Standup Zone Forum
General => Random => Topic started by: Chan on February 19, 2019, 03:39:47 PM
-
The poll only allows 5 options. Feel free to write in others.
-
This would be like sitting down at Mama's Fish House and they offer you a McDonalds menu.
Is this really the best we can do?
-
Sanders? ...really?! 'An old man with one tune and C'hit for a record in the job he's already held. In 12 years - out of the seven bills presented, by Sanders, then passed, two were names of post offices, one: on March 4, 1991, was naming a 'Vermont Bicentennial Day'.
The only one of verbal substance was in 2013 - veterans compensation to track COLA along with Social Security ...not exactly a heavy lift. (how much have we paid him over these 12 years ...how much for travel and other benefits ...how much for 50+ staffers!)
http://congress.org/congressorg/mlm/congressorg/bio/staff/?id=594
Biden - that will be entertaining. There will be every frame of him sniffing little girls and women's hair - in Slo-Mo. A perv.
Sorry, Chan - none of the above.
Jim
-
Aside from Trump, none of them have ever had a TV show or acted in a movie. I'm really disappointed. We'll have to look to the academies. How about Reese Witherspoon? She's played a lawyer in a movie. Everyone seems to like her? Or Julia Roberts? She's played a really hot lawyer in a movie as well. Then there's Halle Berry. She has the whole package. But.. she does have that Hit and Run thing. I don't think that's a deal killer. ::)
-
This would be like sitting down at Mama's Fish House and they offer you a McDonalds menu.
This would be like sitting down at Mama's Fish House and they offer you a McDonalds menu after you've eaten cat shit yogurt for 4 years. Mmmnn, McDonalds.
-
This would be like sitting down at Mama's Fish House and they offer you a McDonalds menu.
This would be like sitting down at Mama's Fish House and they offer you a McDonalds menu after you've eaten cat shit yogurt for 4 years. Mmmnn, McDonalds.
Yup. I am pretty far left and while it would be nice to get a candidate that held my views, I kind of hope the candidate is slightly more centrist just to help ensure Trump gets beat. I am going to vote for the DEM candidate because A - the candidate will not be named Trump (or Pence, if Trump is doing time), B - the candidate will have views closer to mine than the GOP candidate, C - I will not throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate in protest if I don't like the choices and D - the candidate will not be named Trump...
-
This would be like sitting down at Mama's Fish House and they offer you a McDonalds menu.
This would be like sitting down at Mama's Fish House and they offer you a McDonalds menu after you've eaten cat shit yogurt for 4 years. Mmmnn, McDonalds.
That's pretty graphic...my dog's asking what's wrong with cat shit...
-
The D's could easily walk away with this one if they can find a moderate.
Unfortunately, the current crop of candidates is not on that trajectory and neither is the heart of the party. So they are going to take what should be the easiest win in a long time, and make it a hard one.
-
Warren Cortez 2020. You go girls...... 8)
-
Maybe Michelle and Oprah. Now we’re talking. ::)
-
Yeh, yeh, I know I'm an optometrist, but I don't see how Trump can win against any Democrat. In the last election most of Trumps votes were against Hillary, not for him ; Hilary got 2 million more votes than Trump; and many who voted for Trump now regret it or at least realize they didn't get what they hoped for.
(I promised myself I wasn't going to post on this thread, but this is my only post. I really mean it this time)
-
Hey Tom. Don’t quit your day job. You just don’t SEE how Trump can win? Maybe glasses. :)
-
The Democrats have demonstrated previously that they can indeed lose an unlosable election. Trump didn't think Trump would win. Right now the Democrat ticket looks like everyone who would like to be president someday. I know it's early for them to be getting their ducks in a row, but jeez, it's pretty ugly. If Schultz actually runs as an independent Trump could be a two-term president. Wouldn't that just be ducky.
Then again I don't hold Bernie's do-nothing record against him. The notion of scoring senators and congressmen on the number of bills they author has never made sense to me. His rap has grown pretty tired though.
-
I'm a none of the above again. I was a vote against Hillary last time. I didn't want to see the pendulum continue it's leftward swing. But I hate Trump, fucking embarrassment despite my conservative lean. I'm afraid my hoped for outcome is getting unlikely. Dems aren't going to run a centrist. They seem to be going all in on the far left. I'll probably write in my brother this time...:)
I'd happily vote for our Gov. Charlie Baker...centrist republican and a good manager from what I can see. We could do far worse....and would with any of those listed. I'm hoping he runs in 2024. I think he would eat up these folks in debate. Very smart guy with practical solutions and good working both sides of the aisle. Though after the rancor of the last few and what will happen in Trumps 2nd term (yes I think he will win) there will be an awful lot of repairing to do.
I'm just getting tired of all the name calling and bullshit tearing us apart. Maybe if the far right and far left would stop kicking and screaming to get everything their way we could find some compromises and move forward. All the back and forth is weakening us as a country and I think it is one of the biggest threats we face.
FWIW....Vegas bookies have Trump as a massive favorite to win.
-
FWIW....Vegas bookies have Trump as a massive favorite to win.
The numbers I am seeing from the EU betting parlors have him as even or slightly better, but not massive:
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/winner
I don't know of any Vegas odds since betting on elections is illegal in Nevada.
Hopefully when it gets head to head it will swing away from him. Some DEM candidates that are currently long shots are factoring in lack of announcing so far. For example, in that link now (it will change), Biden is 11:1. If he announces he is running, odds of him being elected would go way up. he isn't necessarily my favorite, but a good example.
-
If Schultz actually runs as an independent Trump could be a two-term president
I've already switched to Peet's.
-
I am a progressive liberal and I would vote for Charlie Baker in a minute. D from the NRA, did nothing to hinder Cannabis implementation laws in Massachusetts(my business) voted for overwhelming by the mass constituents. Can you imagine having a politicians who do what the voters want? I have met Charlies Baker and he thinks that Trump and the current Republican Senators are asshats redefining what it means to be an asshats. I, ummm, paraphrase his words of course. A large portion of his career was in healthcare in the public sector and he can get to a solution to healthcare for all.
Putting forth moderates is exactly what has done the Democratic party in. Gore, Kerry, Clinton = moderates. Walk down the middle of the street and you are going to get hit going both ways.
Repeal Citizens United.
Tax the Uber Wealthy like we have done to great success in the past.
Voter reform.
the coasts need to invest in the flyover states. We are team and and if the the coastal progressives want their views in leadership they need to share.
Continue to address the sorry ignorance of historic and continuing institutional racism and misogyny in this country and the un-equal class system it has successfully created.
Start talking about eliminating tax exempt status for non-inclusive organizations. Hello Catholic Church. Women as equals or take it private fuckwads. Commonsense.
Radical solutions to climate change
No, not all of this is going to be addressed in this election but a lot can and should be talked about. Democrats can and will win doing it.
-
Tax the Uber Wealthy like we have done to great success in the past...
Ocasio-Cortez (NY) had recently suggested the same, but her math simply does not work. If we taxed the top .05% at 70% (as suggested) it would generate about $70b per year. Unfortunatly, that sum does not even come close to closing the gap on the cost of universal health care, free college tuition, etc.
-
Agree Bean. That is one step. Maybe 70% for .05%, 50% for 5%? Corporate tax loopholes? Close'em. Inheritance tax? Bring it all the way back. Inheritance tax is not double taxation. One person earned the money and another person inherits the money who did not earn it and this is unearned income and needs to taxed at the highest rate possible. Military spending? All combined is there several trillion dollars. I don't know but it is a start.
Dynastic rule as defined by a vast wealth chasm between a very few haves and masses of have nots ends in revolution. I don't think this is alarmist. It is fact. Historically there are no counter examples.
-
What's the motivation to strive to succeed if everything is handed to you free? My daughter worked her butt off in school so she could go to a good college. Good thing she got a scholarship, because we couldn't afford the schools she was applying for. She's a driven person, and earned it. I've been self-employed my whole life, and worked my butt off for 40 years straight. I never expected any handouts or free anything. Everything I have I earned.
Land of the Free means freedom of.... freedom to.... Not I want for free!
-
Ocasio's plan in its current incarnation taxes income over 10 Million. Only 16,000 hit that mark. Bring that # down a bit and you are working with a boatload of cash. That is income. There is also talk about taxing existing wealth. At this point it seems like the plans and #'s are loose. Check if America will stomach that at all before taking too firm a position. It is way far afield from capitalism but we have strayed pretty far from true, fair, capitalism on the other side as well.
-
I got it.
The Laird could run.
"A couple of Sups in every garage!"
8)
-
Agree Bean. That is one step.
No, I do not agree.
I'm simply pointing out that Ocasio-Cortez had clearly not properly whetted her position on her proposed tax policy.
-
O It is way far afield from capitalism but we have strayed pretty far from true, fair, capitalism on the other side as well.
Kind of depends on what your definition of fair is as to whether or not there can be such a thing as true capitalism that's fair.
-
I like NEplay’s plan on taxing the rich. We should call it the”pono tax”. :)
-
I assume Occasio-Cortez is being used to some degree as a stalking horse, to toss out somewhat extreme positions and see how the voting public responds. She can't run for President until she is 35, which rules out a 2020 bid.
I consistently see people forward redistribution schemes as a cure for everything. I support progressive taxation of wealth, especially inherited wealth. There's nothing free-market about inherited oligarchies. But the idea that health care, in the manner Americans currently consume it, can be paid for in that manner simply ignores the numbers. About 120,000,000 Americans pay federal income tax and the average tax collected is about $10,000. That's 1.2 trillion bux (the real number is 1.48 trillion, so I misplaced a few hundred billion somewhere). The top 1 percent of taxpayers are those who earn more than 450K per year and they pay about 40 percent of all taxes collected--about 480 billion. Double that tax burden (unlikely) and you'd raise total tax collected to about 1.7 Trillion. Americans spend 3.5 Trillion on healthcare. about 18 percent of our GDP. Check my math if you like--it's just back of the napkin stuff, but I think if you really want universal healthcare at the current level of service in the USA, then stump for universal medicare, and prepare to pay for it. I'm in favor of it, but it won't be cheap. By the way, the total military expenditure is 900 billion. No joy there either. Comparison of our spending to China and Russia's on a dollar to dollar basis is too stupid to even discuss.
