Halloween Cancelled/Uncancelled in Milford

David:
In a curious turn of events, the annual Halloween parade was cancelled in a small Connecticut town in the name of inclusiveness. In other words, if anyone is offended, then no one gets to participate.

Doug:
Are you talking about this:

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Milford-schools-ban-Halloween-6565263.php

http://www.fox35orlando.com/news/u-s-and-world-news/32670724-story

The facts: A small community cancels the school-sponsored Halloween parade. Parents are upset. War on Halloween! Assault on tradition! Political correctness destroying America! School board relents, continues tradition.

First, for the record, let me state that Halloween is my favorite holiday. Secondly, I could not care less what the school board in a small town decides to do regarding the parade planning. I wouldn't care about our own school district's parade planning. There is plenty of injustice in the world, but cancelling the Halloween party is not an injustice.

Tradition is fraught with injustice. Take Columbus Day for example. Why is that a national holiday? What are we celebrating? In our house, we celebrated Indigenous Peoples' Day instead.

I'm used to being in the minority, and so if traditions change to be more inclusive, I think that is a good thing. But if things don't change, well that is the tradition, too. 

David:
As anyone who knows us at all will attest, halloween is a big celebration at all of the Blank homes. Next to Christmas, it is also my favorite holiday. And we are not alone. Halloween now ranks as the second-highest spending holiday behind Christmas. Since the country was founded, halloween has been a family-themed celebration with costumes and games.

Doug:
I don't know about "family-themed"... but then again I work at a college. I also don't know about "since the country was founded" but I have seen my share of slutty Benjamin Franklins at Halloween time, so I guess so!

David: 
Well, then, you might find this interesting.

http://www.history.com/topics/halloween/history-of-halloween

I agree with just about everything you've said. (That statement itself is very scarrrrry!) Because this is America, you can choose to celebrate anything you want. Or, you can choose not to participate. But in this case, the school board decided that because some people might choose not to participate, then no one gets to participate. And this is done in the name of inclusion. Over and over, we see that if any single person might get left out, then everyone must suffer. And I say that is wrong. And that is not inclusive, but minority rule.

Doug:
Schools should just stay out of the holiday business. They have enough to focus on, and not enough time or money. 

"Over and over again" is the theme song of the Tea Party Warrior. The opponents (whoever they are) have declared a War on Halloween and War on Christmas, and the TPWs must save us! And Easter and Columbus Day is also probably at risk...what's next ... War on Boxing Day? Traditions are going to change, and they will become more inclusive. It isn't war; it's evolution. Can I say that word?

David:
Why so vitriolic? I doubt you have ever sat down a talked to anyone other than me who believes in the ideals of the tea party: smaller government that is fiscally responsible. Despite what the Huffington Post says, no one I know in the tea party is racist, or uneducated, or sitting around showing a toothless grin while playing their banjos, and they don't walk around with guns shooting everything in sight. Sorry to pop your little thought bubble.

Doug:
You forget that the airways are covered with the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. We all hear racist, uneducated diatribes everyday. They are at war with anyone and anything that is different from what they understand.

David:
There are certainly some traditions that have become antiquated, or have worn out their welcome and are no longer beneficial to society.  But there are certainly many that serve to bind us together as a society. An annual halloween parade for the town seems to fit that description well. To ban that tradition because there are a few who don't want to participate is wrong. It actually segregates the local society unnecessarily, in the name of "tolerance".

By the way, Boxing Day is not an American holiday…but you are free to celebrate it as much as you want.

In some Southwestern states, school districts have ruled that students cannot wear American-flag designed shirts on May 5th, because hispanic children might be offended. The irony is that Cinco de Mayo isn't really a celebration that hispanics even celebrate. (It's a bit like Festivus.)

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/us_supreme_court_refuses_to_protect_right_of_students_to_wear_american_flag

http://www.history.com/topics/holidays/cinco-de-mayo

"For many Mexicans, however, May 5 is a day like any other: It is not a federal holiday, so offices, banks and stores remain open."

