back is a frivolous pursuit, especially considering unemployment is low.

15) Do you think it's good or bad that Trump is concentrating power in the executive branch? Why?
Bad. The system of checks and balances exists for good reason and should be preserved.

16) What is the last non-fiction book on either politics or economics that you've read? What did you think of it?
The myth of the rational voter by Bryan Caplan. I would give it a 62/100. The author argues that voters have systemic (economic) biases that lead democratic governments to pursue bad economic policies (relevantly, he mentions tariffs as an example of one such policy). It's not exactly a far out position, but in presenting his case he shows his own bias, one that is pervasive in the study of economics. It's what I'll call growth bias. Ironically, it seems systemic: If this book is any indication (Caplan frequently mentions or implies that nearly all economists are aligned with him) economics is no longer the study of how to best distribute resources, it's the study of how to optimize for growth and efficiency. Economists apparently take for granted the rather extreme view that a healthy distribution of resources naturally flows from market forces. Often, it does. But when we spend 200 pages talking about voter bias, we should seriously entertain the idea that the pursuit of growth and efficiency above all doesn't always benefit everyone, and that this may be the reason voters are “biased” against policies that optimize for it at all cost. The book is often insightful but never addresses this point.

17) What is the biggest thing in politics that you've changed your mind about in the last decade?
In 2016 I was charmed by Sanders' populism and disgusted by Clinton (whom I now consider to be a good person who was treated unfairly). I used to think Sanders was the future of the democratic party, but now I think he and his movement are more a bane to it than anything else.

[FCD]

Here's another question...

Q: On a scale of -10 (dislike) to +10 (love), how do you feel about "-10 to +10" rating questions?

A:  -12

Regardless, I started to respond to your questions without looking at your answers first (i.e. cheating).  Then, after looking at the wording of the first few questions, I had to cheat and look at your answers.  I'm glad I did before answering further.  I applaud you for providing your answers as part of your OP.

I don't mind answering questions like these, even if I know the person asking them doesn't share my same political views.  I can still have a friendly and respectful conversation with that person.  That is, provided I believe the person I am having a discussion with will be honest. Candidly, I don't think you were being fully truthful with your answers, and the reason I say this is some seem to conflict or don't align with other answers. But maybe this is simply a case of being inaccurate.

So, for example, for question #1, I would have answered with a score of -8 to -9 for myself (and one of the reasons I have such extreme dislike of 1-10 ranking systems is because of the extremes.  I never understand what the extremes mean).  You scored yourself a +5.  Okay, I can accept that.  But, your answers to questions #5, #8 and #9 would change your score on question #1 from +5 to about a+8 or +9, (maybe even a +10, but I don't know what a +10 is).  Rather than focus on debating those, let's look at some other concerns I had.

Some of the questions weren't even questions really, or they were inaccurate questions at best.  Examples here would be questions #13 and #15.  I don't believe it is accurate (at all) to characterize the 1980's as 'neoliberal' (Q #13), and the Constitution lays out the balance of power; Trump, Biden and anyone else has no say in the matter (Q #15).  Then, there are some other concerns/issues.

A couple of your answers are non-answers.  Question #4 and #10 are examples of these.  Reddit isn't a "news" source, far from it, regardless of what sub you subscribe to (and I certainly hope you get your actual news from somewhere other than a radical left social media opinion site inhabited by adolescent teenagers).  Further, your response to immigration is essentially..."We'll look into it"; that's not an answer...or a solution. (Q #10)

Oddly, despite all of this, there were a couple of your answers I sort of agreed with, but further discussion would be required to understand your answer a little better.  For example, your response to question #6 is something I can sort of agree with for several reasons.  Additionally, I could get onboard with your response to #7 (within reason), but I think the final answer is much more complex than just looking at income alone.

Lastly, even though you may not think so, I actually appreciate your OP.  You have, in my opinion, illustrated something very important about the mentality of the liberal left.  And, specifically this is...their perception of their political views (question #1) is far different from their actual views.  I actually see this quite a bit. This is a disconnect, and a big one.  Your (the left's) perception is you are more moderate than you really are, and your actual positions are not just extreme in some cases, but also wildly unrealistic (I'll stop short of saying impossible) and often unconstitutional at best.  In other words, to achieve the left's objectives would require a re-write of the Constitution at very least, or a complete dissolution at likely most.  (Note: when I say 'you' I don't necessarily mean you personally, but 'you' in a more general sense).  And, I don't mean this last part in an insulting way (although it may interpreted that way).  Specifically, I mean there is a disconnect between perception and practice which might be worthy of some honest discussion in an effort to equalize this on both the right and the left.

So, that is my response to you.  Thanks for hearing me out.

edit - BTW, given all of your other questions, your question # 12, speaks volumes. Candidly, it really doesn't belong included with the rest of your questions, but the fact that it is serves as an example of issues the left seems to continue getting 'wrapped around the axle' on. They are what I call "shiny object" issues which seem to consume them and blind them from much more pressing matters. These can heavily influence members of the left, and I'd say make them become single issue voters if it wasn't for the fact that they harbor scores of these 'shiny objects' as part of their agenda.

[FCD]

I want to throw a couple other topics/questions/comments out there as well in relation to your OP.

