The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Obama did not "randomly throw money" at any problem, it was always considered. I know you don't want to accept that, but it's the truth.

It's not just Obama, and it's not just the health care industry, although they certainly want to throw more money at that industry, too.

Look at the current crop of idiots vying for the Democratic nomination and the problems with the cost of education. How many of them want to just throw money at that by forgiving student loans and making college free?

All that will do is guarantee an unlimited supply of money to the education industry. In turn, that will cause the tuition rates to skyrocket far beyond where they are today. The only difference is that the taxpayers will be paying it. It does absolutely nothing to address the real problem; that the cost of education has outstripped the general inflation rate by many times.

You say I don't propose solutions. Wrong. The rise in education costs is driven by one thing: the colleges (businesses) know that their customers can can obtain nearly unlimited funds via govt. backed loans, grants and such. So they know they can raise prices without limitations. And they have done so.

If their customers had to pay the tab themselves, they couldn't raise prices because their customers couldn't afford it, and they would go out of business. That would act as a natural brake on education costs, which is the real problem, isn't it?

Oh, wait, I forgot. Overall, the education industry acts as an indoctrination system for the left, so we can't go pissing them off, can we?

Absolutely, but when you allow corps to act as people, it's simply not going to happen.
Why should they have to loose their profits to help you?
Sound familiar?

So, again, the left's answer is to throw taxpayer money at the health care system.
In my post, I mentioned the costs of legal and other costs not directly related to providing health care.
Looking at administrative: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/u...h-care-us.html

And I don't even want to think about the costs that are due to malpractice insurance. The lawyers have gotten the legislatures to rig the laws so that if even a minor mistake is made, it's basically a winning lottery ticket for the patient or his family. The doctor, the hospital, medical equipment suppliers; everyone involved is legally liable and targets of lawsuits. How many extra tests that the doctor knows are unneeded are ordered simply as a CYA to keep the lawyers happy?

The public mentality is that these are deep pockets, and deserve to be punished simply for having deep pockets. (Sound familiar, SR?)

Right there is a huge potential for savings in the health care industry. And there are many others. But all the left wants to do is throw taxpayer money at the problem

I needed antibiotics this week, and they cost me 5 bucks for a 2 week supply.
What would that cost you?

Common antibiotics such as penicillin and it's derivatives aren't expensive here. Would probably be about the same.

But drug costs overall are a huge problem here. How much of that is because US consumers subsidize the costs for consumers in other nations? It should be illegal for a company to charge more for a drug here than elsewhere.
It costs big money to research and develop new drugs. That cost is primarily borne by US consumers (and their insurance)

But legislation to equalize costs between nations would never get passed. The overwhelming reason for its rejection would be "Well, these folks on Tatooine don't make what those on Coruscant do, they can't afford Coruscant prices, why should they be denied the drug?"
*Star Wars locations used to avoid accusations of racism or any other isms.

Oh, and you still haven't gotten the answer to my drug costs riddle right. =)

Yes, it should, but your companies all but own your political system, and it's been pushed by WHO exactly?

I would have no problem taking money out of politics; corporations can't contribute to pols, etc. But you would have to apply it evenly. Yes, corporations will tend to donate to those on the right, but you would also have to ban non-individual donations from unions and other groups that tend to lean to the left. Something along the lines of "No non-individual entity shall contribute to any political party, campaign or candidate" would be fine with me.

I would also be ok with bans on ANY donations from anyone, as well as prohibiting candidates from tapping whatever personal wealth they might have. Broadcast TV/Radio ect. has licenses to use PUBLIC airwaves. Make a condition of that license that they carry political ads from any legitimate (as defined by petition sig. counts) during silly season to allow them to get their messages out.

Think you could get the unions and other leftist groups to go along with either of those ideas?

You are giving the health of your nation to a bunch of tools who don't give a rat's arse about you, just what they can squeeze out of you as "workers"
Are you nuts or stupid?

And you want to turn it over to a bunch of deep state bureaucrats? That's going to be worse!
As evidence to that claim, how much effort have those seem deep state bureaucraps put into undoing the will of the voters in the last election? Yeah, they have my best interests at heart, don't they?

WHAT??
actualaly WTF are you talking about?
Unions are bad because they protected their members?
ROTFLMFAO!!!