Doug:

War on Shirts! I could not care less about all these "injustices"... I'd make them all wear uniforms. Not Nazis uniforms. But maybe Hawaiian shirts and sunglasses. Wearing a flag just isn't fashionable. Want to show your American Pride? Pay extra taxes! Now, let's get back to carving the pumpkin and worshiping the devil or whatever…

David:
Those are pretty strong words from someone who complains about "micro-aggression". In fact, I find your last comments to be micro-aggression on a macro scale. Choosing to wear a shirt with a message is free speech. Choosing to wear a shirt with an American flag, in America seems to be a no brainer in the free speech realm. Rather than ban the American flag, it seems to me the correct response would have been to counsel the hispanic students they should be tolerant of the flag of the country in which they reside, not to tell the patriotic  American students they cannot display the flag of their own country for fear of alienating foreign students. Tolerance is a two-way street, and embracing a common culture brings us all together. 

We are a melting pot of cultures. New ideas meld with the established ideals. A country cannot survive long if it is only a collection of separate cultures without a common and unifying social identity. "E Pluribus Unum." Out of many, one. Traditions.

Doug:
First, I don't believe anyone made those poor little white kids stop wearing their 'Merican t-shirts. Second, that isn't a micro-aggression, but I am glad that you have been paying attention. What I find most alarming is that these kids want to wear an American-Flag t-shirt. These shirts were probably made in China, and all of the profits go to our very own 1%. Those are injustices. War on Halloween, no, not an injustice. Now, I am going to go carve my pumpkin and listen to music from "Damien VI-VI-VI: Revenge in Milford"…

David:
Now, go put on your Donald Trump costume with the crazy hair and the clown suit, and I'll go put on my Hillary Clinton costume with the constantly-alarming lie detector, and let's go get some candy!

Happy Halloween, to my favorite brother!

Doug: (That is us in 1968. I'm Casper the Friendly Ghost, and David is... well, David is David. Happy Halloween!)

Should there be a National Minimum Wage?

David:
The Democrats have already made a National Minimum Wage a part of their platform for the upcoming election. Is it a good idea, or an obviously bad decision?

Doug:
A National Minimum Wage is a good idea. Do you mean, is it a good idea to mention it now? Or wait until we get elected, and then start working on it?

David:
Discussing the proposition now, while it is an election issue would be wise.

When I was in medical school, in Kirksville, Missouri, I was able to live on around $3500 annually. This included room and board, gas for the car, and eating out occasionally at the Golden Corral restaurant. How was I able to accomplish this? It was Kirksville, Missouri. That amount of money wouldn't last a month in Manhattan. Or Seattle. But it would probably provide me with plenty in Keokuk, Iowa. Or Stuart, South Dakota.  But if you had to pay someone $15 / hour to work any job in those towns, the businesses would go out of business. You see, there is something called the cost-of-living, and in many places around the country, the cost of living is pretty low, so wages don't need to be as high as they may need to be in L.A., or Washington D.C.

Now, states (or even counties or cities), may wish to establish a minimum wage, and that might make sense, because there is some uniformity in the cost-of-living on the smaller scale.  A national minimum wage, however, just doesn't make any sense.

Doug:
Sure, I think it would make sense to make a National Minimum Wage be dependent on the local cost of living. Are we in agreement then?

David:
That may be the dumbest thing you've ever said. I hate to ask, but what in the world are you even talking about?

Doug:
How can it be dumb, and you have no idea what I am talking about? I thought I was agreeing with you. You said that the cost of living differs in places, and I thought that having a minimum wage tied (say, as a percentage) to the local cost of living would be a good idea. Make it a federal law, and you have a National Minimum Wage As A Percentage of Local Cost of Living. Why is that dumb?

David:
I was afraid you were heading in that direction. Sure,  exactly what we need is an additional layer of bureaucracy and government to decide what the cost of living is going to be in every town across America. And that is what it would take, because now everyone's paycheck would be riding on what the government calculates as the cost. I'm not sure why you are so opposed to letting market forces of supply and demand, along with local pressures provide the answer to what a paycheck should be, for any job, anywhere. Why does the Federal government need to be involved at all? But, at least you seem to agree that a National wage, that doesn't take into consideration local variances, doesn't make sense.