First off, at a fundamental level, you baked in a few big assumptions into your questions in the OP.  These assumptions predispose an answer.  For example, several of your questions assume the final answer to your question lies at the federal level, ignoring the State level.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe this was not an intentional attempt at biasing your question in order to manipulate the answer. Your DOE question is an example of one of these.  The federal government has no business being involved in education...other than setting thresholds for minimum acceptable performance and monitoring compliance.  This belongs at the State level.  Equally, your question about healthcare assumes the same thing.  Both of these assumptions lead to an even larger assumption, that of a socialist government vs. a capitalist one.  Socialism in this country would require a paradigm shift in the nature of government at the federal level.  Furthermore, this last point is a perfect example of what I was saying above about your perception of how far along the conservative - liberal scale you are not aligning with the policies you actually endorse.

The next observation has to do with focusing on problems/issues in sequential order of how they need to be corrected.  If a car gets into a head-on collision with another vehicle which results in massive damage to the body, frame, engine, and suspension, you don't take up buying a new set of tires, or having the car detailed, as the first and highest priority.  Specifically, here I am referring to the need to fix something which is badly broken before you can even discuss ways it might be improved.  Your question # 8, education, is but one example.  And once again, this leads immediately to an even larger issue, and that is the matter of fiscal responsibility at the federal level.  If the federal government is bleeding-out taxpayer funding as a result of waste, mismanagement, graft and corruption, you don't start by just throwing even more money into an already broken system.  You have to triage or 'fix' the blood loss and irresponsibility first, and this should be your top priority.  Suggesting otherwise just further illustrates the left's conscious ignoring of larger problems in order to focus on some pet 'shiny object' of an issue.  

And, if that wasn't enough, it's not just simply the education system alone; it's a whole long list of other government services which either have no business being funded at the federal level, or are so badly broken that they have become paralyzed due to mismanagement, bureaucracy and waste.  So, once again, when we scroll back to question #1, we see a misalignment between perception of understanding of the real issues and real/actual understanding of the issues.  In fact, it is these issues which really call into question the left's problem solving ability in general.

So, in summary, if I were to ask a similar set of what I'll call 'boil the ocean and solve world hunger' type questions about US politics, they would probably look quite a bit different than your questions.

My similar question list might go like this:

1. (no change from your question)

2. (strike this question; it's a non-question and loaded at best)

3. (same question, but add to the list: Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy (yes, I left out Ford intentionally, and I would think we could both agree on why).

4. (no change, just for background)

5. (no change), but my answer would be dramatically different from yours, more along the lines of triage of spending of taxpayer monies.

6. (maybe similar question, but I don't think it's as easy as picking just "one" thing, so I would ask 'top 5 things', which I feel is more realistic and appropriate.  It is wrong to assume the focus should be on one thing and one thing only.)

7. (no change)

8. (complete change)  I would ask something like...'Do you believe there are numerous major services which are currently provided at the federal level which should be paid and administrated for at the State level?  Examples: Education, Health and Human Services, Housing, Labor, Commerce, etc.

9. (See #8)

10. (no change), but my answer would be far different, and it would be a direct 'answer' along with clear policy (i.e. need based, minimum requirements standards like employment, invitation based, etc.)

11. (complete change)  I would instead ask...'Do you believe the US government should continue to provide financial and military aid to other foreign countries?  What should be the minimum basis for this?  (i.e. the Cold War is over, so 'prevent Communism' isn't an answer)'. 

12. (strike entirely.)  Single 'hot button' issues (shiny objects) don't have any business in a serious all encompassing list.

13. (strike entirely)  This question isn't correct to start with, and the answer doesn't provide any useful path forward even if it did make sense.  Purely subjective question and answer.

14. (minor change, same question but remove the Trump exclusion)  Tariffs in countless forms have been in place in both directions since the founding of this country.  Trump's tariffs are just variations on the same concept.  If you want to focus on the economic impact and/or viability of tariffs, then you can't just say Trump's and only Trump's.  Plus, tariffs go the other way too (i.e. ones which are imposed on the US).

15. (significant change)  Similar question, but remove the focus on Trump and instead ask...'Do you think it is okay for a US president to alter the balance of US power in favor of a specific branch of government?'

16. (minor change)  Same question, but add: White Paper or Government Findings Report/Audit Report.

17. (no change)

Lastly, I'd suggest adding a question about overall foreign aid responsibilities of the federal government, What foreign outreach (USAID, etc.) should America be doing?.  And perhaps include in this participation in multi-lateral organizations also, like NATO.  What are our true obligations and what are 'nice to haves' for other governments, but not critical to US survival? 

So, can you see now how these changes removed baked in assumptions, normalize your questions, and lead to something more meaningful?

Also, remember, we don't have a thousand years to come up with a solution.  Those times are over.  Sadly, since the '60's we've had plenty of time to solve some of these issues, but we've failed as a nation to accomplish this.  The time for talk is over, unfortunately.  Now we have to act, and act decisively.  And, because of the lateness of the hour, and the can being kicked down the road as long as it has been, we also have to understand, this WILL be painful at times, and we WILL make mistakes along the way.  But again, we've had over sixty years to fix these issues, but we didn't.  Now we have no choice.

Hopefully, you made it all the way to the end. If you did, congratulations.  You clearly wanted a detailed discussion, and I'd like to think I have provided one to you.  I will look forward to your reply in kind.

[19Bones79]

Since, for a forum ostensibly about politics, there is hardly any discussion about politics, I figured it might be nice to post a little list of questions for us to answer, as a discussion starter. It would be great if you answered them all, but feel free to be selective, or just to reply to my answers if you wish.

1) On a scale from -10 (conservative) to 10 (progressive), where would you put yourself on the political spectrum?