No, the point is that if it was a good plan for everyone else, why did the govt. have to exempt the unions ? Why didn't the law just tell them to suck it up, you're no better than anyone else? The unions didn't write the law, Obama's administration did.

[SoulReaver]

now in the (ex) USSR

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50916198

soon in the US(SR)

[Annoyed]

now in the (ex) USSR

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50916198

soon in the US(SR)

Did the authorities have proper warrants, or whatever they use over there? Do they even need one under their laws?

[Gatefan1976]

It's not just Obama, and it's not just the health care industry, although they certainly want to throw more money at that industry, too.

So why is he always thrown up as the example?
And no, they (whoever "they" is) don't want to keep throwing money at it.
Work smarter, not harder.

Look at the current crop of idiots vying for the Democratic nomination and the problems with the cost of education. How many of them want to just throw money at that by forgiving student loans and making college free?

Here we go again.
You know the people who build everything you live in, work with and defend you, have to pay for that privliage?
Don't they deserve a break as well?

All that will do is guarantee an unlimited supply of money to the education industry. In turn, that will cause the tuition rates to skyrocket far beyond where they are today.

And your military spending is what exactly?
You seem to be quite happy with that.

The only difference is that the taxpayers will be paying it. It does absolutely nothing to address the real problem; that the cost of education has outstripped the general inflation rate by many times.

Then the question is WHY.
Perhaps you have far more kids now and it costs more to educate them, and your medical cost are more because there are far more "older people" still living?
You don't look at the issue, you look at the party talking point.
It's not "inflation", it's sheer mathematics.
Take 2 people out to dinner, then take 30 out.
Then explain to me why taking 30 people out should cost the same as 2.

You say I don't propose solutions. Wrong. The rise in education costs is driven by one thing: the colleges (businesses) know that their customers can can obtain nearly unlimited funds via govt. backed loans, grants and such. So they know they can raise prices without limitations. And they have done so.

Proof?
I keep asking, you keep providing none.

If their customers had to pay the tab themselves, they couldn't raise prices because their customers couldn't afford it, and they would go out of business. That would act as a natural brake on education costs, which is the real problem, isn't it?

No, the issue is you have more kids you fool. you have more users, the price goes up. Again, take 2 people out to dinner, then 30.
Then complain about "it's not my problem".
Then take 2 old farts to the doctor, then 30 and wonder why it costs more.
Well, you are not our problem, are you?

Oh, wait, I forgot. Overall, the education industry acts as an indoctrination system for the left, so we can't go pissing them off, can we?

Don't you ever get tired of repeating lies?
The only reason you had a career at all is because of the education system.
Guess you would be pissed off if you could not get that education.
But yeah, it's all left wing, which would make you left wing, wouldn't it?

So, again, the left's answer is to throw taxpayer money at the health care system.
In my post, I mentioned the costs of legal and other costs not directly related to providing health care.
Looking at administrative: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/u...h-care-us.html

That's the corporate side, not the doctors (or teachers)
So you were misinterpreting what again?

And I don't even want to think about the costs that are due to malpractice insurance. The lawyers have gotten the legislatures to rig the laws so that if even a minor mistake is made, it's basically a winning lottery ticket for the patient or his family. The doctor, the hospital, medical equipment suppliers; everyone involved is legally liable and targets of lawsuits. How many extra tests that the doctor knows are unneeded are ordered simply as a CYA to keep the lawyers happy?

Now, here we can agree, but who do the lawyers work for?
The people, or the corporations?

The public mentality is that these are deep pockets, and deserve to be punished simply for having deep pockets. (Sound familiar, SR?)

No, they deserve to pay their share.
You want 10% of my pocket, I want 10% of yours.
It does not matter if my 10% is 100 bucks and yours is 1 million.
Why is this so hard for you guys to understand?
And you know what, if I want more of your "pocket" because you directly benefit from the government of the state or nation, WHEN I DON'T, well tough crap.
Suck it up snowflake (you know, the snowflake who has more than you will ever have and can afford the lawyers who screw people like you and me)

Right there is a huge potential for savings in the health care industry. And there are many others. But all the left wants to do is throw taxpayer money at the problem

No, they don't.
They are given no choice because "the right" has rigged the system to support the corporations by agreeing to stupid long length NDA's where the lawyers you are railing against can play and crush competition.
Make medical tech "open licence" and then watch your costs decrease.
Oh, but that would be free trade, wouldn't it.
I don't disagree with corps making a profit, but there needs to be a limit imposed on it, especially with medical advances.
I want YOU to have the things you need to live, much like I want kids to have the things THEY need to be productive.
Do you understand this?