Doug:
I am opposed to "letting the market forces" decide what is the least amount of money to pay someone because it doesn't work. If a person doesn't have enough money to pay for their healthcare and food, then we all have to pay for it in other ways. But if you give someone a wage that they can live on, then they can proudly support their own family. I don't know why you want to pay for other people's healthcare and food. I'd rather let them do it.

David:
So, if someone can proudly support an entire family working a job that requires no skills and no education, why would anyone stay in school or develop any job skills?

Doug:
Do you actually know anyone that works an unskilled job? Would they like to make more money? If your point is that people who have jobs that require less skills should not make enough money to live on, then we have very different ideas about the world. To answer your question: absolutely! Anyone should be able to proudly support a family working a job that requires no skills. Those jobs exist, and someone has to do them. And people do try to support a family working such jobs. That is reality.

David:
There are jobs that require no skills that are available for young people to make some money and gain skills for better jobs later on. You and I both worked those types of jobs in high school, and then in college we were able to work jobs that paid more. And so on, and so on. Right now, those kids have no chance at finding a job like that because of the dismal economy that President Obama has perpetuated, and those jobs are taken by folks who would much rather be working full time in a job they are trained for. You don't need to pay a skilled wage for an unskilled job, you need to create more skilled jobs for those people.

A job that requires no skill should not pay the same as a job that does require education and skill.

Doug:
I didn't say pay the same; I said pay enough to live on. This is called a "living wage."

David:
Those are entry level jobs where people can gain experience and certain skills. And, as we have seen with unemployment benefits (that pay a similar "wage"), as long as people make enough money to live on, they will continue to live that way until the money runs out. Only then, will they seek employment. People making a higher minimum wage will neither strive for a better job, seek education, nor learn more skills. You'd be paying people to remain uneducated.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/do-jobless-benefits-discourage-people-from-finding-jobs/?_r=0

Doug:
We aren't talking about unemployment benefits... we are talking about employed people not being able to survive on their pay. Increasing the minimum wage makes an even larger difference between being unemployed and having a job.

David:
Ah, but the second key problem with raising the minimum wage is that you hurt the very group of people you say you are trying to help. Raising the minimum wage eliminates low-skilled jobs. When you use the data at hand, your argument is thus: It is better pay some people more, even though it will cause others to lose their job completely, and leave those unemployed with fewer options.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5224

Doug:
If you are going to cite 40-page academic papers, then I'm going to make you read them! This paper is a comparison of two studies that are over 20 years old. The studies were during a time when the minimum wage was changed in New Jersey from $4.25 to $5.05. The studies attempt to compare business hiring in NJ and Pennsylvania immediately afterwards. One study found a huge hiring increase because of minimum wage; the other found a slight decrease. The studies included fast-food chains like Roy Rogers, Burger King, and Kentucky Fried Chicken. These studies assume that a change in minimum wage will have an immediate effect on hiring practices.

But perhaps a better measure is the long term effect: do these businesses go out of business? Or do they change their pricing in order to accommodate increased costs? Does fast-food get so expensive that we can't afford it?

I am happy (or sad, if you consider health issues) that Roy Rogers, Burger King, and Kentucky Fried Chicken are all doing fine, and people can still afford their food. In fact, you might find that business has increased, because there are now more people that can afford their food.

David:
A Big Mac was just under a dollar in 1980. Now, it's just under five dollars.

There are many studies that have been done for the last 90 years, since the first minimum wage was mandated. Overall, they have shown elimination of individual jobs, and higher prices. Again, there are other variables to consider, but the data supports this conclusion. McDonalds is eliminating front-line jobs, and replacing them with robotic kiosks as we speak. Why? Because they have become cheaper than an employee.