2) On a scale from -10 (communism) to 10 (anarcho-capitalism), where would you put yourself on the spectrum of economic theory?

3) Rate the performance of the 21st century presidents (Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden) on a scale from -10 (very bad) to 10 (very good).

4) What are your main sources for news?

5) What do you think is the most important political or economic issue facing the world today? How would you fix it?

6) What do you think is the biggest systemic problem in American politics? (In other words, if you had to pick one thing, what would you change about the US political system?).

7) Would you support tax reform that would lower taxes on incomes below $200.000 and increase taxes on incomes above $200.000, such that net revenue stays the same?

8) Do you think the US public education system is underfunded, overfunded, or funded just right?

9) Would you reform the US health care system and if so, how?

10) Would you reform the US immigration system and if so, how?

11) Which side do you want to "win" the Russo-Ukrainian war?

12) Do you think SCOTUS' Citizens United vs FEC decision should be reversed?

13) In the 1980s, a global political order dominated by neoliberalism was started. It's now coming to an end. Rate its effect on the global economy from -10 (very bad) to 10 (very good).

14) Do you think Trump's tariffs, if kept, will be good or bad for the US economy long-term? Why?

15) Do you think it's good or bad that Trump is concentrating power in the executive branch? Why?

16) What is the last non-fiction book on either politics or economics that you've read? What did you think of it?

17) What is the biggest thing in politics that you've changed your mind about in the last decade?


My answers:

1) 0.

2) I wouldn't position myself between such narrow options because they both use the same, flawed foundation.

3)None of them were/are working towards viable, long term solutions with the interests of ordinary Americans at heart. They all have a track record. Some did achieve moderate results for their voters, some at the expense of Americans that didn't vote for them. In the end, they do as they are told, especially after the Kennedy assassination.

4) MSM, social media, podcasts, forums such as MPP, etc. 

5)There are two pressing issues for me, usury and warfare. It needs to go. 

6) Term limits, no lobbying, ungrateful salary, merit based appointments, to be considered by society as a selfless sacrifice, an honor, the same way veterans are treated. I can think of more things but I think this will suffice.

7) Taxes need to be handled efficiently, and be rest as lightly on the shoulders of the hard worker, so that he can enjoy the fruit of his labor. A country that invades other defenseless countries for false reasons in order to take their natural resources will always need to 'look over their shoulder', making them ripe for the picking by the MIC.
Instead of creating enemies, a large chunk of the defense and black budgets can be applied for the upliftment of American society. 

8) I don't believe funding is the most pressing concern. That would be quality of education. 

9) Healthcare should be free in aid of the dignity of every human being. That's it. 

10) Easy. It should never be at the expense of ordinary Americans. 

11) Both sides are chess pieces, there is no outcome which will present a 'winner'.

12) Refer to 6.

13) I see it as simply one step closer to a one-world government while the rich got richer at the expense of the ordinary people. 

14) Refer to 3.

15) Refer to 3.

16) A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind - Stephen Goodson 

17) I changed my mind about anyone in the political arena being there because they truly want to represent the will of the people. They might start out like that(some, maybe), but in the end they just don't give a fuck.

[TokenLiberal]

Here's another question...

Q: On a scale of -10 (dislike) to +10 (love), how do you feel about "-10 to +10" rating questions?

A:  -12

What's wrong with my scale? I put some thought into it. I thought 0 to 10 would be bad because 0 to 10 is low to high whereas -10 and 10 (while technically also low and high) are more opposites. Considering these are spectra where the extremes are opposites of each other, I thought -10 to 10 would fit better.

The reason I used scales at all and didn't explain my answers is that I didn't want to spend a long time writing an OP, being unsure if anyone would respond.

I don't mind answering questions like these, even if I know the person asking them doesn't share my same political views.  I can still have a friendly and respectful conversation with that person.  That is, provided I believe the person I am having a discussion with will be honest. Candidly, I don't think you were being fully truthful with your answers, and the reason I say this is some seem to conflict or don't align with other answers.  But maybe this is simply a case of being inaccurate.

Damn, it didn't take long for you to call me dishonest! You're not the first. I have to say, it's a bit tiresome for my motivations and honesty to be constantly questioned when I'm here trying to make a genuine effort to start a discussion. Next time, maybe just assume I made a mistake, or that we have a different perspective, and simply ask for clarification. That would be the more respectful thing to do. If we want to have a real discussion, mutual respect is important.

So, for example, for question #1,  I would have answered with a score of -8 to -9 for myself (and one of the reasons I have such extreme dislike of 1-10 ranking systems is because of the extremes.  I never understand what the extremes mean).  You scored yourself a +5.  Okay, I can accept that.  But, your answers to questions #5, #8 and #9 would change your score on question #1 from +5 to about a+8 or +9, (maybe even a +10,  but I don't know what a +10 is).  Rather than focus on debating those, let's look at some other concerns I had.

The reason I put +5 there is that I am definitely more progressive than conservative, but I am much less progressive than many people I know. I think your perception that I belong more on the extreme end of the scale is due to your lack of exposure to people who actually would belong there, and your unfamiliarity with my political views. I've spent enough time in progressive-dominated places to know that I am more in the middle between neutral and max progressive. That you already think you know me better than I know myself is... surprising.

I don't believe it is accurate (at all) to characterize the 1980's as 'neoliberal' (Q #13)

I took it as a premise because it's established wisdom in political science. Why do you think it's not accurate at all?

and the Constitution lays out the balance of power; Trump, Biden and anyone else has no say in the matter (Q #15).