Common antibiotics such as penicillin and it's derivatives aren't expensive here. Would probably be about the same.

What would your cost be to go to the doctor?
Mine was nothing.

But drug costs overall are a huge problem here. How much of that is because US consumers subsidize the costs for consumers in other nations? It should be illegal for a company to charge more for a drug here than elsewhere.

This is utter horse****. The problem is your laws and they way -again- the right wants to use them. NONE of the cost is because the US developed a drug.
How much of your costs of refrigeration are because Australia developed it?
How much of your costs of Wi-Fi because Australia developed it?
How many cancer treatments cost you more because Australia developed it?
Fraccking NONE.
How much do they cost you because a CORP owns them?
ALL OF THEM.
Learn something son.

It costs big money to research and develop new drugs. That cost is primarily borne by US consumers (and their insurance)

More horse****.
Do you think you are the only nation it the world that develops things?
Why are we paying for you?
Oh, we're not.

But legislation to equalize costs between nations would never get passed. The overwhelming reason for its rejection would be "Well, these folks on Tatooine don't make what those on Coruscant do, they can't afford Coruscant prices, why should they be denied the drug?"
*Star Wars locations used to avoid accusations of racism or any other isms.

That's what Coruscant would say.

Oh, and you still haven't gotten the answer to my drug costs riddle right. =)

Yes, I did, you just don't like the answer.

I would have no problem taking money out of politics; corporations can't contribute to pols, etc. But you would have to apply it evenly. Yes, corporations will tend to donate to those on the right, but you would also have to ban non-individual donations from unions and other groups that tend to lean to the left. Something along the lines of "No non-individual entity shall contribute to any political party, campaign or candidate" would be fine with me.

So, there is something wrong, you recognize it, but rail against fixing it?
What does that make you?

I would also be ok with bans on ANY donations from anyone, as well as prohibiting candidates from tapping whatever personal wealth they might have. Broadcast TV/Radio ect. has licenses to use PUBLIC airwaves. Make a condition of that license that they carry political ads from any legitimate (as defined by petition sig. counts) during silly season to allow them to get their messages out.

Welcome to Australian politics.

Think you could get the unions and other leftist groups to go along with either of those ideas?

Yes.
You seem to think that idea's are inherently partisan, but they are not. The notion of politics is to make the SYSTEM work, not for me, not for you, but for the MAJORITY.

Idea's don't have political bias, people do.

And you want to turn it over to a bunch of deep state bureaucrats? That's going to be worse!
As evidence to that claim, how much effort have those seem deep state bureaucraps put into undoing the will of the voters in the last election?

It WAS NOT THE WILL OF THE VOTER'S
How many times must I say this to you?
63 million voted for trump, 67 million voted for Hillary.
WHO had the "will of the voters"?
You were RELYING on what you call the "deep state", and now you are crying about it???

Yeah, they have my best interests at heart, don't they?

That's not their concern, nor should it be.

No, the point is that if it was a good plan for everyone else, why did the govt. have to exempt the unions ? Why didn't the law just tell them to suck it up, you're no better than anyone else? The unions didn't write the law, Obama's administration did.

NO, they did not.
CONGRESS DID.
the REPUBLICAN CONROLLED CONGRESS.
Obama put forth the idea.

[SoulReaver]

Did the authorities have proper warrants, or whatever they use over there? Do they even need one under their laws?

even if they did that changes nothing since the judge who issued the warrant probably didn't have much of a choice :/

[aretood2]

I just made two suggestions.

Great, when do they go to the floor for a vote? I'm talking about actual lawmakers, not average you.

https://robschwab.com/what-unions-ar...rom-obamacare/

Everytime I have shared a link I have provided the point and a synopsis of sorts so that you'd know what you'll find in it and what my point of providing it was. So nope, you have to explain it or at least summarize the salient points from that article, then I'll read it. I am not going to try to make your argument for you. I don't have the discussion with the article's writer, I am having a discussion with you.

I'll just leave this here.

<graph>

You're point? I'm not doing your work for you. For example, you seem to want me to analyze that graph to try to guess what you're trying to say. All I can say is that this graph doesn't talk about government spending save one line, medicare, whose numbers track with what I was saying quite nicely.