This won't be a rational debate or a rational election. The Russians will continue to meddle and both parties have seen the effectiveness of social media in polarizing America. It's ugly now, imagine what it will be like in 2020.
-
What's the motivation to strive to succeed if everything is handed to you free? My daughter worked her butt off in school so she could go to a good college. Good thing she got a scholarship, because we couldn't afford the schools she was applying for. She's a driven person, and earned it. I've been self-employed my whole life, and worked my butt off for 40 years straight. I never expected any handouts or free anything. Everything I have I earned.
Land of the Free means freedom of.... freedom to.... Not I want for free!
TallDude, these things like "free" healthcare or college aren't free. They're paid by taxes. It's not a handout.
Similar story: my father who was highly educated was also mentally ill, addicted, and poor. I went to some of the very best public schools, but when college came around I was screwed. There wasn't money for that, and when I tried to work for school, my father stole my earnings. The idea that working for these things works for some people, but not everybody. Deserving people are denied a good education because of circumstances beyond their control. Even if you go to night school and do that, you start off years behind your peers. It took me 15 years to get my BA, all because a situation I did not create. A few of those "free" things would have made my life much better. It would have changed my life. I know I would have had a different career.
I know there are people who might take advantage of the system, there are many who would not. I count myself in that category.
-
What's the motivation to strive to succeed if everything is handed to you free? My daughter worked her butt off in school so she could go to a good college. Good thing she got a scholarship, because we couldn't afford the schools she was applying for. She's a driven person, and earned it. I've been self-employed my whole life, and worked my butt off for 40 years straight. I never expected any handouts or free anything. Everything I have I earned.
Land of the Free means freedom of.... freedom to.... Not I want for free!
TallDude, these things like "free" healthcare or college aren't free. They're paid by taxes. It's not a handout.
Similar story: my father who was highly educated was also mentally ill, addicted, and poor. I went to some of the very best public schools, but when college came around I was screwed. There wasn't money for that, and when I tried to work for school, my father stole my earnings. The idea that working for these things works for some people, but not everybody. Deserving people are denied a good education because of circumstances beyond their control. Even if you go to night school and do that, you start off years behind your peers. It took me 15 years to get my BA, all because a situation I did not create. A few of those "free" things would have made my life much better. It would have changed my life. I know I would have had a different career.
I know there are people who might take advantage of the system, there are many who would not. I count myself in that category.
Very true; everyone does not have equal opportunities. Some of that is random, some is systemic. It's like the old adage that everyone can succeed if they work hard. There aren't enough slots open as you continue moving up. As you progress to better paying jobs, it's a triangle. There is only one desk in each McDonald's and that's just an example; there are also lots of cubes and only four corner offices in some large corporate settings.
-
The dems often have easy win positions that they can’t seem to clarify to close the deal. The US health care reform issue should be an easy win for the left but they have struggled to explain their vision. Obamacare, single payer, Medicare for all, these terms all leave room for confusion and easy political jabs. The left needs to clarify the current costs of medical care (insurance+copays+taxes) vs a public cost scenario (taxes). Public funded is the least expensive for almost everyone. Quality and choice issues need to be addressed and accurately compared to most insured user’s current HMO systems which are far from admirable. I’d like to hear that the new system would allow private, for profit, insurance, or supplemental insurance, to continue in some form. Free college sounds like working folks funding a four-year Bacchus festival. A promise to expand federal tuition assistance (providing full free tuition when appropriate) and increase funded vocational programs would likely receive more support.
-
What's the motivation to strive to succeed if everything is handed to you free? My daughter worked her butt off in school so she could go to a good college. Good thing she got a scholarship, because we couldn't afford the schools she was applying for. She's a driven person, and earned it. I've been self-employed my whole life, and worked my butt off for 40 years straight. I never expected any handouts or free anything. Everything I have I earned.
Land of the Free means freedom of.... freedom to.... Not I want for free!
TallDude, these things like "free" healthcare or college aren't free. They're paid by taxes. It's not a handout.
If you didn't earn it, it's a handout. If you work very hard in high school and do all that you can, you can receive a college education that is paid for through endowments not taxes. If you kinda apply yourself in high school then don't expect anything. Being self employed I paid a lot of taxes. I own a home which I pay a lot of tax on. I don't make enough to pay for both of my kids college, let alone one kid. Because I make enough money, I don't get any benefit's as in free health care or college. People who make a lot less that I do, or people who do nothing, receive benefits from the taxes I pay. Those tax benefits like welfare and food stamps sustain a good percentage of our voting public. Those low or no income people can walk in or be wheeled into just about any ER and be cared for. Child birth, trama surgery, etc. and they will not pay a dime. I have a home and an income, so I pay full price for my care with no benefit from me paying taxes?
Is it the middle class that wants free health care? They are talking about taxing internet use and phone texting. Maybe that will help pay for middle class healthcare?
There are a ton of skilled labor jobs that pay very well, but young Americans want a degree and an office job. They all deserve it I'm sure. We need more Plumbers, Carpenters, Welder's, Electronics Tech's, Machinist, etc. but our youth is apparently better than that. A good friend of mine is an electrician who has worked by himself most of his career. He's owns a number of homes and a commercial building in Southern California. He doesn't even have an associates degree, but he smart about he business and works super hard. He's a tax payer and has never put his hand out but to shake someone else's hand.
-
What's the motivation to strive to succeed if everything is handed to you free? My daughter worked her butt off in school so she could go to a good college. Good thing she got a scholarship, because we couldn't afford the schools she was applying for. She's a driven person, and earned it. I've been self-employed my whole life, and worked my butt off for 40 years straight. I never expected any handouts or free anything. Everything I have I earned.
Land of the Free means freedom of.... freedom to.... Not I want for free!
TallDude, these things like "free" healthcare or college aren't free. They're paid by taxes. It's not a handout.
If you didn't earn it, it's a handout. If you work very hard in high school and do all that you can, you can receive a college education that is paid for through endowments not taxes. If you kinda apply yourself in high school then don't expect anything. Being self employed I paid a lot of taxes. I own a home which I pay a lot of tax on. I don't make enough to pay for both of my kids college, let alone one kid. Because I make enough money, I don't get any benefit's as in free health care or college. People who make a lot less that I do, or people who do nothing, receive benefits from the taxes I pay. Those tax benefits like welfare and food stamps sustain a good percentage of our voting public. Those low or no income people can walk in or be wheeled into just about any ER and be cared for. Child birth, trama surgery, etc. and they will not pay a dime. I have a home and an income, so I pay full price for my care with no benefit from me paying taxes?
Is it the middle class that wants free health care? They are talking about taxing internet use and phone texting. Maybe that will help pay for middle class healthcare?
There are a ton of skilled labor jobs that pay very well, but young Americans want a degree and an office job. They all deserve it I'm sure. We need more Plumbers, Carpenters, Welder's, Electronics Tech's, Machinist, etc. but our youth is apparently better than that. A good friend of mine is an electrician who has worked by himself most of his career. He's owns a number of homes and a commercial building in Southern California. He doesn't even have an associates degree, but he smart about he business and works super hard. He's a tax payer and has never put his hand out but to shake someone else's hand.
The Internet Tax Freedom Act bars taxation on internet access. The question in CA was whether or not texts are telecommunications, which is taxed pretty much everywhere to pay for government expenses related to telecommunications. The FCC declared that texts are an information service and not telecommunications and the matter has been dropped.
Yes, in polling the vast majority of voters want Medicare for all or a similar program. (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all). I have seen other polls that show a decided margin in the middle class; it's almost impossible to get that 70% overall without it. Medicare for all makes sense as a way to ease the transition by backing down the age and adding services over time. It has issues that need fixing, but it is a solution most people understand and support.
-
This is always a great resource for the govenment #'s (and they keep making it better). http://www.usdebtclock.org/
-
I used to think that political parties were like football or soccer teams, in that they'd run someone out to "set the edge" at the limit of the action to force the play back inside where there'd be more people to help out. I thought Occasio Perez, Trump, Sanders, Shumer, and others were edge setters. Once again, I'm wrong. The game seems to have changed and the middle is empty, diplomacy is a 4 letter word (well, 9 technically), and it's a race to the nutty extreme. In the meantime, real issues, meat and potato governance, setting a sound budget and adhering to it, being a good neighbor and reliable ally, being accountable and not self serving; these concepts are as foreign as asking "not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
That said, Bill Weld looks interesting. ;)
-
What's the motivation to strive to succeed if everything is handed to you free? My daughter worked her butt off in school so she could go to a good college. Good thing she got a scholarship, because we couldn't afford the schools she was applying for. She's a driven person, and earned it. I've been self-employed my whole life, and worked my butt off for 40 years straight. I never expected any handouts or free anything. Everything I have I earned.
Land of the Free means freedom of.... freedom to.... Not I want for free!
but TD, what if you were seriously injured while self-employed, such that you couldnt support yourself and your family??
you'd just let your family starve, rather than seek public assistance??
there are people who, through no fault of their own, get into economic trouble---lots of them---where their industry shuts down, where we have a financial crisis like that of 09, with mass layoffs and plummeting home prices---or key household breadwinner gets sick---id be ashamed if, given our wealth we just say "tough luck" to those folk
and it could be you or me in one good stroke of bad luck
-
My own experience is a combination, which is probably true of many (at least the fortunate) - Yes, worked really hard out of a modest background, without 'handouts' whatever those may be, but was not hindered by really adverse environmental conditions. Maybe can call it privilege, but it's really the privilege to be able to work hard and succeed without things outside your control holding you back. So I feel lucky that way.
-
My own experience is a combination, which is probably true of many (at least the fortunate) - Yes, worked really hard out of a modest background, without 'handouts' whatever those may be, but was not hindered by really adverse environmental conditions, like Ich. Maybe can call it privilege, but it's really the privilege to be able to work hard and succeed without things outside your control holding you back. So I feel lucky that way.
I wouldn't have minded a couple of handouts.