I'll concede that this is a loaded question. I figured that if people disagreed with its premise (that Trump is concentrating power in the executive) they can just mention it in their answer.

Reddit isn't a "news" source, far from it, regardless of what sub you subscribe to (and I certainly hope you get your actual news from somewhere other than a radical left social media opinion site inhabited by adolescent teenagers)

Adolescent teenagers aren't on Reddit, they're on Tiktok. Get with the times, old (wo)man ;)

I find that some subreddits are good enough news sources. I tend to ignore short articles, and certain media orgs, and find the bias on the subreddits that I'm subscribed to acceptable. The worst of the bias I avoid (/r/politics for example). In practice, I also get much of my news from other forums I'm on. Ultimately, bias is unavoidable, and the important thing is how we deal with it. Over the years I have developed what I think to be a good bias detector, and tend to stick to the facts.

What are your sources for news?

Further, your response to immigration is essentially..."We'll look into it"; that's not an answer...or a solution. (Q #10)

A solution for what? Truthfully I added this question for people like you, who probably think immigration is an important issue that needs "national emergency" level attention. I don't think it is an important issue. My answer reflects that.

Lastly, even though you may not think so, I actually appreciate your OP.  You have, in my opinion, illustrated something very important about the mentality of the liberal left.  And, specifically this is...their perception of their political views (question #1) is far different from their actual views.  I actually see this quite a bit.  This is a disconnect, and a big one.  Your (the left's) perception is you are more moderate than you really are, and your actual positions are not just extreme in some cases, but also wildly unrealistic (I'll stop short of saying impossible) and often unconstitutional at best.

I don't think you know my political views well enough to make this kind of judgment. I think you may be projecting your caricatured idea of a "leftist" onto me. You certainly wouldn't be the first to do that, either. If you think my positions are extreme, unrealistic and unconstituional, which ones are you talking about, specifically? As far as I can see, the positions I expressed in my answers are on the left, to be sure, but not extremely so. A public health insurance option, for example, is much less extreme than "free healthcare for all", which is a common position among people further left than me, and increased wealth taxes can be negligible or very extreme, depending on the degree. Global tax reform is obviously unrealistic but that's inherently true for any proposal to fix a global issue.

In other words, to achieve the left's objectives would require a re-write of the Constitution at very least, or a complete dissolution at likely most.  (Note: when I say 'you' I don't necessarily mean you personally, but 'you' in a more general sense).  And, I don't mean this last part in an insulting way (although it may interpreted that way).  Specifically, I mean there is a disconnect between perception and practice which might be worthy of some honest discussion in an effort to equalize this on both the right and the left.

Do you have examples of positions that are common on the left (though not necessarily mine) that you think would require a re-write or dissolution of the constitution?

edit - BTW, given all of your other questions, your question # 12, speaks volumes.  Candidly, it really doesn't belong included with the rest of your questions, but the fact that it is serves as an example of issues the left seems to continue getting 'wrapped around the axle' on.  They are what I call "shiny object" issues which seem to consume them and blind them from much more pressing matters.  These can heavily influence members of the left, and I'd say make them become single issue voters if it wasn't for the fact that they harbor scores of these 'shiny objects' as part of their agenda.

I chose to mention this issue specifically because I've noticed that people on the right (not necessarily including you) seem to think corruption, particularly by democrats, is a huge problem, yet they don't seem to mention Citizens United that often and I'm curious as to how they feel about it. Simple as that, really.

I do also happen to think that money in politics is one of the more pressing issues in the US, because it's one of the things that is preventing your government from working for you. Every single other issue becomes harder to deal with when politicians have this conflict of interest.

I'm out of time. I'll respond to your other post later.

[FCD]

Oh, I think I was pretty respectful, and I think I even qualified the dishonest statement with it being a case of possibly not being accurate. You say you want to have a discussion, but if it's not on your terms then it's disrespectful. Okay, I get it. And, you just defend your questions as if it's a personal attach, which it most certainly wasn't. You asked some questions, and I provided some critical responses; not so much answers to your questions, but more an effort to center the questions better so they're not biased...and I stated my reasoning behind these criticisms.

[FCD]

What's wrong with my scale? I put some thought into it. I thought 0 to 10 would be bad because 0 to 10 is low to high whereas -10 and 10 (while technically also low and high) are more opposites. Considering these are spectra where the extremes are opposites of each other, I thought -10 to 10 would fit better.

The reason I used scales at all and didn't explain my answers is that I didn't want to spend a long time writing an OP, being unsure if anyone would respond.

My first statement was a joke more than anything (but I didn't qualify as a joke, so fair enough).  Your scale was fine.  I just don't like 1 to 10 scales.  I actually wrote a different (boring) intro as to why, but it has to do with pain scales, and not knowing what the extremes mean (long story).  Anyway, your scale is fine; my bad.

Damn, it didn't take long for you to call me dishonest! You're not the first. I have to say, it's a bit tiresome for my motivations and honesty to be constantly questioned when I'm here trying to make a genuine effort to start a discussion. Next time, maybe just assume I made a mistake, or that we have a different perspective, and simply ask for clarification. That would be the more respectful thing to do. If we want to have a real discussion, mutual respect is important.

Okay, I will concede that point and suggest you made a simple mistake instead.