Going off the gold standard was another screw-up, but that's another discussion.

But nothing exists in a vacuum. You can't divorce that from the impact it has had on things like health care expenses, prices and costs. As well as other similar events and decisions that had similar spillover effects. You try to reduce the cause to a simple "politically unacceptable" cause but that's not the case since many other things also impact it like going off the gold standard. Which was my point of bringing that up.

Any meaningful competition has winners and losers. And to the winner goes the spoils. Unless you're talking about the crap they teach in the schools these days where everyone gets to be a winner for showing up, that is.

Sure, if it's a sports game. But tell me, did the human race overall benefit from the space race? It sure did, and it didn't matter who got to the moon first or who made the first space station or who sent the first bloke into space. Who's the winner when you went to Walmart the last time to buy whatever random item you bought? Who's the winner when you cashed your last paycheck for services rendered? Life isn't a sports game where "we are the champions and you are the losers". That's a very limited way to look at things. And if you haven't figured that out in all your years, then...don't know what to tell you but you really ought to pay more attention.

And, do you really think we can "reorient" our nature, which is the result of thousands of years of evolution?

Do you know what "reorient" means? Because I don't think it means what you think it means.

It's not just Obama, and it's not just the health care industry, although they certainly want to throw more money at that industry, too.

Look at the current crop of idiots vying for the Democratic nomination and the problems with the cost of education. How many of them want to just throw money at that by forgiving student loans and making college free?

All that will do is guarantee an unlimited supply of money to the education industry. In turn, that will cause the tuition rates to skyrocket far beyond where they are today. The only difference is that the taxpayers will be paying it. It does absolutely nothing to address the real problem; that the cost of education has outstripped the general inflation rate by many times.

You say I don't propose solutions. Wrong. The rise in education costs is driven by one thing: the colleges (businesses) know that their customers can can obtain nearly unlimited funds via govt. backed loans, grants and such. So they know they can raise prices without limitations. And they have done so.

If their customers had to pay the tab themselves, they couldn't raise prices because their customers couldn't afford it, and they would go out of business. That would act as a natural brake on education costs, which is the real problem, isn't it?

Oh, wait, I forgot. Overall, the education industry acts as an indoctrination system for the left, so we can't go pissing them off, can we?

And much like stated above about healthcare prices, you seem to ignore that nothing exists in a vacuum and then proceed to conspiracy theories based on solely speculation and no actual proof whatsoever ignoring all sorts of facts.

For starters, you fail to differentiate private universities from the state systems and price differentials there (not many people are in dire debt from public universities) and you fail to take into account the portion of debt owed to vocational and tech schools. You also fail to take into account how cheaper secondary and primary schooling is than post secondary. Frankly, I'm not even sure if you know what that last sentence even means.

As for taxpayers paying for schooling, why not? After all, I benefit from having an AC/HVAC expert who is not in debt, or a doctor who is not in debt and so on. It's a sound investment. It means that people are selected for their talent to be in those fields, not for their family's pocket books. It boosts the quality of such professionals and what's so bad about better quality professionals? You want to talk about healthcare prices, part of that goes to paying for med school loans. Like I said before, nothing exists in a vacuum.

So, again, the left's answer is to throw taxpayer money at the health care system.
In my post, I mentioned the costs of legal and other costs not directly related to providing health care.
Looking at administrative: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/u...h-care-us.html

I still don't see any proposals dealing with this. The problem is that the GOP simply exists to block laws made by the Democrats and to make immigration to the US impossible and that's about it. Oh, and to pardon war criminals because fakepatriotism.

And I don't even want to think about the costs that are due to malpractice insurance. The lawyers have gotten the legislatures to rig the laws so that if even a minor mistake is made, it's basically a winning lottery ticket for the patient or his family. The doctor, the hospital, medical equipment suppliers; everyone involved is legally liable and targets of lawsuits. How many extra tests that the doctor knows are unneeded are ordered simply as a CYA to keep the lawyers happy?

Also a major contributor, but read above...still see no action on this from the GOP.