The point I was making earlier with TallDude is that I think his philosophy comes with a morality and expectation, which I respect. Families help each other. People can succeed through hard work. The world rewards effort. What I'm saying is that sh-t doesn't always go down that way. I think policy has to take that into account. I went to one of the top public high schools in the country, but that pedigree didn't help me in my post high school struggles. Nor did getting a 4.0 average.
Adversity also has a way of breaking a person. (Speaking from experience here.) When you get hurt or disappointed or humiliated or violated or manipulated over and over again, that creates mental scars that you can't push your way through. These get in the way of succeeding and doing well in so many ways.
-
but our "kleptocratic fake free market health care" is totally inefficient, especially compared to Medicare and all single-payer systems in western europe--surprise, given the pork built in by bought politics--and surprise given the large$$e with the executive suites of healthcare corps
if US single payer matches the efficiency of medicare---(which covers the most expensive of americans---like, it's no mystery old folk cause huge portion of our overall US med cost--what a coincidence the healthcare industry doesnt have to provide care for the most expensive americans who need care--now that's some tasty pork!)---and matches the efficiency of european and canadian single payer, we will be fine.
and hopefully the quality of care we get will improve--the data is clear: we pay shitloads more for our care than in single-payer developed countries--and our care is quite poor comparatively
if youre rich, us care is the very best---working or middle class, not so great, at least compared to canada and europe--if youre poor US healthcare is deadly
-
What's the motivation to strive to succeed if everything is handed to you free? My daughter worked her butt off in school so she could go to a good college. Good thing she got a scholarship, because we couldn't afford the schools she was applying for. She's a driven person, and earned it. I've been self-employed my whole life, and worked my butt off for 40 years straight. I never expected any handouts or free anything. Everything I have I earned.
Land of the Free means freedom of.... freedom to.... Not I want for free!
TallDude, these things like "free" healthcare or college aren't free. They're paid by taxes. It's not a handout.
Similar story: my father who was highly educated was also mentally ill, addicted, and poor. I went to some of the very best public schools, but when college came around I was screwed. There wasn't money for that, and when I tried to work for school, my father stole my earnings. The idea that working for these things works for some people, but not everybody. Deserving people are denied a good education because of circumstances beyond their control. Even if you go to night school and do that, you start off years behind your peers. It took me 15 years to get my BA, all because a situation I did not create. A few of those "free" things would have made my life much better. It would have changed my life. I know I would have had a different career.
I know there are people who might take advantage of the system, there are many who would not. I count myself in that category.
Very true; everyone does not have equal opportunities. Some of that is random, some is systemic. It's like the old adage that everyone can succeed if they work hard. There aren't enough slots open as you continue moving up. As you progress to better paying jobs, it's a triangle. There is only one desk in each McDonald's and that's just an example; there are also lots of cubes and only four corner offices in some large corporate settings.
The old adage remains true--at least currently. The open question is "how hard"? If you really want to succeed, then it takes what it takes. I just had this conversation with my daughter, who after a very late start being married to a domineering loser, years of working hard and taking risks, just landed her dream job. I told her she isn't at the finish line, she's finally made it to the start. She's going to be working full time, raising two boys as a single mom, while she is also taking advanced paramedic training. I told her she needs to knock the expectations of everyone she works for and with right out of the park. She got it. It wasn't what she wanted to hear, but she got it. How many people can do that? How many people will? She will.
Most of the serious wealth in America is inherited, but not all of it. We really do have unlimited opportunity, but that's not for everyone. Simply working three jobs won't do it, as millions of people have proven. Who takes a job at McDonalds and knocks it out of the park? The person who winds up running the joint. Most people do their best to do the least they can get by with. The suckier the job, the better you have to be to stand out. It takes what it takes.
Unfortunately, that may not be true for long, There are Radiologists graduating this year who will probably not have a job someday soon. I'd hate to have spend half my life building up an independent trucking firm to see autonomous trucks coming. "Disruptive technology" is a term few people use with any sense of dread, but it means that both physical and cognitive job functions can be replaced--and probably will be. MAGA-flavored conservatism is precisely the wrong tactic to deal with what's coming and socialism is equally devoid of solutions.
I don't see any names on that list that even have a clue. I sure hope we wind up with someone who at least understands the problems.
-
great advice for your daughter, PB--i have delivered similar to mine--and you gotta just do best at every job, good or bad--at mcd's? if youre cheerful and effective, you never know what customer might notice you and hire you for a better job--now it's admittedly rare, but it can happen--one thing is certain, if you arent in that game puttting your best foot forward, bc youve got a shitty job and youre hopelessly moping along getting by, aint no opportunity gon knock for you
but that great kid, who is doing best can, with everything in front of him/her, can get sick, can have family issues and end up homeless, etc etc
we gotta care for that kid--we cant have what we have, and we cant have people flying around in private jets and yachts, with that great kid in the gutter hungry--i cant stomach that
-
Hey Guys, I want to say something and I know this group can hear it. Can we move past all you have to is "earn it"? Talldude, I am guessing you are a white, straight male. And I know you are a badass from pictures and your writing and there is no doubt you worked very hard and your daughter too. You did not compete on an even playing field period! You were highly advantaged even if you started at zero and you were way ahead of ALL women, people of color and gays and god forbid some combination.
My father was at the beginning of his sophomore of college at Lehigh(all male) when his dad at 39 dropped dead of heart attack. My grandfather was a GE salesman with no college education and did not leave much. Lehigh said my dad had to hit a certain grade point and they waived the tuition for 3 years. His two younger sisters were not so lucky. He thinks he is far superior to them. Hmmm. Just illustrating a point.
People need to work hard. Word up. I fear Pono's numbers about healthcare and it is hard to see a solution. My mom and I were just talking about when I was kid and she was a kid we just paid for all healthcare except cancer and car crashes. You need some disposable income to live in that environment. We need better wealth distribution. Nothing in my comments or anybody else's comments are talking about giving away shit for free. Although giving away money to those with nothing has proven over and over again to be cheaper and better for the economy than creating infrastructure that gets bogged down in stasis, politics and corruption but that is a discussion for another time.
-
NEplay, You got the obvious part right about me. I am Male, of northern European descent and I am attracted to females. Bad ass... no. Risk taker.. Yes. I am an artist and I play the piano. Not for a living, just because I love music. Everyone thinks I played basketball, but I was in the high school band and surfed, skateboarded, and was Evil Knievel on my bike. I don't own a gun, and my parents are liberals to the core. My mom was the president the local ESL program and is still active into her 80's. My dad was beat up a number of times when he was a kid because he and his parents were Russian immigrants who everyone call commies. They had no money ever. My dad joined a carpenters union and raised a family. My family is mixed with gay Vegans, and non-white people whom I all love. I play the piano for them. When I say work hard, I mean don't be a male or female nurse, complain about having to deal with annoying sick people all while checking Facebook every 3 minutes. That's what the young ones do. My nephew is a surveyor, and he posts on Facebook all throughout the day while he's on the clock! Put the phone down and work. That's my point.
-
What's the motivation to strive to succeed if everything is handed to you free? My daughter worked her butt off in school so she could go to a good college. Good thing she got a scholarship, because we couldn't afford the schools she was applying for. She's a driven person, and earned it. I've been self-employed my whole life, and worked my butt off for 40 years straight. I never expected any handouts or free anything. Everything I have I earned.
Land of the Free means freedom of.... freedom to.... Not I want for free!
TallDude, these things like "free" healthcare or college aren't free. They're paid by taxes. It's not a handout.
Similar story: my father who was highly educated was also mentally ill, addicted, and poor. I went to some of the very best public schools, but when college came around I was screwed. There wasn't money for that, and when I tried to work for school, my father stole my earnings. The idea that working for these things works for some people, but not everybody. Deserving people are denied a good education because of circumstances beyond their control. Even if you go to night school and do that, you start off years behind your peers. It took me 15 years to get my BA, all because a situation I did not create. A few of those "free" things would have made my life much better. It would have changed my life. I know I would have had a different career.
I know there are people who might take advantage of the system, there are many who would not. I count myself in that category.
Very true; everyone does not have equal opportunities. Some of that is random, some is systemic. It's like the old adage that everyone can succeed if they work hard. There aren't enough slots open as you continue moving up. As you progress to better paying jobs, it's a triangle. There is only one desk in each McDonald's and that's just an example; there are also lots of cubes and only four corner offices in some large corporate settings.
The old adage remains true--at least currently. The open question is "how hard"? If you really want to succeed, then it takes what it takes. I just had this conversation with my daughter, who after a very late start being married to a domineering loser, years of working hard and taking risks, just landed her dream job. I told her she isn't at the finish line, she's finally made it to the start. She's going to be working full time, raising two boys as a single mom, while she is also taking advanced paramedic training. I told her she needs to knock the expectations of everyone she works for and with right out of the park. She got it. It wasn't what she wanted to hear, but she got it. How many people can do that? How many people will? She will.
Most of the serious wealth in America is inherited, but not all of it. We really do have unlimited opportunity, but that's not for everyone. Simply working three jobs won't do it, as millions of people have proven. Who takes a job at McDonalds and knocks it out of the park? The person who winds up running the joint. Most people do their best to do the least they can get by with. The suckier the job, the better you have to be to stand out. It takes what it takes.
Unfortunately, that may not be true for long, There are Radiologists graduating this year who will probably not have a job someday soon. I'd hate to have spend half my life building up an independent trucking firm to see autonomous trucks coming. "Disruptive technology" is a term few people use with any sense of dread, but it means that both physical and cognitive job functions can be replaced--and probably will be. MAGA-flavored conservatism is precisely the wrong tactic to deal with what's coming and socialism is equally devoid of solutions.
I don't see any names on that list that even have a clue. I sure hope we wind up with someone who at least understands the problems.
I respectfully disagree, Pono. There just aren't enough opportunities to go around for one thing; the math just cannot work. Then there are those with varying types and degrees of handicaps. Some people really do give it their all and still don't get the opportunity they need to better their situation.