The reason I put +5 there is that I am definitely more progressive than conservative, but I am much less progressive than many people I know. I think your perception that I belong more on the extreme end of the scale is due to your lack of exposure to people who actually would belong there, and your unfamiliarity with my political views. I've spent enough time in progressive-dominated places to know that I am more in the middle between neutral and max progressive. That you already think you know me better than I know myself is... surprising.

Uhh, well, my sister, BIL (who is the dean of Economics at a major University) and their son, my nephew (who is the department Chair for the Economics college at a different University) are all ultra-liberals.  I love them all, and we have great conversations.  But trust me, I am acutely aware of not only how just liberals think, but also how very educated academic liberals think! And...in the context of Economics and political terms also! So, double-triple-ZOWIE-whammo!

I took it as a premise because it's established wisdom in political science. Why do you think it's not accurate at all?

Two reasons.  One, because conservative presidents were in charge all the way through the 80's and half way through the 90's, and one of those presidents was Reagan.  Before Reagan, you had a brief liberal president in Carter, preceded by Ford and Nixon.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, the statement 'political science' doesn't ever belong in the same sentence as 'established wisdom', regardless of whose side of the fence you are on!

I'll concede that this is a loaded question. I figured that if people disagreed with its premise (that Trump is concentrating power in the executive) they can just mention it in their answer.

Fair enough, we'll move on.  My point(s) throughout my response to you is an attempt to normalize these questions, and remove bias, such that we can actually have a reasonable conversation.  Also, notice I am not (as you see later) inserting bias of my own.

Adolescent teenagers aren't on Reddit, they're on Tiktok. Get with the times, old (wo)man ;)

I find that some subreddits are good enough news sources. I tend to ignore short articles, and certain media orgs, and find the bias on the subreddits that I'm subscribed to acceptable. The worst of the bias I avoid (/r/politics for example). In practice, I also get much of my news from other forums I'm on. Ultimately, bias is unavoidable, and the important thing is how we deal with it. Over the years I have developed what I think to be a good bias detector, and tend to stick to the facts.

What are your sources for news?

Ha ha, touche'.  However, the average age of Reddit users is 23 years old.  You can look it up.  From this 'old man's' point of view, 23 year olds are not ready to run the world, despite their belief that they are.

edit - Ah, I needed to answer your question. My sources of news. Good question. Unbiased sources of actual news are surprisingly difficult to find, so the system I use is to look in multiple places. I start with the extremes at both ends of the spectrum (i.e. FOX/Breitbart vs. CNN / MSNBC, just as an example, there are many others). This bounds the equation high and low. Then I start looking through more middle ground (and this is even tougher still), but Christian Science Monitor and Al Jazeera are some examples. Then, I have to make a decision about whether the issue is domestic or foreign relations related. If domestic, then I'll lean more heavily on international sources (German, French, SE Asian). If the issue is international, then it's kind of a crap shoot of trying to read as much as I can find and look for common themes and outliers. My process is actually fairly scientific. Forums and social media seldom ever play a role, but if I see something interesting there I will fact check it to see if there's something to it, and then rely on better sources for the details. The bottom line is to narrow down all the bullshit to eliminate all the bravado and political posturing, and to eliminate the word-smithing, creative editing and spin, in an effort to distill down to the bare facts. I definitely like sources which don't tell me what to think and rather just give the raw testimony, video or facts to where I can make up my own mind. People telling me what I should think is an automatic red flag.

A solution for what? Truthfully I added this question for people like you, who probably think immigration is an important issue that needs "national emergency" level attention. I don't think it is an important issue. My answer reflects that.

Answer:  An answer to your question...'Would you reform immigration, and if so how?'  That was your question.  And your response was 'focus on processing and give clarity'...which is not an answer.  Hence my point.  You might as well have said...'we'll look into it and get back to you, possibly while you're still alive'.  Again, not an answer.

So, my point stands.

I don't think you know my political views well enough to make this kind of judgment. I think you may be projecting your caricatured idea of a "leftist" onto me. You certainly wouldn't be the first to do that, either. If you think my positions are extreme, unrealistic and unconstituional, which ones are you talking about, specifically? As far as I can see, the positions I expressed in my answers are on the left, to be sure, but not extremely so. A public health insurance option, for example, is much less extreme than "free healthcare for all", which is a common position among people further left than me, and increased wealth taxes can be negligible or very extreme, depending on the degree. Global tax reform is obviously unrealistic but that's inherently true for any proposal to fix a global issue.

Maybe not yours personally, but I definitely know how a lot of the liberal mind works (see my response to your 3rd point above).  I won't say what you've said so far is too extreme, but when you start talking about wholesale changes to healthcare and socialized medicine, this quickly leads into a discussion about socialized everything.  It's inevitable by its nature.  And, socialized everything is, well, Socialism, which is a paradigm shift in government, and yes, extreme.  So yes, I was reading into some of your statements.  I guess we'll see if I was correct or not.  So far though, I feel like I'm right on track, but you can prove me wrong.

Do you have examples of positions that are common on the left (though not necessarily mine) that you think would require a re-write or dissolution of the constitution?

Sure.  I just noted one.  Others are things like we just saw Biden do, things like pardons for crimes which haven't even been charged yet, "lawfare", not being of sound mind.  There are others, but I don't want to get too wrapped around the axle with Biden; he's a non-starter in this discussion frankly.  And just so you know I'm being fair here, I'll sacrifice Trump 1.0 as my pawn, in taking Biden 0.1 on your side of the board. (note: I'd much rather surrender Bush-2 2.0, but I'd need at least two pawns or knight in exchange for him, not that he was any better (he was actually worse), but he wasn't hog tied like Trump 1.0 was. A hog-tied piece for brain-dead one seems like a fair exchange)

I chose to mention this issue specifically because I've noticed that people on the right (not necessarily including you) seem to think corruption, particularly by democrats, is a huge problem, yet they don't seem to mention Citizens United that often and I'm curious as to how they feel about it. Simple as that, really.