Right there is a huge potential for savings in the health care industry. And there are many others. But all the left wants to do is throw taxpayer money at the problem

And the right wants to do nothing about it. Actions do speak louder than words. You had 2 years of complete GOP control and nothing was done other than undoing laws and regulations passed by Obama because of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

But drug costs overall are a huge problem here. How much of that is because US consumers subsidize the costs for consumers in other nations? It should be illegal for a company to charge more for a drug here than elsewhere.
It costs big money to research and develop new drugs. That cost is primarily borne by US consumers (and their insurance)

Nowhere near as much as you think, if at all. Honestly, you seem to be making a blind assumption here. The actual reason has to do with government regulations and of course, the laws of supply and demand. People in other countries don't tolerate insulin that costs more than the average rent either.

But legislation to equalize costs between nations would never get passed. The overwhelming reason for its rejection would be "Well, these folks on Tatooine don't make what those on Coruscant do, they can't afford Coruscant prices, why should they be denied the drug?"
*Star Wars locations used to avoid accusations of racism or any other isms.

Exactly how much is the wage disparity between Canada and the US?

No, the point is that if it was a good plan for everyone else, why did the govt. have to exempt the unions ? Why didn't the law just tell them to suck it up, you're no better than anyone else? The unions didn't write the law, Obama's administration did.

Still waiting on an answer, and no, I will not do your research for you and look it up. You made the claim and I am challenging you to back it up with actual substance.

[Annoyed]

Everytime I have shared a link I have provided the point and a synopsis of sorts so that you'd know what you'll find in it and what my point of providing it was. So nope, you have to explain it or at least summarize the salient points from that article, then I'll read it. I am not going to try to make your argument for you. I don't have the discussion with the article's writer, I am having a discussion with you.

You asked a question:

Originally Posted by aretood2 View Post
What were unions exempt from exactly?

And I provided a link that answers it.

You're point? I'm not doing your work for you. For example, you seem to want me to analyze that graph to try to guess what you're trying to say. All I can say is that this graph doesn't talk about government spending save one line, medicare, whose numbers track with what I was saying quite nicely.

You had stated health care costs began rising in the 70's. Again, the graph was a simple refutation of your claim.

Sure, if it's a sports game. But tell me, did the human race overall benefit from the space race? It sure did, and it didn't matter who got to the moon first or who made the first space station or who sent the first bloke into space.

Sure, everybody benefited. As we chose how to dole it out. Sure, you want a Teflon frying pan, have at it. But if you want us to put a military or intelligence satellite in orbit, drop dead.

Who's the winner when you went to Walmart the last time to buy whatever random item you bought? Who's the winner when you cashed your last paycheck for services rendered? Life isn't a sports game where "we are the champions and you are the losers". That's a very limited way to look at things. And if you haven't figured that out in all your years, then...don't know what to tell you but you really ought to pay more attention.

First, nobody wins at Walmart except Walmart. I hate that store more than I hate liberals.

And second, life is competition. Whether or not you want to see it, we, and most mammals are competitive species. That's how we evolved.

Do you know what "reorient" means? Because I don't think it means what you think it means.

Well, in English it means to change the direction of or position of an object.

[Gatefan1976]

What the hell are you talking about?

[Annoyed]

What the hell are you talking about?

Was a response to tood's post.

[jelgate]

Translation: I don't know. I'll make it up as I go

[Annoyed]

And, in the "points I've made before" dept...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...e-state-exodus

Movement within the country has had an underlying theme to it lately: High-tax and expensive cost-of-living states are seeing an exodus. It is partly catalyzed by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which aimed its sights at tax-heavy blue states by imposing a crushing cap on state and local tax deductions and mortgage interest above $750,000 (a threshold high enough to really only hurt high earners with massive homes).

These are two deductions that Democrat-controlled states often relied on to defray the harm of their bloated tax burdens on their middle- and upper-class inhabitants. Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s grandmother has relocated from New York to Florida on account of taxes.

Just as a refugee resettles to escape hardship, a leftugee does so to flee the punitive financial environment created in their state by big government.

Maybe the red states ought to start building walls to keep the leftugees out.

[Gatefan1976]

Well, if they did not have to pay for the red states
And for the military
And for the government
And for R&D
They probably could lower the state taxes.

[Annoyed]

Well, if they did not have to pay for the red states
And for the military
And for the government
And for R&D
They probably could lower the state taxes.

We are talking about STATE & LOCAL taxes, not federal.

[Gatefan1976]

We are talking about STATE & LOCAL taxes, not federal.

Where do you think the federal government makes it's money?

[Gatefan1976]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/natio...bpi-story.html