As far as disruptive technology, the only thing I see that can work is socialistic in nature. If we develop the technology and reap the rewards, there will be less work that needs to be done. The old "protestant work ethic" - "everyone needs to earn it" - is a fine ideal but we need to face the fact that there already isn't enough work to go around. Not rolling tech out so that people can do busy work is ridiculous, but the problem with automating jobs out of existence in a capitalistic society is that the people displaced reap no benefit; just the opposite in fact. It would be one more thing aiding and abetting the concentration of wealth. We need to recognize that in the future not everyone will be able to work, at least not full time. We will have to take care of some people with no expectation that they will ever work full time. That's going to be really expensive and heavy taxes on commerce and/or those who do well is the only way to fund it. It's not because I am far left (which I freely admit) in this case. I just don't see how anything else can work, short of Neo-Luddism, which is a really bad idea.
-
This is always a great resource for the govenment #'s (and they keep making it better). http://www.usdebtclock.org/
but deficits dont matter anymore................
-
Random Thoughts:
I have 3 daughters, I would not say they have any disadvantages to pursue the life and career they want. They have a disadvantage in lifting a heavy object, but an advantage in emotional intelligence over me. So it evens out. I fully expect them to earn huge salaries based on their ability to get shit done.
The biggest disadvantage in America is being born without 2 stable parents. I'm not saying divorced or married, I'm just saying stable.
The next biggest disadvantage is being an addict (but they go hand in hand)
Solve 10% of those and entitlements and healthcare become a much smaller issue.
-
This is always a great resource for the govenment #'s (and they keep making it better). http://www.usdebtclock.org/
but deficits dont matter anymore................
It's crazy that we get excited when we lower the deficit - just increasing the debt at a slower rate but still increasing it. The last president to have a surplus budget was Bill Clinton; he actually decreased the debt ever so slightly one year.
Sometimes I think they let it get so far out of hand because so many people don't believe in what they can't understand. When it's a number so big you can't really wrap your mind around it, it's almost like it doesn't exist.
-
What's the motivation to strive to succeed if everything is handed to you free? My daughter worked her butt off in school so she could go to a good college. Good thing she got a scholarship, because we couldn't afford the schools she was applying for. She's a driven person, and earned it. I've been self-employed my whole life, and worked my butt off for 40 years straight. I never expected any handouts or free anything. Everything I have I earned.
Land of the Free means freedom of.... freedom to.... Not I want for free!
TallDude, these things like "free" healthcare or college aren't free. They're paid by taxes. It's not a handout.
Similar story: my father who was highly educated was also mentally ill, addicted, and poor. I went to some of the very best public schools, but when college came around I was screwed. There wasn't money for that, and when I tried to work for school, my father stole my earnings. The idea that working for these things works for some people, but not everybody. Deserving people are denied a good education because of circumstances beyond their control. Even if you go to night school and do that, you start off years behind your peers. It took me 15 years to get my BA, all because a situation I did not create. A few of those "free" things would have made my life much better. It would have changed my life. I know I would have had a different career.
I know there are people who might take advantage of the system, there are many who would not. I count myself in that category.
Very true; everyone does not have equal opportunities. Some of that is random, some is systemic. It's like the old adage that everyone can succeed if they work hard. There aren't enough slots open as you continue moving up. As you progress to better paying jobs, it's a triangle. There is only one desk in each McDonald's and that's just an example; there are also lots of cubes and only four corner offices in some large corporate settings.
The old adage remains true--at least currently. The open question is "how hard"? If you really want to succeed, then it takes what it takes. I just had this conversation with my daughter, who after a very late start being married to a domineering loser, years of working hard and taking risks, just landed her dream job. I told her she isn't at the finish line, she's finally made it to the start. She's going to be working full time, raising two boys as a single mom, while she is also taking advanced paramedic training. I told her she needs to knock the expectations of everyone she works for and with right out of the park. She got it. It wasn't what she wanted to hear, but she got it. How many people can do that? How many people will? She will.
Most of the serious wealth in America is inherited, but not all of it. We really do have unlimited opportunity, but that's not for everyone. Simply working three jobs won't do it, as millions of people have proven. Who takes a job at McDonalds and knocks it out of the park? The person who winds up running the joint. Most people do their best to do the least they can get by with. The suckier the job, the better you have to be to stand out. It takes what it takes.
Unfortunately, that may not be true for long, There are Radiologists graduating this year who will probably not have a job someday soon. I'd hate to have spend half my life building up an independent trucking firm to see autonomous trucks coming. "Disruptive technology" is a term few people use with any sense of dread, but it means that both physical and cognitive job functions can be replaced--and probably will be. MAGA-flavored conservatism is precisely the wrong tactic to deal with what's coming and socialism is equally devoid of solutions.
I don't see any names on that list that even have a clue. I sure hope we wind up with someone who at least understands the problems.
I respectfully disagree, Pono. There just aren't enough opportunities to go around for one thing; the math just cannot work. Then there are those with varying types and degrees of handicaps. Some people really do give it their all and still don't get the opportunity they need to better their situation.
As far as disruptive technology, the only thing I see that can work is socialistic in nature. If we develop the technology and reap the rewards, there will be less work that needs to be done. The old "protestant work ethic" - "everyone needs to earn it" - is a fine ideal but we need to face the fact that there already isn't enough work to go around. Not rolling tech out so that people can do busy work is ridiculous, but the problem with automating jobs out of existence in a capitalistic society is that the people displaced reap no benefit; just the opposite in fact. It would be one more thing aiding and abetting the concentration of wealth. We need to recognize that in the future not everyone will be able to work, at least not full time. We will have to take care of some people with no expectation that they will ever work full time. That's going to be really expensive and heavy taxes on commerce and/or those who do well is the only way to fund it. It's not because I am far left (which I freely admit) in this case. I just don't see how anything else can work, short of Neo-Luddism, which is a really bad idea.
Actually, I suspect you completely agree. You might note I said it's not for everyone. I should amend that and say its useless advice for 99.9 percent of the population. I'm not passing judgment on them, they don't see it, don't have the tools, or the drive, or the little neurological tweak.
The idea that we don't have the work to go around today is flat wrong. 7.5 million unfilled jobs--an economic catastrophe. Someday soon we will be paying people to come here to do the jobs current citizens don't have the will or the training to do. And shortly after that (timeframe unknown) millions, probably billions of jobs will go away. Socialism has no notion of how to deal with that. The fundamental tenet of socialism is that the workers have political power. If they don't have jobs, where is their power?
-
The total revenue of health insurance companies in the U.S. was about $1 trillion in 2018. The budget for Medicare was a little less than $600 billion in 2018. Think about that for a minute. We could probably afford universal health care if we got rid of the middleman.
As for the federal deficit, it really isn't real money and everyone knows it. With the fractional reserve system, the banks create money and loan it out to be paid back with real money, as long as they have 10% of the money they create in reserves. Some day the whole game will blow up- what happens then is anybody's guess. More taxes for anybody is not the answer to that problem.
-
If you know the revenue number then you probably also know the profit/administrative cost number--I've got to wonder why you didn't mention that. Health insurers MUST pay 80 percent of their revenue in claims. The other 20 percent covers all administrative costs and profit. So yeah, maybe there are some savings, but it's not some magical number that makes everything affordable. My rough calculation (very) is that medicare for all moves the budget to something around three trillion a year. evenly distributed to taxpayers (120 million of them) that's 25,000 per year for current service level. Say I'm nuts and it's only two trillion, that's 16k per year, and you still have to pay income tax of 10k per year. Use the current graduated tax schedules and the average taxpayer's tax bill doubles. I'd say it's worth it, that's about what I pay in premiums for my wife and I and the coverage wouldn't have all those funny out of system gotchas. You might not agree, but you'd have to pay it.
Oh, and the 44 percent of adult Americans who currently pay no federal income tax will have the same coverage as you. I'm OK with that, but a lot of folks might object.
-
Pono, did not know about the 80% rule but I think that insurance has been the main reason why medical costs are so high. It is easy for hospitals to overcharge when the patient does not feel the direct pain of that. All I know is that I (and my employers) have been paying health insurance my whole life and I am 58 and that money has been completely wasted. Luckily, I have only had to use it a few times for my kids for strep throat and stuff like that. I would rather pay reasonable doctor's fees and have them put me on a payment plan if I couldn't pay cash or credit. Maybe have insurance for catastrophic expenses. I would retire right now if it were not for the health care factor, but will probably have to work until I am 65 for medicare. It really sucks.
-
Then you have hospitals gouging Medicare because it is obviously very easy. I saw the bills when my dad had cancer and eventually died after a couple of years treatment. Recently saw the bills when my mom fell and broke both arms. F'ing ridiculous. Hospitals charging too much, Medicare paying too much.
-
Then you have hospitals gouging Medicare because it is obviously very easy. I saw the bills when my dad had cancer and eventually died after a couple of years treatment. Recently saw the bills when my mom fell and broke both arms. F'ing ridiculous. Hospitals charging too much, Medicare paying too much.
Here's a side I'm a little involved with. I do specialized structural drawings for engineers. I've been involved with hospital expansions. The State of California has mandated that all hospitals meet new stringent seismic design standards by 2030. The costs to retrofit is crazy. So much so that they've found it's way cheaper to just built new hospitals. Hospitals have been adding new wings (if they have the space) knowing that in 10 years they won't be able to use there original hospital space. All those 20 year old and older hospitals will not be able to be used.
A wing that was just built at a near by hospital cost $200 million and took 7 years. Hospital's are very expensive and they are going to have to build a ton of new ones. We don't really have a labor force big enough to build all those hospitals. Maybe after those Millennial's get their BA's, they can go to a trade school and get a good paying job in construction. It'll help them pay
pay off their student loans on their mostly useless degrees.
http://hospitalsafetycenter.com/content/314627/topic/WS_HSC_HSC.html
-
I’d love to get catastrophic insurance and handle my day to day (some might say with deductibles as high as they are, that’s what we have already. But wtc catastrophic insurance isn’t available.
-
O It is way far afield from capitalism but we have strayed pretty far from true, fair, capitalism on the other side as well.
Kind of depends on what your definition of fair is as to whether or not there can be such a thing as true capitalism that's fair.