In this study by Mark Wilson, all of these effects are noted, but a key finding is that raising the minimum wage had little to no effect on reducing poverty, which I think is the key argument Socialists and Democrats are making for its enactment.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA701.pdf

Doug:
Egads... another 20 page academic paper! I forbid you from citing these and not reading them! Ironic that the author uses the phrase "there is no free lunch" because minimum wages were enacted in 1938 because too many people were in the free lunch lines of the depression. So, the argument is, that since 1938, minimum wages have harmed the economy? How could it be much better than it is for CEOs!?

Today, the wage differences (the "pay gap") between workers and CEOs has never been larger. It used to be 20 times larger; now it is approaching 400 times larger! Ironically, at the same exact time the study above increased minimum wage, CEOs pay began to skyrocket.

So, if this is a zero sum game, then an easy solution is to pay the workers more of what the top executives are getting. There is enough money being made, it is just going to a few at the top. With this great of an imbalance, you're going to see revolt. A minimum wage can help narrow this gap, and create better living for all citizens.

David:
Counting the pages in a report is not quite the same as reading it. Perhaps you can just read the summary, so your brain doesn't get too tired with details and facts. Sometimes, an issue is complicated enough to require a lengthy study to examine what is really going on.

Doug:
Ah, yes, I'm a college professor, remember? But you can't just point to a 40-page study and say, "See? I told you so." What part of that report supports your claim?

David:
Yes, and I'm a physician, which means we both should know how to read and interpret a study.

So you should know it isn't a "zero-sum game".  There isn't a pot of magic money somewhere, and if a dollar goes to Joe, then that's a dollar that was taken from Suzy. Creating animosity for those who are making a top-dollar wage, doesn't create more jobs or better jobs. Paying a bigger salary for an unskilled job doesn't either. It does the opposite. Nice pivot from the real argument to class-envy. You may have a career in politics ahead of you!

Doug:
It is a zero-sum game, unless you charge more money. A company makes X dollars. How do you split those X dollars up? You could do it fairly, and everyone could live happily ever after. Or you could have most of the money go to the top and purposefully make the low-wage earners not make enough to live on. There is nothing classy about that.

David:
Supply and demand still works in economics. To get the most  successful CEO to improve your company or corporation may require outbidding another company. If the company does well, in the long run it helps all of the workers and our society as well, as new jobs are created in manufacturing, transportation, packaging, etc.  Making sure your company has the best expertise at the top is only a bad idea if you believe bigger government is the key to success. Government rarely has the best minds at the top.

The big-government approach of mandating companies to raise their minimum wage doesn't help raise people out of poverty, it eliminates jobs for the very people that need them most, and will likely raise prices on goods overall (there is no free lunch…).

Doug:
That's what we call a fairy tale. In reality, the higher the minimum wage, the vastly more CEOs make. That is what we call a nightmare.

In the news: Guns and Violence

David:
President Obama recently jumped up on his soap box and said that he has no qualms about politicizing the deaths of innocent people, just to gain some support for banning all guns. I say "ban" because not one of the ideas he has ever put forth would have prevented this, or any of the recent shootings that have occurred. The only thing that might have made a difference would be a total ban on guns, and since the Supreme court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment states that every individual has the right to own guns, that is not going to happen. So, the President's tactic seems to be a shallow gesture to stir people up without actually addressing the real issue, which is violence in the culture, and a lack of true mental health services.

Doug:
Translation: "How dare the President use a tragedy to talk about how to prevent tragedies! How dare he use the deaths of innocent victims to try to prevent further deaths of innocent victims! There is no solution around 'gun safety', but only the banning of all guns! He can't do that! He should realize that there is nothing to do but blame it on people with mental health issues! They are the ones committing all of this gun violence!"

Why is it then that we are the only developed country on earth that has this problem? Why are we such an outlier in gun deaths?

David:
Such outrage. Especially when all you've said is false. Most of the gun violence in this country is not caused by people with mental illness, but by young black men. I don't see the President making any push at all to address this fact. However, the mass shootings that the President is ranting about were caused by people who appear to have significant mental illness. The President has not proposed an answer for either of these real problems. And we are not an outlier, but actually commit far fewer gun deaths for the number of guns we have than dozens of other countries.

