General Current Events/Political Discussion

[Lincoln | 230]

2 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

Pretty much that I identify myself as a capitalistic libertarian. Pretty much the exact polar opposite of Bernie's politics.

That doesn't really tell me anything. What are your objections to his specific policies? 

Fwiw I am registered libertarian and I'm hoping Bernie gets the nom so I can vote for him (I'm also in California so it absolutely won't matter). 

I don't think there's any free market fix to healthcare at this point. You can't really afford to shop around when you're in an accident or have a long term health issue, if that's even an option to start with. The insurance industry is thoroughly broken. Every civilized nation but us has government provided healthcare and it generally works out better than our current system. It would be nice to not have to worry about getting sick and going bankrupt from it.

That's the big one I know about. Iirc he's got some plans for education too, which is a concern as a parent. Tuition costs are absolutely absurd now and student loans are buying people in insurmountable debt. 

[Rooster | 124]

24 minutes ago, Lincoln said:

That doesn't really tell me anything. What are your objections to his specific policies? 

Fwiw I am registered libertarian and I'm hoping Bernie gets the nom so I can vote for him (I'm also in California so it absolutely won't matter). 

I don't think there's any free market fix to healthcare at this point. You can't really afford to shop around when you're in an accident or have a long term health issue, if that's even an option to start with. The insurance industry is thoroughly broken. Every civilized nation but us has government provided healthcare and it generally works out better than our current system. It would be nice to not have to worry about getting sick and going bankrupt from it.

That's the big one I know about. Iirc he's got some plans for education too, which is a concern as a parent. Tuition costs are absolutely absurd now and student loans are buying people in insurmountable debt. 

Just cross your fingers and hope you never get seriously sick, or that your insurance company doesn't drop you because you're too expensive.

[Estil | 1,261]

2 hours ago, Lincoln said:

Every civilized nation but us has government provided healthcare and it generally works out better than our current system.

That's because of not only higher taxes but they don't have to spend nearly as much on defense...especially the ones in NATO since they are under our (well mostly our) nuclear umbrella.  Plus there's not nearly as much population to go around either.  You might have some luck doing that and other gov't programs on some of the states/local level though.  I mean things like gov't provided healthcare (provided it's done right!) are nice but like every thing else in life it comes at a cost of taxes and/or cutting back on other gov't programs.

All the more reason I don't see myself getting into politics...I don't see how anyone can make those kinds of tough decisions.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Estil

[Estil | 1,261]

5 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

Pretty much that I identify myself as a capitalistic libertarian. Pretty much the exact polar opposite of Bernie's politics.

I'd like to think of myself as libertarian-ish...but I honestly can't get behind some of their more, eh radical ideas.  I remember in college checking out one of their booths and when they mentioned how ideally they'd like no minimum wage, very little in terms of "social safety nets" like food stamps, welfare (TANF) and the like my reaction was quite simply, there's no way that could ever realistically work.  You need some minimum wage (that being said $15/hr right away all at once is too much/too soon...perhaps increasing it a small amount every 2-3 years like you would COLA's in some jobs as well as those (like myself and my wife) on SSDI would be far better. 

You need some gov't "social safety net" sorts of programs.  Churches and charities and all that are all fine and good and are a vital part of the mix...but as we've seen during the Depression, that alone just doesn't cut it.  Like it or not, some of FDR's New Deal and some of LBJ's Great Society stuff (again, the key word is some) was most definitely necessary.  As for this whole libertarians on YouTube giving police sobriety checkpoints a hard time...listen I get where they're coming from, but isn't there such a thing as picking and choosing your battles?

[Quest4Nes | 376]

3 hours ago, Lincoln said:

That doesn't really tell me anything. What are your objections to his specific policies? 

Fwiw I am registered libertarian and I'm hoping Bernie gets the nom so I can vote for him (I'm also in California so it absolutely won't matter). 

I don't think there's any free market fix to healthcare at this point. You can't really afford to shop around when you're in an accident or have a long term health issue, if that's even an option to start with. The insurance industry is thoroughly broken. Every civilized nation but us has government provided healthcare and it generally works out better than our current system. It would be nice to not have to worry about getting sick and going bankrupt from it.