While we might not achieve perfect capitalism we can do a lot to bring it back to a more equitable state. Is Bernie brand socialism the best way to address that inequity? I hope not. I would much rather see a candidate running on repair capitalism (or correct capitalism if preferred). It is what has made America the dream worldwide. It is is a driver and it is human nature. But, we have proven that it requires significant oversight. I like Bernie. He is true believer and he has held tight for a long career. I would have voted for him last round given the options and certainly would this time against Trump. But it seems to me that many would vote for Bernie or a similar ideology as a corrective measure to a system that has lopsided too far rather than as a system that we would like America to resolve to.
-
current us state: kleptocracy
dont know a progressive candidate who espouses other than to repair and properly regulate our crony capitalist economy---and to resume good civic projects and public works---capitalism is the best economic system---but unbridled by good regulation, and where we have allowed money to have power over our political system, such as now, it sucks
but even now, i prefer it in huge ways to a state-controlled economy---shit i make my livung trading capital markets all day
and i believe (hope) we can change, and get back to a system that serves all, or at least more of those who lack money and power---ie i hope our democracy can be repaired--and i hope it isnt broken beyond repair, such that crony capitalism kleptocracy will be who/what we are ongoing
-
Maybe after those Millennial's get their BA's, they can go to a trade school and get a good paying job in construction. It'll help them pay pay off their student loans on their mostly useless degrees.
There has been a steady but very slow rise in the number of people who complete degree programs. It has continued it's slow growth but hasn't seen any big jump for millenials. I think it is driven more by the number of jobs requiring it than anything else.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/Educational_Attainment_in_the_United_States_2009.png/450px-Educational_Attainment_in_the_United_States_2009.png)
A primary reason it is done remains the same.
(https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/research/education-earnings.gif)
I think a big part of it is that we don't place enough value on careers as trade people.
As far as debt, education is the only common major expense that has outpaced health care, and has done so quite substantially.
(https://satyagraha.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/inflation-factors-2.jpg)
-
I’d love to get catastrophic insurance and handle my day to day (some might say with deductibles as high as they are, that’s what we have already. But wtc catastrophic insurance isn’t available.
EB, I think you can still have a self-funded plan coupled with stop loss insurance.
Years ago, I worked with a radiology practice that decided to go self insured. Unfortunately, one of the empoyees had premature triplets that only survived 6 to 12 mos. A devestating loss for the employee and her family and everyone that knew her in the practice, but also the end of "that" plan.
I think the natural middle ground is a high deductible plan so everyone has skin in the game. But, the deductible amount has to be set at an appropriate level for each family.
-
Maybe after those Millennial's get their BA's, they can go to a trade school and get a good paying job in construction. It'll help them pay pay off their student loans on their mostly useless degrees.
There has been a steady but very slow rise in the number of people who complete degree programs. It has continued it's slow growth but hasn't seen any big jump for millenials. I think it is driven more by the number of jobs requiring it than anything else.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/Educational_Attainment_in_the_United_States_2009.png/450px-Educational_Attainment_in_the_United_States_2009.png)
A primary reason it is done remains the same.
(https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/research/education-earnings.gif)
I think a big part of it is that we don't place enough value on careers as trade people.
As far as debt, education is the only common major expense that has outpaced health care, and has done so quite substantially.
(https://satyagraha.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/inflation-factors-2.jpg)
College is the first big cost Millennial's face in life. No credit required. Here's your college loan. College's look at careers with the largest growth or need and develop curriculum to cater to that. There was a shortage of nurses in the 90's, so the Junior College's developed an accredited 2 year RN program. The universities realized they were losing student's to these 2 year programs. So the universities banded together to create a hospital accreditation called 'Magnet Status'. They disguised it as a .ORG. In order for hospitals to achieve this magnet status, a large percentage of their RN's have to have a Bachelor's degree or higher. The hospitals offered their existing staff the opportunity pay for their continued education, but they would have to work off a portion of that cost. They lost a lot of very experienced RN's, and hired RN's with masters degree's but no experience. Did that improve the quality of health care? No. Did the hospitals achieve Magnet Status? Yes. Do those new RN's have massive college loan debt? Yes. Will they spend their whole careers repaying that debt? Yes. Will they ever be able to afford a home? Chances are low. So who win's? The universities and the hospitals.
https://www.nursingworld.org/organizational-programs/magnet/eligibility-requirements/
-
College is the first big cost Millennial's face in life. No credit required. Here's your college loan. College's look at careers with the largest growth or need and develop curriculum to cater to that. There was a shortage of nurses in the 90's, so the Junior College's developed an accredited 2 year RN program. The universities realized they were losing student's to these 2 year programs. So the universities banded together to create a hospital accreditation called 'Magnet Status'. They disguised it as a .ORG. In order for hospitals to achieve this magnet status, a large percentage of their RN's have to have a Bachelor's degree or higher. The hospitals offered their existing staff the opportunity pay for their continued education, but they would have to work off a portion of that cost. They lost a lot of very experienced RN's, and hired RN's with masters degree's but no experience. Did that improve the quality of health care? No. Did the hospitals achieve Magnet Status? Yes. Do those new RN's have massive college loan debt? Yes. Will they spend their whole careers repaying that debt? Yes. Will they ever be able to afford a home? Chances are low. So who win's? The universities and the hospitals.
https://www.nursingworld.org/organizational-programs/magnet/eligibility-requirements/
You are right on it TallDude!
So, the tax-payer funded/guaranteed student loans are the enablers for the educational and medical systems to raise tuition, raise prices, and bury people with debt - ugh. (and a lot of times for very questionable degrees.)
To me, it is amazing how we've had such huge increases in productivity from the computer, software, internet, graphics, improved materials, manufacturing robots, etc. and yet we are further and further in debt at pretty much all levels - personal, corporate, municipal, federal, etc. Worse, it used to be that middle class meant one working parent and one stay at home.
With all the productivity increases over the past decades....not only do pretty much all middle class families have to now have two major income earners, they are up the wahzoo in debt.
(I would ask others here, why do they think that is?)
-
There is nothing (bar time and football aside) from a top undergrad education that could not be achieved online with the best educators, current content, peer interaction (local or online) and nearly free to taxpayers. Is it education that college is about? Actual learning and workplace value or some other intangible?
-
There is nothing (bar time and football aside) from a top undergrad education that could not be achieved online with the best educators, current content, peer interaction (local or online) and nearly free to taxpayers. Is it education that college is about? Actual learning and workplace value or some other intangible?
Status....name brand school...sticker in the back window of Mom's SUV.
Easily 1/2 the kids I know that had to go to a brand school didn't need it and would have done better in another setting...my own included. We believed the hype (the 1st time around anyway)....if they want to succeed it's what they need to do. My oldest is a nurse, and a very good one, but had to do it the long hard way after screwing up her 1st year in college. Our youngest, who is far more focused and practical, went to UMass and zipped straight through. Then they recruited her directly into their masters program and paid her to do it. She has almost no debt with a masters in business (marketing) and is very happy working for a non-profit...doing exactly what she always wanted with her education.
-
It's been true for a longish time that every educational aspect of a college degree is available for free--or nearly so. Now it's very easy to access and in most ways, better than actually attending college. If development happens as it should, machine learning directed education should be far better than learning from a teacher--any teacher. Will it replace the college experience? Maybe not. There's a lot to push back. Simply saying that current high school teaching is inadequate and should be replaced with machine learning enhanced online education ignites a shitstorm. But its obviously true and easily provable.
I have no faith in anecdotal "proof", but I do disclose my biases. I got nearly nothing from spending 12 years in public schools and nothing more from a year in college. Over my career I've hired more than a hundred people with what was supposed to be relevant degrees and found them totally inadequate for even entry-level positions. Developers with degrees in computer science who have no idea how to actually build software, graphic designers with modest computer skills and no idea how to construct an advertisement or build a catalog, writers who can't write. Our most senior and most valuable software engineers were self-taught with one exception.
-
Although education is a paltry sum compared to health care, it is possibly of greater concern from a nationalist (as opposed to globalist) viewpoint. The most valuable resource for some time is still the productive value of the best human minds. For that you need higher education systems. China, in part due to their authoritarian governance, is rapidly gaining ground in this area. The resources they are devoting to AI education and the rapid results they are achieving has me concerned they will outrank the US in education rank within a decade, maybe sooner.
-
It's been true for a longish time that every educational aspect of a college degree is available for free--or nearly so. Now it's very easy to access and in most ways, better than actually attending college. If development happens as it should, machine learning directed education should be far better than learning from a teacher--any teacher. Will it replace the college experience? Maybe not. There's a lot to push back. Simply saying that current high school teaching is inadequate and should be replaced with machine learning enhanced online education ignites a shitstorm. But its obviously true and easily provable.
I have no faith in anecdotal "proof", but I do disclose my biases. I got nearly nothing from spending 12 years in public schools and nothing more from a year in college. Over my career I've hired more than a hundred people with what was supposed to be relevant degrees and found them totally inadequate for even entry-level positions. Developers with degrees in computer science who have no idea how to actually build software, graphic designers with modest computer skills and no idea how to construct an advertisement or build a catalog, writers who can't write. Our most senior and most valuable software engineers were self-taught with one exception.
My anecdata - one junior college class in BASIC programming, 7 months at Control Data Institute to get their diploma in programming learning 4 languages (COBOL. RPG, Fortran and 360/370 assembler) that I have not used in 35 years. The only one I ever used was Fortran at my first job. All the various languages, environments, databases, etc learned since were mostly self taught (no formal training). I have had a 40 year career and earned way above average for nearly all of it. I am a believer in tech school - the junior college and CDI experience did give me a good grasp of the fundamentals, plus CDI placed me in my first job.
It's much harder to break in to the industry without a degree now. Start ups are another story - they tend to value perceived potential more than credentials. Most fail but they provide experience to help you land somewhere else. And you might get in on a good one.
-
Yeah, me too. I've forgotten more about coding than most people will ever learn. But unfortunately I really have forgotten it.
-
Yeah, me too. I've forgotten more about coding than most people will ever learn. But unfortunately I really have forgotten it.
I can usually brush the rust off pretty quick when I need to work in an environment I haven't used in a while. I pick up new ones reasonably fast; my oldest trick is learning new tricks. But the real value is in problem solving more than implementing the solutions. You are most valuable if you can do both. I like finding solutions to really hard problems. I would rather work on a crazy hard implementation in Excel macros than implement a widely known/used design pattern on a muitltiered enterprise wide database using all the latest buzzwords (that all sound like blah, blah, blah to me). I can do either, but the latter option bores me to tears.