Doug:
I don't know anyone who is claiming that this data is "false." Do you have any evidence that suggests what you claim? I only see that we are outliers (when compared to our peers) on all measures in terms of gun ownership and deaths.

David:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Interesting that to find a graph that appears to show some huge discrepancy, you had one that limits the study to "high-income" countries and indicates deaths in children and teens. The reason you had to do that is there are many other countries that have a much higher gun-related death rate per 100,000 than the US, including Mexico and almost all of the other Central and Southern American Countries. Many African nations also have a much higher rate. This is true even though the US has much higher gun ownership than any of those countries.

So, your graph helps to show that limiting guns does not have an impact in the rate of gun violence. Thanks.

Doug:
Wait, what is your point? That Brazil and many African countries are worse than we are at gun-related deaths? What do you aspire to?

David:
You've already claimed twice in this blog that we are worse than any other country on the planet on all measures related to gun deaths. That is patently false. Just admit you're wrong, and leave poor Brazil alone.

Doug:
I'm comparing the US to other "high income" or "developed" countries. I never said we are the worst. If I said that we are "among the worst", would that then make my claim go from "patently false" to "patently true"? I don't understand what you are arguing. My point is simple: we have way, way, way, too many gun deaths in this country, and it can't be explained away by looking at other countries similar to ours.

David:
I agree that there is too much violence in our society, but again, the data shows that there are countries that have much more limited gun ownership, and yet  have much greater gun-related crime.  Limiting guns does not have an impact in the rate of gun violence.

Doug:
What? How do you come to that conclusion? That, really, we should be killing many more people, if we were to keep up with gun ownership percentage? No, there is a correlation between having a lot of guns, and having a lot of deaths. That is pretty clear.

David:
No. There is no clear correlation. But there are many other variables at play. Somalia has fewer guns, and yet they are perpetually at war, with themselves and everyone else. So, they have a high percentage of gun-related deaths. Sometimes, the answers are not so simple, and statistics can be deceiving.

Doug:
Seriously, you want to say: "Nah nah, we are better than Somalia!"

David:
We are considerably better than Somalia. But no, I'm just providing some insight that there are variables other than guns that contribute to a violent society. Guns are the means, but violent people intent on committing murder will find other means. We need to focus on the reasons for violence in our society. It's the only way to find real solutions.

Let's bring it a little closer to home. Indiana has some of the least intrusive gun laws in the country. Illinois has some of the strictest, and at one point, even banned handguns. And yet, Indiana has a much lower violent crime rate than Illinois. In fact, I believe Indiana, as a state, has a lower gun-crime rate than the city of Chicago. It's not the number of guns, or gun access.

Doug:
No, you can't claim that by searching for a single instance of such a situation! That is not how science works. You have to compare all states' gun ownership and violence.

David:
A true fact is just that, a true fact. Science is a collection of facts to prove or disprove any theory. Your previous graph also indicates deaths in a group that cannot even buy guns legally (teens and children).  It also indicates that the problem is not the guns, but violence in society, and a lack of values.

Doug:
You going to legislate values? No, how about some tougher gun laws.

David:
You're looking for a quick fix. Unfortunately, none of the legislation being proposed would likely change anything. There are already plenty of laws on the books (that are followed by law-abiding citizens, not criminals) that have made it more difficult for an average citizen to purchase a gun, but with no effect on crime.

Doug:
Guns have changed a lot since the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps it is time to look at the issue (and the amendment) carefully to see if there is something that can be done. This video makes the point in a direct way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0

David:
The 2nd Amendment was put in place specifically because England did not permit gun ownership by the people. Neither did France under her kings. It was a means to keep the general population under control. With the birth of a new nation, conceived in individual liberty, the idea that government could take that liberty away by force is prevented by an armed populace. We have some regulations in place. For instance, you can't own an operational army tank or a nuclear bomb. But the idea is that you should be able to be armed to the same degree as a soldier in your own military.

Again, none of the "solutions" being proposed would have any effect on preventing the man in this video from obtaining any gun (if he isn't a criminal, or has a history of mental health issues). A musket will still kill someone, just as it did in the revolutionary war. We need to provide a larger net for the mentally unstable to prevent an episode like the one this video dramatizes. As we've seen across the world, in places where they have no access to guns, they turn to bombs that kill dozens, and wound hundreds, in an instant. I'd make a video to illustrate that, but you can just turn on the news...