That's the big one I know about. Iirc he's got some plans for education too, which is a concern as a parent. Tuition costs are absolutely absurd now and student loans are buying people in insurmountable debt. 

 

That makes seriously no sense. For all issues that really matter, those are polar opposite ideologies economically. So much in fact I find it near impossible to give a crap about any of the social issues I might agree with  because of his economic philosophy. If its bernie he is going to get slaughtered. Union voters wont vote for bernie with their negotiated healthcare plans at stake. That in itself will sink him in all the midwest states.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Quest4Nes

[Californication | 1,477]

46 minutes ago, Estil said:

That's because of not only higher taxes but they don't have to spend nearly as much on defense...especially the ones in NATO since they are under our (well mostly our) nuclear umbrella.  Plus there's not nearly as much population to go around either.  You might have some luck doing that and other gov't programs on some of the states/local level though.  I mean things like gov't provided healthcare (provided it's done right!) are nice but like every thing else in life it comes at a cost of taxes and/or cutting back on other gov't programs.

All the more reason I don't see myself getting into politics...I don't see how anyone can make those kinds of tough decisions.

Your premise is wrong. Single payer is cheaper. Single payer saves the government money. If the government used single payer there would be more money available to spend on other things.

The U.S pays more than double what some other country's pay AND we have worse health outcome ls overall.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

51 minutes ago, Estil said:

  Plus there's not nearly as much population to go around either. 

More population = more tax dollars = more ability to pay for it. Plus, if everyone is covered, they're more likely to go to a doctor regularly, catching issues before they become serious, leading to a healthier population in general, lowering costs. 

But no, let's stick with the current system where people either go bankrupt from medical bills or put off going to the doctor until it's life threatening, necessitating an ER visit. 

[Californication | 1,477]

35 minutes ago, Quest4Nes said:

 

That makes seriously no sense. For all issues that really matter, those are polar opposite ideologies economically. So much in fact I find it near impossible to give a crap about any of the social issues I might agree with  because of his economic philosophy. If its bernie he is going to get slaughtered. Union voters wont vote for bernie with their negotiated healthcare plans at stake. That in itself will sink him in all the midwest states.

Bernie is for workers. One of the first satellite caucuses in Iowa was a union voting for Bernie. Bernie does have mixed results with unions though. 

If Bernie was able to pass single payer, union health care wouldn't get worse, there would just be a different person paying for it. 

The problem unions have is that the union is able to offer union workers something and so union workers need the union and the union gets power, money, etc. 

This is the thing though, if a union lost power because they no longer needed to provide health insurance they would have extra money to spend on union workers. All the union would have to do is find other ways to spend union dues to attract union workers to join and they would be alright.

Edit: also, how is Bernie sunk in the midwest? He won Iowa.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Californication

[Quest4Nes | 376]

6 minutes ago, Californication said:

Bernie is for workers. One of the first satellite caucuses in Iowa was a union voting for Bernie. Bernie does have mixed results with unions though. 

If Bernie was able to pass single payer, union health care wouldn't get worse, there would just be a different person paying for it. 

The problem unions have is that the union is able to offer union workers something and so union workers need the union and the union gets power, money, etc. 

This is the thing though, if a union lost power because they no longer needed to provide health insurance they would have extra money to spend on union workers. All the union would have to do is find other ways to spend union dues to attract union workers to join and they would be alright.

Edit: also, how is Bernie sunk in the midwest? He won Iowa.

He won a caucus of democrats with low turnout. He wasnt running against trump. lmao

 

Ill go ahead and take my graceful exit before arguments start.  The last few posts have me rolling my eyes with single payer healthcare. 

 

Ill just put it like this. Go ahead and make bernie the nominee. Id be shocked if he won more than 10 states.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Quest4Nes

[Californication | 1,477]

4 minutes ago, Quest4Nes said:

He won a caucus of democrats with low turnout. He wasnt running against trump. lmao

 

Ill go ahead and take my graceful exit before arguments start.  The last few posts have me rolling my eyes with single payer healthcare. 

 

Ill just put it like this. Go ahead and make bernie the nominee. Id be shocked if he won more than 10 states.

Trump did well last time because he used populist rhetoric. Guess what? Trunp was president and he did shit for workers and many of them know it.

He is talking about cutting Medicare!! Do you know how much damage Trump.is going to take for suggesting cutting Medicare?