-
We probably need a geek thread, but this one is wandering anyway. I've leveraged one language to another since I learned assembler for the PDP1 in the early 60's. FORTRAN, Basic, Pascal, AWK, C, and a bunch of languages that are as dead as Latin. I wrote a program to design expansion chambers for two stroke motorcycles in Fortan. Eight boxes of punchcards. Try to explain how fucked that was to a Millennial grand kid. Then I had to do a serious reset to understand encapsulation and recursion. Then C++, C#, dBase, FoxBase, SQL, PHP, CSS and various markups, a little Java, Ruby, Python and Perl. I've never been a professional developer, just a hack, but I've written a lot of code. Most of which is safely dead. Like my geek hero Steve Ciarca, my favorite programming language is solder.
-
We probably need a geek thread, but this one is wandering anyway. I've leveraged one language to another since I learned assembler for the PDP1 in the early 60's. FORTRAN, Basic, Pascal, AWK, C, and a bunch of languages that are as dead as Latin.
How about a Nested Loop thread ::)
-
We probably need a geek thread, but this one is wandering anyway. I've leveraged one language to another since I learned assembler for the PDP1 in the early 60's. FORTRAN, Basic, Pascal, AWK, C, and a bunch of languages that are as dead as Latin.
How about a Nested Loop thread ::)
I had to come back and comment on that, because all our threads are re-entrant.... :D 8)
-
Yeh, yeh, I know I'm an optometrist, but I don't see how Trump can win against any Democrat. In the last election most of Trumps votes were against Hillary, not for him ; Hilary got 2 million more votes than Trump; and many who voted for Trump now regret it or at least realize they didn't get what they hoped for.
(I promised myself I wasn't going to post on this thread, but this is my only post. I really mean it this time)
I couldn't for the life of me see how Trump could get the nomination, but yet he did. And then.........
-
Yeh, yeh, I know I'm an optometrist, but I don't see how Trump can win against any Democrat. In the last election most of Trumps votes were against Hillary, not for him ; Hilary got 2 million more votes than Trump; and many who voted for Trump now regret it or at least realize they didn't get what they hoped for.
(I promised myself I wasn't going to post on this thread, but this is my only post. I really mean it this time)
I couldn't for the life of me see how Trump could get the nomination, but yet he did. And then.........
A lot of people were what I call "brick through the window" voters. One reason I think Bernie would have beat Trump is that a lot of those people would have voted for Bernie. They were more about what they weren't getting than what they were; they didn't want business as usual.
-
Those of us that have been around for awhile call them freeloaders. Sorry if that offends you. Hey, Burnie has another chance. Please burnie for 2020. Feel the burn....
-
My whole career was mostly self taught....though I had a great springboard early on. I got into drafting and design by chance after floundering around after HS and a little college. A friend of a friend noticed I could draw and asked if I was interested. Piping design school at the Badger America company was the springboard...learned more of actual use to me in a very intense 8 weeks than I had in a year of college. Then I recognized early on that computers and CAD were the future so I built my 1st computer (with Pono's long distance tutoring) and pirated a copy of Autocad to learn on. Pretty much on the job and self taught ever since.
-
It's been true for a longish time that every educational aspect of a college degree is available for free--or nearly so. Now it's very easy to access and in most ways, better than actually attending college. If development happens as it should, machine learning directed education should be far better than learning from a teacher--any teacher. Will it replace the college experience? Maybe not. There's a lot to push back. Simply saying that current high school teaching is inadequate and should be replaced with machine learning enhanced online education ignites a shitstorm. But its obviously true and easily provable.
This is all true. When we are considering free college for all, however, that can be something new - an opportunity. I like things that we can do at a relatively low cost in a super efficient way and offer a huge benefit. Do we need to offer the application process, campus, dorms, classrooms, staff, social setting, pomp and circumstance environment to all or is the obligation (if you view it that way) to provide everyone the actual learning, interactions, verification, and comparative ranking that colleges can offer and that will be the greatest benefit to both the students entering the workforce and the employers that they are presenting to? There are a number of things that a currently feasible, free to the student, cheap to the taxpayer, online, higher education system could offer which would smoke the current structure.
As an employer, consider the metrics that this system could provide on every student applicant. Not just verifiable attendance, processing of syllabus and materials and completion of coursework (and that the intake, work, writing and testing has actually been done by the student) but the parsed down data on the competencies that are particularly relevant to the employer in relation to a country's worth of competitor students.
We have 5300 colleges and universities that are largely duplicating effort. I thought is article was interesting. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/07/20/how-many-colleges-and-universities-do-we-really-need/?utm_term=.236d8c475133 .
The federal government has a huge stake in this game. It spends about $165 billion annually on higher education in grants, loans, and tax credits, while the states spend about $74 billion in direct appropriations. Given that government subsides account for close to 90 percent of revenues at some colleges when you add up grants, loans, and research funds, the federal government certainly should have a big say in how that money is spent nationwide.
“In the absence of a government subsidy, most colleges could not fill up their seats,” Ronald Ehrenberg, a higher-education economist and professor at Cornell University, told me.
-
Those of us that have been around for awhile call them freeloaders. Sorry if that offends you. Hey, Burnie has another chance. Please burnie for 2020. Feel the burn....
Are you responding to my "brick through the window" voter post? Those people were from all kinds of income strata and political leanings. They were just so upset with the gridlock and the system in general that they wanted a sea change and didn't seem too picky about who it was as long as it wasn't another mainstream candidate from either party. As far as being around for a while, I am not the oldest but I don't pay full price at the movies; I am an Eisenhower baby.
I do lean left and I am not offended by people with other opinions as long as there isn't a body count.
-
It's been true for a longish time that every educational aspect of a college degree is available for free--or nearly so. Now it's very easy to access and in most ways, better than actually attending college. If development happens as it should, machine learning directed education should be far better than learning from a teacher--any teacher. Will it replace the college experience? Maybe not. There's a lot to push back. Simply saying that current high school teaching is inadequate and should be replaced with machine learning enhanced online education ignites a shitstorm. But its obviously true and easily provable.
This is all true. When we are considering free college for all, however, that can be something new - an opportunity. I like things that we can do at a relatively low cost in a super efficient way and offer a huge benefit. Do we need to offer the application process, campus, dorms, classrooms, staff, social setting, pomp and circumstance environment to all or is the obligation (if you view it that way) to provide everyone the actual learning, interactions, verification, and comparative ranking that colleges can offer and that will be the greatest benefit to both the students entering the workforce and the employers that they are presenting to? There are a number of things that a currently feasible, free to the student, cheap to the taxpayer, online, higher education system could offer which would smoke the current structure.
As an employer, consider the metrics that this system could provide on every student applicant. Not just verifiable attendance, processing of syllabus and materials and completion of coursework (and that the intake, work, writing and testing has actually been done by the student) but the parsed down data on the competencies that are particularly relevant to the employer in relation to a country's worth of competitor students.
I cut off the rest only because it leads off in another direction. It's a direction worthy of discussion, but I am tracked in on the first part...
My opinion about the efficiency of education is often dismissed as defensive because it seems to be an effort to put my training on par with having a degree. I attended CDI (Control Data Institute) for ~7 months around 1980. It was a self paced program that was set up to take about a year but I blew through it. It was way ahead of its time in one respect - it was online training with a graphical UI. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)#The_CDC_years - CDI was a votech venture of CDC (Control Data Corporation) and I took most of the lessons on a PLATO terminal. It was really weird; I saw nothing like that again for many years.
CDI was very much grounded in its time or even behind it in a couple of other areas. I had to use punch cards to write my programs, put them in the queue for the operator to run them and got them back with a print out of the run. I had to wear dress slacks/shirt and a tie and be on premises from 7 - 11 AM 5 days a week or get reprimanded if I hadn't asked for time off ahead of time or if I didn't meet dress code. I had regular appointments with the instructor to go over my progress and receive new assignments. Even though he had access to all the info from PLATO and my program runs, I had to prepare a status report and present it to him. I think there were special procedures to ask for help without waiting for the next appointment. When I got into the last section, I had to do mock interviews with other instructors. When I went on interviews and then into the work force, I knew how to dress and how to act.
If any of you remember commercials from CDI or others like it from back then, one of their biggest selling points was placement rates. CDI was claiming about 96% when I attended. The dirty little secret they didn't tell you is that they convinced potential employers to bring you in on a trial period that didn't pay a lot more than flipping burgers and CDI would provide the employer partial compensation if it didn't work out. A student was counted as "placed" if the trial didn't work out and they never were able to break into the industry. That happened to a *lot* of students.
I turned down a chance to work at Honeywell because they were notorious for hiring up to four CDI grads for one opening. I had worked for them part time the last couple of months migrating COBOL programs from other vendors' hardware when they had a customer switch to Honeywell; very boring work. Lots of students jumped at any opportunity and wound up in jobs like that.
Earlier I mentioned reprimands and you may have wondered who really cares. CDI cherry picked who to send on interviews with employers based on job requirements. While the program was pass/fail - either you got the diploma or you didn't - performance mattered when it came time to job hunt. When they had an opportunity to place a Fortran programmer at a market research service bureau writing statistical analysis software, they sent a student that blew through the program with consistently high test scores and only a couple of reprimands early in the program (I never said I was perfect ;D ).
I'll admit that there is some boasting in my anecdata, but the point is that they trained me to be productive and professional in the workplace and they had some hard data to back up that assessment. I hit the ground running, while most of my college educated coworkers had substantially more ramp up time.
Another thing that we should do here (in the US; lots of other countries are doing a good job now) is get better at vocational testing and assessment. My parents were both scientists and I started college as a chemistry major mostly because I really hadn't figured out what I wanted to do, so like a lot of people I started down the path I was most familiar with from dinner table talk and tagging along some times. I flunked out mostly from bad decisions and partying, but I really wasn't excited about it. After that, I was working and attending junior college to get my grades back up to give it another shot. I took the BASIC class because it seemed interesting and I had a hole in my schedule; kind of a long time to just hang out between classes but too short to do much else. I didn't want to do homework because I had a cute study buddy. I crushed the BASIC class. Finding out I am good at breaking down problems into logical operations was pure luck. I don't think I am brilliant or smarter than everyone else; there are lots of things I suck at (like not blowing it with that study buddy). My brain is just wired for this. People will go a lot further once they are on the right path.