I do also happen to think that money in politics is one of the more pressing issues in the US, because it's one of the things that is preventing your government from working for you. Every single other issue becomes harder to deal with when politicians have this conflict of interest.

Hmmm...how to answer this.  I maintain what I said about distractions, but to your point about corruption; I am of the firm belief that ALL federal government corruption should be punished, and punished severely, if convicted.  This punishment includes banishment from politics for life.  I don't care who it is.  But let's be clear here too, what happened to Trump in NY was not corruption, nor was it even remotely just, but rather than argue this lesser point, let's just move on.  We can fight about Citizens United v. FEC as well as NY v. Trump all day, but it doesn't further this discussion in the larger sense.  I'm trying to stay out of the weeds (even though I just got us in the weeds a bit, but it was an example).

I'm out of time. I'll respond to your other post later.

Fair enough.

[TokenLiberal]

I want to throw a couple other topics/questions/comments out there as well in relation to your OP.

First off, at a fundamental level, you baked in a few big assumptions into your questions in the OP.  These assumptions predispose an answer.  For example, several of your questions assume the final answer to your question lies at the federal level, ignoring the State level.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe this was not an intentional attempt at biasing your question in order to manipulate the answer. Your DOE question is an example of one of these.  The federal government has no business being involved in education...other than setting thresholds for minimum acceptable performance and monitoring compliance.  This belongs at the State level.

That's a fair criticism. I edited the questions to more accurately reflect my meaning. I meant for the thought experiment to assume we are in charge of the federal government, specifically. So in the case of DOE I mean: Is that department overfunded, underfunded, etc? Since you want to leave public education all to the states, your answer would presumably be overfunded. We disagree there but it's not something I feel particularly strongly about. Can we at least agree that, whether it's left to the states or not, the public school system is badly underfunded? So if it's up to the states, should the states dedicate more resources to it?

Equally, your question about healthcare assumes the same thing.  Both of these assumptions lead to an even larger assumption, that of a socialist government vs. a capitalist one.  Socialism in this country would require a paradigm shift in the nature of government at the federal level.  Furthermore, this last point is a perfect example of what I was saying above about your perception of how far along the conservative - liberal scale you are not aligning with the policies you actually endorse.

Your fair criticism applies here too, indeed. Edited that question as well. I'm not sure why you're bringing up socialism though. Can you explain how a public health insurance option "assumes" socialism? And please define the word, as well. Many people seem confused about what socialism is nowadays.

The next observation has to do with focusing on problems/issues in sequential order of how they need to be corrected.  If a car gets into a head-on collision with another vehicle which results in massive damage to the body, frame, engine, and suspension, you don't take up buying a new set of tires, or having the car detailed, as the first and highest priority.  Specifically, here I am referring to the need to fix something which is badly broken before you can even discuss ways it might be improved.  Your question # 8, education, is but one example.

 
I generally don't like focusing on examples, but I think it makes sense in this case because I obviously agree with your truism, and am curious how exactly you think it applies to education. You seem to be saying the problem in public ecucation is so bad that throwing money at it won't fix it. One thing I would note here is that the problem might be that bad because it has been tragically underfunded for years if not decades, but my question to you would be: How would you "fix" it without increasing funding?

And once again, this leads immediately to an even larger issue, and that is the matter of fiscal responsibility at the federal level.  If the federal government is bleeding-out taxpayer funding as a result of waste, mismanagement, graft and corruption, you don't start by just throwing even more money into an already broken system.  You have to triage or 'fix' the blood loss and irresponsibility first, and this should be your top priority.  Suggesting otherwise just further illustrates the left's conscious ignoring of larger problems in order to focus on some pet 'shiny object' of an issue.  

Our difference of perspective is obvious. To me, this "waste, fraud, and abuse" is the shiny object, and Trump and Musk are using it to sell their dismantling of the federal government to the right. There is no doubt that there is waste in the federal government, that is always going to be the case with an organization that large, but I think the amount is vastly overstated and it's especially silly to think that a small team like DOGE is going to uncover it. What they are actually "uncovering" are expenditures allocated by congress that they ideologically disagree with, such as the entirety of DOE and USAID. 

Inspectors general are normally the watchdogs that investigate waste, fraud and abuse. They are appointed to serve multiple administrations to minimize partiality. A president needs good reason to fire them, and has to notify congress 30 days before doing so (source). Trump fired 17 of them without this notice on january 24th, which is illegal. Do you think Musk, who is clearly not impartial, will do a better job than them? If so why?

And, if that wasn't enough, it's not just simply the education system alone; it's a whole long list of other government services which either have no business being funded at the federal level, or are so badly broken that they have become paralyzed due to mismanagement, bureaucracy and waste.  So, once again, when we scroll back to question #1, we see a misalignment between perception of understanding of the real issues and real/actual understanding of the issues.  In fact, it is these issues which really call into question the left's problem solving ability in general.

In general, an underfunded government would start to look bad after a while. Would you agree?