Trump would be facing a real populist who cares about people. 

Also, Bernie is always leading Trump in the polls. 

Why do you think there is a recordimg of Trump talking about how he didn't want to have to face Bernie in 2016?

[Quest4Nes | 376]

There is a reason the DNC is trying to sabatoge bernie at all costs. They know he wont win, and hes a communist

 

Bernie in an election would finally have to answer questions from opposition. He rarely ever actually answers concerned good questions. He turns into denial angry bernie and exposes himself everytime he faces a legitimate honest question and just rambles about the 1%. I.E. Ted Cruz debate , the town hall he had on a couple years ago. Man it was rough.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Quest4Nes

[Lincoln | 230]

1 hour ago, Estil said:

That's because of not only higher taxes but they don't have to spend nearly as much on defense...especially the ones in NATO since they are under our (well mostly our) nuclear umbrella.  Plus there's not nearly as much population to go around either.  You might have some luck doing that and other gov't programs on some of the states/local level though.  I mean things like gov't provided healthcare (provided it's done right!) are nice but like every thing else in life it comes at a cost of taxes and/or cutting back on other gov't programs.

All the more reason I don't see myself getting into politics...I don't see how anyone can make those kinds of tough decisions.

we don't *have* to spend nearly as much as we do on defense, but it doesn't really factor in anyway. we're already being taxed in the form of insurance premiums, it's just going to a private business. 

regarding unions, removing health insurance as a point of negotiation frees them up to negotiate for other benefits. insurance being tied to your employer is a huge burden on anyone trying to find a better working situation. employees would benefit from not having to worry about that. plus no gaps in coverage when you change jobs.

 

[Californication | 1,477]

48 minutes ago, Quest4Nes said:

There is a reason the DNC is trying to sabatoge bernie at all costs. They know he wont win, and hes a communist

 

Bernie in an election would finally have to answer questions from opposition. He rarely ever actually answers concerned good questions. He turns into denial angry bernie and exposes himself everytime he faces a legitimate honest question and just rambles about the 1%. I.E. Ted Cruz debate , the town hall he had on a couple years ago. Man it was rough.

I think you wrote Bernie instead of Trump. It's alright, I type too fast to sometimes.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

9 hours ago, Estil said:

but like every thing else in life it comes at a cost of taxes and/or cutting back on other gov't programs.

Or you know who could stop giving multi million dollar companies huge tax breaks and have them, you know, pay the taxes that they should be required to pay, instead of lining company leadership pockets to the nth degree, and use that money for programs which benefit our citizens. 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

7 hours ago, Californication said:

I think you wrote Bernie instead of Trump. It's alright, I type too fast to sometimes.

Trump doesn't ramble.

He is a very stable genius who always gets right to the point of complex issues.

And when he does ramble, it is on purpose, to show the importance of word salad in a balanced information diet.

[Quest4Nes | 376]

2 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

Trump doesn't ramble.

He is a very stable genius who always gets right to the point of complex issues.

And when he does ramble, it is on purpose, to show the importance of word salad in a balanced information diet.

Trump just gets defensive. Bernie gets angry. Please dont tell me your in the bernie camp arch. Please let me still respect your opinions.

 

If trumps policies fail, its a setback

If bernies policies fail , there is no going back. You cant put that socialist toothpaste back in the tube

Edited February 13, 2020 by Quest4Nes

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

3 minutes ago, Quest4Nes said:

Trump just gets defensive. Bernie gets angry. Please dont tell me your in the bernie camp arch. Please let me still respect your opinions.

 

If trumps policies fail, its a setback

If bernies policies fail , there is no going back. You cant put that socialist toothpaste back in the tube

I don't have to be in anybody's "camp" to think that Trump is a moron who speaks at a 4th grade level, which is what my comment was about.

 

 

[Californication | 1,477]

You can't put socialist toothpaste back in the tube?

They have been attacking social security and medicare for decades and they sometimes win. Trump just cut the food stamps for poor people. They would love to privatize the post office. They shredded federal funding for mental health programs.

Every time the government talks about manaiging the budget they talk about cutting social programs.

I'm not sure what world you're living in.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Californication

[Link | 2,707]

11 hours ago, Californication said:

Why do you think there is a recordimg of Trump talking about how he didn't want to have to face Bernie in 2016?