Doug:
You can't keep up with the US Department of Defense. If you think that you can, we don't need to spend money on defense. They have drones and robots! If you think you and your neighborhood vigilantes can defend against an assault from our DoD, then you are sadly delusional. That is a ridiculous argument for having so many guns that will do nothing in a battle with the US DoD.

David:
You should be able to have both a drone and a robot. And a flying car. At a minimum, you should be able to defend yourself against someone breaking into your home.

Doug:
Why? Because violent crime is up? No, it is down. Way down. The lowest it has ever been on record. You can't tell this from the news, though. They make it seem like we live in scary times, but the opposite is true.

David:
That is absolutely correct! And you know what? Gun ownership has skyrocketed in the past fifteen years! More guns, and yet less violent crime. Thanks again for your help in proving my point.

Doug:
Unfortunately, even though the overall violent crime rate is down, the rate of homicides with firearms is increasing. So, more guns has lead to more firearm homicides.

David:
As your FBI graph points out  (if you follow the actual plotted points), the firearm homicide rate is stable since1995, and has actually decreased since its peak in the early 1990s. If you remove the data points from 1965 and 1985, the numbers have been stable since 1970.  All, while gun ownership has risen considerably:

Now, lets get back on track to the real issues with the discussion of mass shootings: access to mental health care. The President has not put forward any plan to deal with this true crisis, and doesn't seem interested. Neither does Hillary.

Doug:
"Fewer than 5 percent of gun crimes are committed by people with mental illness; fewer than 5 percent of people with mental illnesses commit violent crimes," according to Myth of the Autistic Shooter. To most people it is pretty clear what the problem is, and it doesn't have much to do with mental health care. It has to do with too many guns.

David:
The President is talking about mass shootings. Hillary is talking about preventing mass shootings. All of the mass shootings they are referring to have been caused by people with mental illness. You seem a bit disconnected from the President and his message. Unfortunately, The President and Mrs. Clinton are disconnected from reality. Their quips are not solutions.

https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/07/hillary-clintons-simple-minded-gun-contr

Doug:
I agree! Quips are not solutions. Let's get tough on gun ownership, and seriously reduce the number of guns in this country.

David:
Finally we agree. Getting tough on gun ownership will likely reduce the number of legally-owned guns. But it won't accomplish anything else, like ending violence or the reasons for it.

Are Democrats actually Socialists?

David:
Are Democrats actually Socialists?

Doug:
Well, our country is built on socialistic ideas. So, yes, I guess we all are socialists, to a degree.

David:
I hate to pop your liberal-arts bubble, but Robin Hood was not one of the founding fathers. He was actually a character from an English novel, not even a fictional American. The federal income tax, progressive or otherwise, to provide funding for government programs was not created until 1913 with the 16th amendment.The country was founded on the ideals of individual freedom and limited government, not exactly socialistic ideals.

But, one of the current  presidential candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination is a Socialist. If Bernie Sanders continues with his current momentum, he will be your candidate. When asked what the difference is between a Socialist and a Democrat, DNC chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz could not provide any answer. The interviewer gave her two chances to provide some distinction between Democrats and Socialists, and she came up empty. So again, I ask you, are Democrats and  Socialists the same, or is there a difference?

Doug:
I understand: your country stopped being built by 1913. My country is still being built. My country has a constitution with amendments, and continues to get better. My country has adopted many of the great altruistic ideas of the world: take care of your own, never let someone go hungry, share some of the wealth to help the needy. We all share some of that socialistic ideology, don't you think?

By the way, "liberal arts" doesn't have anything to do with "being liberal". Literally it refers to the education of topics "worthy of a free person" so that one can "take an active part in civic life, something that (for Ancient Greece) included participating in public debate" (like we are doing here).