-
My comment isn't really about the value of vocational training, it's the value of big data reinforced, machine learning based education. The value of teachers used to be that they had training in how to teach, and they had access to information--stuff they had learned and whatever accompanies the materials they were teaching. What they taught students was primary information to store. How to solve a math problem, how to read and write, fundamental geography, some strange local variation on history. All of that has little value in an environment where any piece of information, almost any technique, any bit of history, anthropology, geography--in whatever depth is desired--is instantly available.
Now add to that the ability to look at every piece of data about every student, which they and their friends and family have revealed in detail, all over the web. Stir in the fact that AI is already better at understanding the thought processes of other people than humans are and you have the ability to tailor education to the mind, history, family situation, social interaction, demonstrated talents and limitations, sources and nature of errors, for every step in their life to that point and every result in the education process. And then tailor their education to precisely suit them and optimize the learning experience.
What human teacher can even approach that capability?
The cost of delivery to an incremental student. Nothing.
What is college or high school compared to that potential? Babysitting.
You might be horrified by the privacy issues of that, and the potential for abuse, but that doesn't mean it isn't a superior way to educate at a fraction of the current cost--and there's more than enough data already available--everyone spews their guts on the web.
Teacher's unions will fight tooth and nail, but where is the political power of a union when the jobs are irrelevant? Roll it out in one place and it's a virus. Who is going to let their kids plod along, getting six hours of mediocre, increasingly irrelevant education in classes with varied levels of disruption when the neighbor's kids are zooming past them without leaving the house.
-
I went all over the place but one point in there was I had online training almost 40 years ago and to one of Admin's points, I had a very specific skills assessment, though I am not sure it was shared with potential employers. Targeted teaching was in terms of what skills I needed to do that job, but not necessarily tailored to my way of learning. Being self paced was a step in the right direction for me.
Does my memory fail me or weren't you deriding displacement by technology earlier in the thread? Going to that model of education would eliminate a lot of jobs. And I think George Bernard Shaw's often misquoted, or maybe just paraphrased, bit about teachers not being able to do what they teach well might be proven wrong in this case. If the AI can teach something to someone, the AI could likely just cut out the middleman and do the job. A little redistribution so the poor don't starve, the rich end up with more than they can spend but not more than they can count and maybe a third of us are still needed to keep things running (because the nightmare sci-fi scenarios only happen if we put machines in charge).
-
Going to that model of education would eliminate a lot of jobs.
At one point, say 400 years ago, we were all farmers. Go back to that time and tell someone that in the future only 1 in 125 people would be a farmer. What would they say?
When they scream "What does everybody do?" Tell them that unemployment is only 4%. This will make no sense . . . but here we are.
The jobs we have today are supposed to go away. AND I would rather live in today's world where we all do "eachother's laundry", and frankly code on computers in warm houses with internet access and healthy teeth eating fresh berries in February than go back to everyone being a farmer.
-
We humans are anti-entropic by nature (garages aside, this is a fact). We seek out the maximum state of order. The pull is strong. We do so even when we are uncertain that is in our own best interest. How many thought they would never pay by credit card online, bank online, watch por...(wait, what?!?). This will eventually happen because it is simply better but as many have mentioned the status quo is the speed bump. Less so in China where mass opinions don't count and this is already happening. I read that AI essay grading is in place for 120 million students. AI is producing the same grades as human profs 92 % of the time (which I read to mean that the humans only blew it 8% of the time). AI is not essential to get this started as a free mode of higher ed but that would be silly. This is what AI does best. Huge data set, constantly-self updating, etc. I would love to see a candidate push this. Make it his/her moon shot.
-
I don't deride technical disruption, it's simply not without consequence. Absent some kind of ridiculous resistance I think it's inevitable. At some point, we're going to look at China's AI/ML efforts and panic. I think the confluence of AI/Machine learning and Biotech will cause an incredible disruption. What that means in the long term, I couldn't say, though I have ideas. I don't think our political systems have any idea how to deal with it. The scope of the problem makes immigration look petty. There's zero real attention being paid to the issue as far as I can see.
Beasho, for the last hundred years technology, has created more jobs than it eliminated. Will that always be so? I don't know. I do know that cognitive tasks have rarely been a target for automation because the algorithms are so hard to write. Machine learning changes that and has the obvious advantage of minimal cost to reproduce, upgradeability, and instant and accurate sharing of outcome. I keep using Radiologists because it's a complex and highly skilled undertaking requiring careful attention and precise analysis of murky visual data. Machine learning already surpasses Radiologists in the accuracy of diagnosis. Not by a little, by a big margin. What kind of skill sets will be resistant to automation? I don't know. Everything I consider seems vulnerable.
-
Wow. Thanks you guys for the insight. My next door neighbor is a good friend and a Radioligist. He doesn’t have a fricking clue what is coming his way. We’re going surfing in the morning. It’s forecast to be really good. Should I tell him before or after our surf?
-
I bet he knows. But yeah, tell him later.
-
Wow. Thanks you guys for the insight. My next door neighbor is a good friend and a Radioligist. He doesn’t have a fricking clue what is coming his way. We’re going surfing in the morning. It’s forecast to be really good. Should I tell him before or after our surf?
He really couldn't miss it. It is all over their journals https://pubs.rsna.org/toc/ai/current and radiologists are involved in all stages of the research.
-
I think you are getting machine learning and AI a bit mixed up here. Machine learning is just a way of doing statistics, so it’s no more risky to society than any other form of statistics (which have been around for decades). AI is still pretty dumb, and you will always still need humans to teach and moderate it.
The real issue is data. Especially big data. Both ML and AI like huge amounts of data, and are useless without it. What has changed in our society is that now we are giving away (often for free) huge amounts of data about ourselves. This is where the real risk is. So, if you have a dystopian vision for our future where AI is going to ruin your life, then just campaign for confidentiality of your data. AI and ML are the garden sprinklers. Data is the water flowing through the hose. If you turn off the tap, even the smartest of AIs operated by an army of data scientists is not going to get anything done. You are worrying about the sprinklers not the tap.
-
My comment isn't really about the value of vocational training, it's the value of big data reinforced, machine learning based education. The value of teachers used to be that they had training in how to teach, and they had access to information--stuff they had learned and whatever accompanies the materials they were teaching. What they taught students was primary information to store. How to solve a math problem, how to read and write, fundamental geography, some strange local variation on history. All of that has little value in an environment where any piece of information, almost any technique, any bit of history, anthropology, geography--in whatever depth is desired--is instantly available.
Now add to that the ability to look at every piece of data about every student, which they and their friends and family have revealed in detail, all over the web. Stir in the fact that AI is already better at understanding the thought processes of other people than humans are and you have the ability to tailor education to the mind, history, family situation, social interaction, demonstrated talents and limitations, sources and nature of errors, for every step in their life to that point and every result in the education process. And then tailor their education to precisely suit them and optimize the learning experience.
What human teacher can even approach that capability?
The cost of delivery to an incremental student. Nothing.
What is college or high school compared to that potential? Babysitting.
You might be horrified by the privacy issues of that, and the potential for abuse, but that doesn't mean it isn't a superior way to educate at a fraction of the current cost--and there's more than enough data already available--everyone spews their guts on the web.
Teacher's unions will fight tooth and nail, but where is the political power of a union when the jobs are irrelevant? Roll it out in one place and it's a virus. Who is going to let their kids plod along, getting six hours of mediocre, increasingly irrelevant education in classes with varied levels of disruption when the neighbor's kids are zooming past them without leaving the house.
Bill, only a small part of teaching is the transfer of information. If that were all teaching was, then we would be replaceable by machines. Teaching is part learning coach, part therapist, part parent, part cheerleader, and part information transfer. The human contact is also a critical part of the learning process, as it always has.
The studies about online academies show that students there don't learn as much as when they are in front of a teacher. There are exceptions to the rule, the first is probably you, a highly motivated learner. Many, and probably most, children need that human contact to process their own learning. That's good teaching.
-
My comment isn't really about the value of vocational training, it's the value of big data reinforced, machine learning based education. The value of teachers used to be that they had training in how to teach, and they had access to information--stuff they had learned and whatever accompanies the materials they were teaching. What they taught students was primary information to store. How to solve a math problem, how to read and write, fundamental geography, some strange local variation on history. All of that has little value in an environment where any piece of information, almost any technique, any bit of history, anthropology, geography--in whatever depth is desired--is instantly available.
Now add to that the ability to look at every piece of data about every student, which they and their friends and family have revealed in detail, all over the web. Stir in the fact that AI is already better at understanding the thought processes of other people than humans are and you have the ability to tailor education to the mind, history, family situation, social interaction, demonstrated talents and limitations, sources and nature of errors, for every step in their life to that point and every result in the education process. And then tailor their education to precisely suit them and optimize the learning experience.
What human teacher can even approach that capability?
The cost of delivery to an incremental student. Nothing.
What is college or high school compared to that potential? Babysitting.
You might be horrified by the privacy issues of that, and the potential for abuse, but that doesn't mean it isn't a superior way to educate at a fraction of the current cost--and there's more than enough data already available--everyone spews their guts on the web.
Teacher's unions will fight tooth and nail, but where is the political power of a union when the jobs are irrelevant? Roll it out in one place and it's a virus. Who is going to let their kids plod along, getting six hours of mediocre, increasingly irrelevant education in classes with varied levels of disruption when the neighbor's kids are zooming past them without leaving the house.
Bill, only a small part of teaching is the transfer of information. If that were all teaching was, then we would be replaceable by machines. Teaching is part learning coach, part therapist, part parent, part cheerleader, and part information transfer. The human contact is also a critical part of the learning process, as it always has.
The studies about online academies show that students there don't learn as much as when they are in front of a teacher. There are exceptions to the rule, the first is probably you, a highly motivated learner. Many, and probably most, children need that human contact to process their own learning. That's good teaching.