I agree with your suggestion that the US government is dysfunctional. My perspective is that this is mostly due to lack of funding and corruption. Lack of funding is not going to be addressed by this administration, if anything it will defund the government even more (it's already trying). Corruption is not something Musk is going to root out, in fact his closeness with the president is an example of it. I think your best chance of reducing it is reversing Citizens United and reforming campaign finance laws. The best thing to do would be to get rid of primaries, but this will obviously never happen.

Do you think reversing CU and stricter campaign finance laws would have a positive effect on corruption?

2. (strike this question; it's a non-question and loaded at best)

Interesting. I think people's response to this can be very telling and useful. I've been in discussions with people where if I had known beforehand that they were basically communists I might've saved my breath. The same goes for anarcho-capitalists who don't believe in having a state. These positions have been so thoroughly debunked by history, I find little use in having a discussion with people who still hold them.

I think it's also useful to you, because it shows you that I'm decidedly not a socialist, which I've found people on the right are often confused about. After all, that would put me somewhere between 0 and -10.

5. (no change), but my answer would be dramatically different from yours, more along the lines of triage of spending of taxpayer monies.

Care to elaborate on your answer?

11. (complete change)  I would instead ask...'Do you believe the US government should continue to provide financial and military aid to other foreign countries?  What should be the minimum basis for this?  (i.e. the Cold War is over, so 'prevent Communism' isn't an answer)'.

That's just a completely different question. I asked mine for a reason. Trump supporters seem weirdly on Russia's side nowadays, and I'm curious if that's the case for people here. Care to answer the question?

15. (significant change)  Similar question, but remove the focus on Trump and instead ask...'Do you think it is okay for a US president to alter the balance of US power in favor of a specific branch of government?'

Sure. What's your answer?

So, can you see now how these changes removed baked in assumptions, normalize your questions, and lead to something more meaningful?

More meaningful to you, perhaps. And sure, you've removed some of my bias but introduced your own. Anyway, it's not important for these questions to be unloaded and balanced. They're just discussion starters.

Also, remember, we don't have a thousand years to come up with a solution.  Those times are over.  Sadly, since the '60's we've had plenty of time to solve some of these issues, but we've failed as a nation to accomplish this.  The time for talk is over, unfortunately.  Now we have to act, and act decisively.  And, because of the lateness of the hour, and the can being kicked down the road as long as it has been, we also have to understand, this WILL be painful at times, and we WILL make mistakes along the way.  But again, we've had over sixty years to fix these issues, but we didn't.  Now we have no choice.

A solution to what? Act decisively how?

Moving on to your next post then:

Uhh, well, my sister, BIL (who is the dean of Economics at a major University) and their son, my nephew (who is the department Chair for the Economics college at a different University) are all ultra-liberals.  I love them all, and we have great conversations.  But trust me, I am acutely aware of not only how just liberals think, but also how very educated academic liberals think! And...in the context of Economics and political terms also! So, double-triple-ZOWIE-whammo!

It's interesting that you think knowing 3 "ultra-liberals", who are all very close to each other and likely hold similar views, means you know how the rest of them think. If you think my positions are extremely far left, I'm sorry, but you haven't met people extremely far left, or talked to them enough to understand the difference between them and me. You see, I have, and I also have the luxury of knowing myself pretty well. If your relatives take mostly the same positions as me, maybe they're also not as "ultra-liberal" as you thought, and would also place more towards +5 than +10.

The things that are most strikingly different between me and people on the far left is that I generally believe in the efficiency of markets whereas they seem often to have missed economics 101, and that I believe it's best to work within the current political system to slowly improve, whereas they think the whole system should basically be brought down and rebuilt. The latter is a common difference on the right too, between more moderate republicans and followers of the party's populist wing. (The republican party has been entirely taken over by its populist wing, however, whereas in the democratic party it's still a minority). In 2020, my favorite candidate was Pete Buttigieg whereas people more to my left mostly supported Sanders.

Two reasons.  One, because conservative presidents were in charge all the way through the 80's and half way through the 90's, and one of those presidents was Reagan.  Before Reagan, you had a brief liberal president in Carter, preceded by Ford and Nixon.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, the statement 'political science' doesn't ever belong in the same sentence as 'established wisdom', regardless of whose side of the fence you are on!

Ah, I think you might not know what neoliberalism is (I was also confused at first, it's a strange name). Neoliberalism was popularized in the 1980s by people like Reagan and Thatcher. Policy wise, it mainly pursued deregulation of markets and privatization of industries that were previously nationalized. In short, smaller government. It's a right-wing ideology. It was a global political order which was so popular that even Clinton, a democratic president, pursued mostly neoliberal policies. It started to unravel after the great recession, and is now fully ended with Trumpism, which is why I thought it was good to add a sort of "post-mortem" question.

(The rise and fall of the neoliberal order by Gary Gerstle is one of the best books on politics I've read. I highly recommend it).

Ha ha, touche'.  However, the average age of Reddit users is 23 years old.  You can look it up.  From this 'old man's' point of view, 23 year olds are not ready to run the world, despite their belief that they are.