This offer went away pretty quick 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/26/clintons-nightmare-trump-and-sanders-say-they-might-debate/84963488/

[Quest4Nes | 376]

Yes once something is nationalized, its near impossible to go back to the way things were when it fails. Which it will because the government sucks at running anything. 

 

You call it taking away or cutting food stamps. Some may call it more accountability through work requirements etc. You can spin and frame stuff the worst way possible. You aren't going to convince me with cutting social programs as some huge loss. Sounds great. I wouldn't set policy from a place of emotion(the progressive way). Expanding programs does nothing but perpetuate the problems. Tighten them up. There are plenty of private charities that can do far better for the truly poor than the government. But we are going to differ since you love bernie and I think he is one of the most dangerous men in america. 

 

[PineappleLawnchair | 88]

18 minutes ago, Californication said:

Trump just cut the food stamps for poor people.

They cut it for people who have no business being on it.

Quote

The rule, which makes it harder for states to waive the federal program’s work requirements in areas of high unemployment, targets a group of people known, in the bureaucratic language of public-assistance programs, as ABAWDs—“able-bodied adults without dependents.”

“We need everyone who can work, to work.” A representative of the USDA assured reporters that vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, and people who are disabled would not be affected.

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/12/trump-snap-food-stamps-cuts/603367/

Far as i'm concerned that just harms the nanny state socialism wants.

 

[Californication | 1,477]

4 minutes ago, Quest4Nes said:

Yes once something is nationalized, its near impossible to go back to the way things were when it fails. Which it will because the government sucks at running anything. 

 

You call it taking away or cutting food stamps. Some may call it more accountability through work requirements etc. You can spin and frame stuff the worst way possible. You aren't going to convince me with cutting social programs as some huge loss. Sounds great. I wouldn't set policy from a place of emotion(the progressive way). Expanding programs does nothing but perpetuate the problems. Tighten them up. There are plenty of private charities that can do far better for the truly poor than the government. But we are going to differ since you love bernie and I think he is one of the most dangerous men in america. 

 

Not only are social programs popilar, they grow the economy. - Economics 101

Medicare, Social Security, the Post Office, the Fire Department are wildly popular and succeasful.

The post office pays for itself. The only reason they had issues was because the republicans created a law that says they have to fund their pension way far in advance to make it look like they are not profitable.

Medicare and Social security are fully funded by payroll taxes. The only reason they get weakened is because rich people don't pay their fair shar since there is a max limit on income that is charged social security. Also, the government uses the money we pay into social security to sometimes paybother bills.

 

[Californication | 1,477]

9 minutes ago, PineappleLawnchair said:

They cut it for people who have no business being on it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/12/trump-snap-food-stamps-cuts/603367/

Far as i'm concerned that just harms the nanny state socialism wants.

 

Food stamps grow the economy.

If your that mean of a person that you don't care if people go hungry, you should atleast be content that the economy is growing.

All people can't find jobs. Look at all those run down ex manufacturing town in the midwest. Don't you thing the people in Detroit would work if they could find a job?

If you want people off food stamps, make mcdonalds and amazon etc. pay a higher wage so people don't qualify for food stamps because of the income limitations. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Californication

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

7 minutes ago, Californication said:

Medicare and Social security are fully funded by payroll taxes. The only reason they get weakened is because rich people don't pay their fair shar since there is a max limit on income that is charged social security. 

I'm going to dispute your understanding on the part in bold.

If you are hitting the max limit on the social-security side of FICA, the benefits-per-contributed dollar have already been pretty significantly diminished compared to people on the lower end of the scale.

"Rich people" definitely pay their "fair share" into that system, the way it is currently mechanized, and see a much much worse effective-rate-of-return than median-and-below earners, versus if they had been able to invest the income elsewhere.

 

There may be other issues with how social security is handled, but "rich people" not contributing enough to the pot of money isn't one of them.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

7 minutes ago, Californication said:

All people can't find jobs. Look at all those run down ex manufacturing town in the midwest. Don't you thing the people in Detroit would work if they could find a job?

Does Detroit still have "urban trappers" that sell raccoon carcasses for meat?

I remember reading that story a few years back during the depths of the recession, when "urban food deserts" were getting a lot of attention.