David:
A key difference between you and me is I would rather voluntarily share some of my money to help those who need it, by choosing agencies that I find to do the best job at delivering those services. You believe the government should force redistribution of wealth.

Doug:
Don't you think that it is more fair to require everyone to give to the common goals of the country? Otherwise, you would get those that don't pull their weight. Isn't "everyone pulling their weight" a Republican ideal?

David:
I thought you were someone who believed in "choice". It appears you're making an argument that anyone who doesn't pay taxes "isn't puling their weight" in this country. I agree that that isn't fair.

Doug:
Not all choices are equal! You can't make choices where it will hurt others. On the other hand, I am in favor of most any choice where there isn't another person to hurt. Yes, I know you think every fertilized egg should be able to vote.... but only if it has proper ID.

Is Bernie Sanders a socialist? Yes, perhaps even a bit more than Ronald Reagan. All US Presidents since perhaps 1933 (when the WPA was created) or maybe 1935 (when Social Security was created) have been somewhat socialistic.

David:
Yes, Ronald Reagan was certainly a big-government, government-solves-everything kind of guy. Oh wait. No, he wasn't. And, Bernie Sanders is not just somewhat socialistic; He's a Socialist. Period.

Doug:
I don't think your ideal of Reagan matches what actually happened:

• Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned”
• He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future
• He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees
• He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

David:
Reagan spent more on the military because Jimmy Carter had gutted it. The military is one of the jobs the Federal government was created to do. And, it brought about the collapse of the Soviet empire. Social Security is scheduled to run out of money in less than 10 years. If Congress combines SS disability into the general SS funds (which Democrats are pushing to do), it may not last until 2018. Reagan's plans would have put it on a much better footing than it is now, but he couldn't get the bill through, due to the failings of Congress. A president can't (or shouldn't, according to the Constitution) act without Congress on these matters. You can't just cherry-pick numbers out of the contextual air to make outlandish claims. (I reserve that right for myself, as needed, however…)

Doug:
I think you mean "facts" not "numbers" because those points are all true, right? You might have an excuse for why he did each, but you can't also say that they are "outlandish." And many of those points are socialistic in nature. All US Presidents since 1933 have been.

But to the point, I'd say that Democrats are generally more socialistic than Republicans. Democrats generally value those projects that are too big to do otherwise. I'm thinking of the national highway system, Postal service, education, space travel, caring for the homeless and needy, etc.

I saw the interview with Congresswoman Schultz. If I were her, I would avoid the word "socialism" like the plague. Why? Because there are people that don't understand the idea, and think that it is bad. I would also avoid "vaccination", "gun safety", "planned parenthood", and "community organizer". Why? Because, for some reason, even though all of those items are all good things, some people have been trained, Pavlovian-style, to foam at the mouth over certain phrases.

David:
So, you can't answer the question honestly, either. To paraphrase, Democrats are "more Socialistic than Republicans". Therefore, you are saying they are not actually Socialist. How are they different, and why is the candidate for your party not actually going to be a member of your party?

Doug:
You mean like Trump was a member of my party? I guess that really doesn't mean anything, huh?

David:
Bernie Sanders has already proposed 18 Trillion in new spending, and has plans to completely dissolve the healthcare insurance industry, to be replaced with a single-payer government-run system.
His plans call for the biggest expansion of the federal government in history. Is that what you're backing?

Doug:
As opposed to continuing to let our country fall into a state of disrepair? Sanders' plan sounds good to me! I want to make America great again, whatever that means.

David:
I'm glad to hear you admit that after eight years of President Obama, two of which were completely under the control of Democrats, that the country is in disrepair.

Doug:
I'm not glad that the country is in disrepair. You can blame whomever you want, but let's fix it.

David:
However, it appears you are never going to answer the question. If Socialism is such a bad word, I would expect you and Debbie Wasserman Schultz to jump at the chance to illustrate the differences between the Democrats and Socialists. But you won't, because you can't.

Doug:
It is not a bad word. It is one that some have been trained to foam at the mouth when they hear it. Like "voldemort."

David:
Still, no answer.

Doug:
Voldemort!

David: The Democratic party is the Socialist Party of America now.