Heh, obviously not. I'm not saying they are.

edit - Ah, I needed to answer your question. My sources of news. Good question. Unbiased sources of actual news are surprisingly difficult to find, so the system I use is to look in multiple places. I start with the extremes at both ends of the spectrum (i.e. FOX/Breitbart vs. CNN / MSNBC, just as an example, there are many others). This bounds the equation high and low. Then I start looking through more middle ground (and this is even tougher still), but Christian Science Monitor and Al Jazeera are some examples. Then, I have to make a decision about whether the issue is domestic or foreign relations related. If domestic, then I'll lean more heavily on international sources (German, French, SE Asian). If the issue is international, then it's kind of a crap shoot of trying to read as much as I can find and look for common themes and outliers. My process is actually fairly scientific. Forums and social media seldom ever play a role, but if I see something interesting there I will fact check it to see if there's something to it, and then rely on better sources for the details. The bottom line is to narrow down all the bullshit to eliminate all the bravado and political posturing, and to eliminate the word-smithing, creative editing and spin, in an effort to distill down to the bare facts. I definitely like sources which don't tell me what to think and rather just give the raw testimony, video or facts to where I can make up my own mind. People telling me what I should think is an automatic red flag.

Seems like a good approach, though I would avoid blatantly partisan sources like Fox, Breitbart and MSNBC. I like that you lean more on international sources if it's for domestic news, that's smart.

I should note that I spend very little time on Reddit, or looking at news for that matter. Articles I read tend to be long, and my worldview is shaped by books, not news. "News" should only be used to gather the facts, and filtering out the facts, in the end, is not that hard for anyone with a brain, as long as we stay away from low-quality, highly partisan news sites. They are more likely to simply not even give you the facts and lie instead.

Answer:  An answer to your question...'Would you reform immigration, and if so how?'  That was your question.  And your response was 'focus on processing and give clarity'...which is not an answer.  Hence my point.  You might as well have said...'we'll look into it and get back to you, possibly while you're still alive'.  Again, not an answer.

So, my point stands.

I suppose from your perspective my answer should've been "I wouldn't reform US immigration". It's ultimately a semantic argument about the meaning of "reform", but I can get behind your point that my proposed changes aren't reforms, just optimizations of the existing system.

Maybe not yours personally, but I definitely know how a lot of the liberal mind works (see my response to your 3rd point above).  I won't say what you've said so far is too extreme, but when you start talking about wholesale changes to healthcare and socialized medicine, this quickly leads into a discussion about socialized everything. It's inevitable by its nature.

You seem to be saying it's impossible to have interventionist policies targeted at specific industries, while generally leaving the free market to do its thing. Can you explain why? That happens to be my ideal state, and many countries in Western Europe seem to have managed just fine.

Others are things like we just saw Biden do, things like pardons for crimes which haven't even been charged yet, "lawfare", not being of sound mind.  There are others, but I don't want to get too wrapped around the axle with Biden; he's a non-starter in this discussion frankly.  And just so you know I'm being fair here, I'll sacrifice Trump 1.0 as my pawn, in taking Biden 0.1 on your side of the board. (note: I'd much rather surrender Bush-2 2.0, but I'd need at least two pawns or knight in exchange for him, not that he was any better (he was actually worse), but he wasn't hog tied like Trump 1.0 was. A hog-tied piece for brain-dead one seems like a fair exchange)

The question was simple and I believe had nothing to do with Biden and I don't accept his pardons as an example, that's not a policy position of the left it's just a side note of Biden's presidency. I'm not sure what your chess analogy is about here, but I would still like an answer: What policiy positions are commonly held on the left, which you think require a rewrite or dissolution of the constitution? You made this point, now defend it.

Hmmm...how to answer this.  I maintain what I said about distractions, but to your point about corruption; I am of the firm belief that ALL federal government corruption should be punished, and punished severely, if convicted.  This punishment includes banishment from politics for life.  I don't care who it is.  But let's be clear here too, what happened to Trump in NY was not corruption, nor was it even remotely just, but rather than argue this lesser point, let's just move on.  We can fight about Citizens United v. FEC as well as NY v. Trump all day, but it doesn't further this discussion in the larger sense.  I'm trying to stay out of the weeds (even though I just got us in the weeds a bit, but it was an example).

I'm not sure why you're bringing up Trump here, but why would we fight about CU vs FEC? Do we not agree? Do you agree with SCOTUS' decision and do you think it had a positive effect on your political system? I may have already asked this question somewhere else.

As for the weeds, I actually like them. When you truly get to the bottom of a disagreement, that's where you learn the most. It's a magical, assumption-free place where actual mutual understanding can be reached.

[FCD]

Thank you for the reply. Understand, I will have to digest this and take some time to respond in detail to more than a couple of your statements, but your reply is good.

Now I have other things which beckon my time, so I am going to have to beg off for a while, but I will come back to this.

Perhaps we can even get to a root cause/problem discussion yet. I'll hold out hope for that. At least you do seem willing to discuss, and that's a start.

BTW...I only want to reply to one thing you said here (and now). No, just because I have (3) family members who are ultra-liberal does not mean that those (3) alone are my sole understanding of the liberal leaning politic. On the contrary. But, you have to understand, I also haven't lived under a rock for my formative and adult life. I've seen many things, not only in the US, but also working abroad. I might surprise you with my world view.

In any case, and in the mean time, I just didn't want you going away thinking that only (3) people affected my viewpoints, regardless of how "smart" they may claim to be (and interestingly, that too is up for debate, because actions speak louder than words (i.e. those who can't "do", "teach")).

Anyway, until then...thanks.

[TokenLiberal]

It doesn't really matter how many people on my side of the political spectrum you (think you) know. You clearly don't know what a truly far left position looks like, or have not been paying attention to my posts, if you think I'm close to +10 on that scale. Your continued suggestion that you know me better than I know myself after reading a couple of my posts is condescending. I can look past it because I'm used to it, but I hope you are at least open to the possibility that if we disagree on where I fall on the political spectrum, maybe you are the one who is missing something.