Doug:
I wish. I read the Socialist Party platform, and it does sound pretty appealing though.

David:
You just said you would spend us into devastating debt to, what? Apparently you believe the country is in "disrepair", and we need all sort of government involvement and middle-class tax dollars to save it. Decreasing government involvement is what is needed.  Our country now ranks 46th in the world for ease in starting a small business. That's due to restrictive regulations on just about everything. For Pete's sake, Doug, President Obama is now requiring barbers and hair stylist to be government-certified and licensed to do their jobs. Who pays for that?

Doug:
The country has many roads and bridges that are in disrepair: "An Associated Press analysis of 607,380 bridges in the most recent federal National Bridge Inventory showed that 65,605 were classified as 'structurally deficient' and 20,808 as 'fracture critical.' Of those, 7,795 were both — a combination of red flags that experts say indicate significant disrepair and similar risk of collapse." That is more than 10% of our infrastructure that needs attention.

Now, you shine a light on the problems it takes to start a new business. In the US, it can take up to 5.5 days to start a new business. That is pretty quick, but we can do better.

Now, you are talking about licenses for independent contractors. It is a complex landscape of who wants licenses for what. Sometimes it is the professionals themselves (like in Utah, where these are state laws) and Michelle Obama is arguing for loosening laws.

David:
As we have seen during the past few years, the government is too big to do it's job.

Doug:
No it is not.

David:
Hillary had no idea that the folks in Benghazi were asking for help? Kathleen Sebelius had no idea the HHS Obamacare web site was not anywhere close to being ready? Emails got deleted right when Congress started looking into the IRS targeting scandal, and no one knew who ordered that action? Veterans died waiting for care, staff were cooking the books to hide the department failings, and yet no one in charge knew anything about it?

Doug:
Sounds like these people needed more help, not less.

David:
More help? If you believe what they are saying, the heads of all of the major departments, and most of the agencies of government have no idea what is even going on under their watch.

The CEO of Volkswagon resigned because his company cheated on emissions testing in California. He denied knowing anything about it, but resigned because he's the CEO, and he's responsible for his company. He also filed a complaint with the German Courts to start an investigation into his own company to find who was responsible. Carly Fiorina was hired to save Hewlett-Packard, and she did so. But because of her actions, stock prices fell, and she was ousted. The company was saved, and the stock holders did very well because of her actions. But at the time, when things went poorly, the CEO was responsible. That's how it is in the real world. When you are in charge, you are responsible. I don't recall the government saying GM "needed more help" when they allowed faulty ignition switches to cause the deaths of dozens of people. I don't recall you saying that big investment firms just "needed more help" when they triggered the housing bubble or collapse. No, I believe you wanted CEOs to go to jail.

But, in government, no one is accountable.

Doug:
You do know how voting works, right? You vote them out. You don't complain about the government, but the people you voted in. Fiorina made some of the worst business decisions ever. The CEO of VW doesn't want to go to jail.

David:
None of the people listed above were elected to those cabinet positions. They were appointed. They can't be voted out. And, no one in government ever gets fired. But, hopefully, some of them may eventually go to jail.

And bigger government will be less accountable. I don't know how you could try to argue any other way. More money (Bernie's plan calls for an additional 18 Trillion), more programs, more bureaucracy, more waste, and less transparency. In other words, Socialism.

By the way, you still have not answered the question….

Doug:
Just because there is more work being done doesn't have any bearing on accountability. It sounds like you have been voting for the wrong people. Under the right steward, more money provides better infrastructure, which provides a more stable environment for small and large businesses. How could you argue any other way?

David:
Bigger government certainly doesn't mean there is more work being done. At least we now know what you and the Socialist-Democratic Party are for.

Doug:
Yep, the Democratic Party and I are for a better infrastructure for the country, better healthcare for everyone, better environment for all, and living wages for every citizen. And now everyone knows thanks to you. Great; we were trying to keep this all a secret.

David:
To quote Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."  Perhaps we'll move on to the topic of the national debt next…..

Doug:
To quote Voldemort: "They never learn. Such a pity."