For higher education I do not see that as the case. I went to University of Michigan. Great school, great time but I did not have that experience in a single class. Chan and I took classes (audited) at an online U a while back and the experience was different but also excellent. There were source materials, required student forum time, etc. but no in person and no one on one with faculty. Even without AI or Machine learning this could be essentially free to taxpayers and free to students.
Learning online these days is an astounding experience. Even entirely self-directed it is incredible. The wealth of information, the interaction and support from those with immense experience and the variety of teaching styles on any minuscule element of a subject make it really magnificent. It is still a very human experience (maybe moreso) although not in person. YouTube (with offshoots) is already the most incredible university ever assembled.
-
totally in your camp on this, icky
but who knows where our world will be in a short time?? human to human skills and the way we communicate and collaborate are changing so fast, that i wonder how much of what one gains from a typical, rigorous, realtime, onsite college education, will be of value in the professional world.
i remain a believer, and consider the serious dough i spent educating my kids to be one of the best value propositions of my life---but my kids worked their end of the deal--2 are summa/phi beta grads of top schools, one is killing it at a top school--and my last is doing the senior in HS strain to get to a good college---all of mine care deeply about their study and hard work---i am very lucky in this
the typical college approach, where a kid games the system to do the least work for the best grade, to get laid and party the most, and then expects a great job as reward???? for a cost that might consume 4 times his/her family's annual household income?? that needs to end
and when i began my career on wall st, after about a week, it was learn by doing---but this is the case in most fields---so if youre looking of specific vocational/professional training, for most professions, it'g going to be on the job, or via specific professional training courses--college does that minimally in most fields
one interesting thing for me that i find in business today, is that we communicate so much more in written text--where in the past a ceo might have dyslexia, and have it be no issue--all communication was voice or dictated to a secretary who wrote well---now even a ceo needs to be able to write coherently and effectively--often i read something these days and cast the writer, based on the quality of the writing---person cant write? he may be a tech person who doesnt need to write well, and i may know that, but my take on her goes south
text-based communications today lay bare one's writing skills, and one's education generally, and leave a permanent record of that said---to be able to write quickly and well, and transmit good ideas, IN WRITING, matters more these days than ever before--there is no votech for writing--i cant imagine an on-line writing class or any writing class, that doesnt involve a teacher discussing a student's writing with the student
-
My comment isn't really about the value of vocational training, it's the value of big data reinforced, machine learning based education. The value of teachers used to be that they had training in how to teach, and they had access to information--stuff they had learned and whatever accompanies the materials they were teaching. What they taught students was primary information to store. How to solve a math problem, how to read and write, fundamental geography, some strange local variation on history. All of that has little value in an environment where any piece of information, almost any technique, any bit of history, anthropology, geography--in whatever depth is desired--is instantly available.
Now add to that the ability to look at every piece of data about every student, which they and their friends and family have revealed in detail, all over the web. Stir in the fact that AI is already better at understanding the thought processes of other people than humans are and you have the ability to tailor education to the mind, history, family situation, social interaction, demonstrated talents and limitations, sources and nature of errors, for every step in their life to that point and every result in the education process. And then tailor their education to precisely suit them and optimize the learning experience.
What human teacher can even approach that capability?
The cost of delivery to an incremental student. Nothing.
What is college or high school compared to that potential? Babysitting.
You might be horrified by the privacy issues of that, and the potential for abuse, but that doesn't mean it isn't a superior way to educate at a fraction of the current cost--and there's more than enough data already available--everyone spews their guts on the web.
Teacher's unions will fight tooth and nail, but where is the political power of a union when the jobs are irrelevant? Roll it out in one place and it's a virus. Who is going to let their kids plod along, getting six hours of mediocre, increasingly irrelevant education in classes with varied levels of disruption when the neighbor's kids are zooming past them without leaving the house.
Bill, only a small part of teaching is the transfer of information. If that were all teaching was, then we would be replaceable by machines. Teaching is part learning coach, part therapist, part parent, part cheerleader, and part information transfer. The human contact is also a critical part of the learning process, as it always has.
The studies about online academies show that students there don't learn as much as when they are in front of a teacher. There are exceptions to the rule, the first is probably you, a highly motivated learner. Many, and probably most, children need that human contact to process their own learning. That's good teaching.
For higher education I do not see that as the case. I went to University of Michigan. Great school, great time but I did not have that experience in a single class. Chan and I took classes (audited) at an online U a while back and the experience was different but also excellent. There were source materials, required student forum time, etc. but no in person and no one on one with faculty. Even without AI or Machine learning this could be essentially free to taxpayers and free to students.
Learning online these days is an astounding experience. Even entirely self-directed it is incredible. The wealth of information, the interaction and support from those with immense experience and the variety of teaching styles on any minuscule element of a subject make it really magnificent. It is still a very human experience (maybe moreso) although not in person. YouTube (with offshoots) is already the most incredible university ever assembled.
Admin, I'm inclined to agree with you some on higher learning. Still, I think we get a little too enthralled with our machines. All those electronic delivery systems have their place with instruction, but if teaching were only that, what a cold, cold world we would live in. Of course, with the sub-par instruction you get in many colleges, maybe electronic teaching could be better> I don't know. I will say in K–12 it's best done on a limited basis.
-
EB. That's the kind of thing I hear from people who haven't tried it. Take a couple of Kahn academy classes in humanities and let me know what you think. Better yet, sign up for Corsera's "Learn to learn" class and see where it takes you. But current online learning has few of the characteristics of AI/ML driven learning. Most of it relies on crowdsourcing assistance, which works extremely well in the case of Kahn and similar platforms, but isn't what online education could/likely will be.
I've talked about education with teachers, and they invariably bring up the points Ichabod does. Then I ask how many kids get that experience and what percentage of the teachers they know of actually deliver that, and the defense falters. Certainly nothing like the "part learning coach, part therapist, part parent, part cheerleader, and part information transfer." gets delivered to even a majority of kids by the majority of teachers. And that absolutely does not happen in college.
A10, I understand what you are saying about ML being just a way of doing statistics, though it certainly isn't "just" that. Statistics allows you to extract insights from data, but the model for doing that doesn't improve as you run it. ML does, hence the learning part. It's not AI, but it's also not just statistics. And really ML is all that's necessary to do what I described. ML plus AI would just do it better.
There might be a few folks that throttle their data, but with nearly 3 billion people spewing every aspect of their lives on a Facebook product and 90 percent of the world's connected population using an Alphabet product daily, their efforts are a fart in a hurricane. The current slide towards nationalism doesn't offer any global solution to privacy, which is the only way to slow progress in this direction--and that's probably just fine. I don't see these things as dystopian, I see them as different and worth thinking about.
-
Bizarre...I just signed up for coursera's learn to learn this week.
I've been looking at online learning to do some stuff to help fill all the time I have. Found out I can also access Lynda through my public library....whole bunch of other online learning there also available for free.
-
Lynda is extremely good for tech ed. The "Learn to Learn" course can take over your life. It heads twenty different ways every week. If it were ML-driven the different ways would be curated for you learning differences, but as it is, it's pretty wild, very good, and overwhelming.
-
I've talked about education with teachers, and they invariably bring up the points Ichabod does. Then I ask how many kids get that experience and what percentage of the teachers they know of actually deliver that, and the defense falters. Certainly nothing like the "part learning coach, part therapist, part parent, part cheerleader, and part information transfer." gets delivered to even a majority of kids by the majority of teachers. And that absolutely does not happen in college.
That's our job now. I don't know where you're referring to. I would never deny there are crappy teachers, but most are at least fairly good at it. I think most teachers are pretty dedicated to their craft. I mean, why choose the field of you're not? It's not financially rewarding.
I think if you spent time seeing modern education, you might be surprised. We don't just hurl facts. We do all those things I mentioned. Someone who's a highly-motivated learner like yourself might not have much use for the touchy-feely part of the job. Its also less. Nevertheless, those moments are some of the most rewarding.
-
I've talked about education with teachers, and they invariably bring up the points Ichabod does. Then I ask how many kids get that experience and what percentage of the teachers they know of actually deliver that, and the defense falters. Certainly nothing like the "part learning coach, part therapist, part parent, part cheerleader, and part information transfer." gets delivered to even a majority of kids by the majority of teachers. And that absolutely does not happen in college.
That's our job now. I don't know where you're referring to. I would never deny there are crappy teachers, but most are at least fairly good at it. I think most teachers are pretty dedicated to their craft. I mean, why choose the field of you're not? It's not financially rewarding.
I think if you spent time seeing modern education, you might be surprised. We don't just hurl facts. We do all those things I mentioned. Someone who's a highly-motivated learner like yourself might not have much use for the touchy-feely part of the job. Its also less. Nevertheless, those moments are some of the most rewarding.
A lot of what teachers can do in a classroom setting is limited by time and the student/teacher ratio. Then there is the matter of pace; it's set by the full amount of material to cover in a quarter or semester. It overwhelms some students and holds back others. And after presenting material to the whole class to keep pace, there often isn't a lot of time left to do one on one. I do believe most teachers are in because they want to help kids learn, but most public school systems don't make it easy to do the best job.
-
You're right about that, Glide. Sometimes it feels like we're working in opposition to administration.
-
Admin, I'm inclined to agree with you some on higher learning. Still, I think we get a little too enthralled with our machines. All those electronic delivery systems have their place with instruction, but if teaching were only that, what a cold, cold world we would live in. Of course, with the sub-par instruction you get in many colleges, maybe electronic teaching could be better> I don't know. I will say in K–12 it's best done on a limited basis.
Ich,
I value value what you guys do. My mom was a teacher and I have seen what that commitment and caring looks like up close. I would suggest that this would begin as a free mode of higher education. Non Linear Education is a huge potential benefit of this system. In my self-directed learning online I have revealed to myself how important a variety of approaches are to the same subject. What is mottled and complex from one teacher can be simply digested from another. How many students reject subjects because they can't follow early on and never truly regain the pace of the class. In this linear environment we lose kids to "I'm bad at math" that could be routed to an approach that worked for them. This is no failing of the teacher. It is not possible to present 100 different approaches as a single educator. In a Non Linear environment this can be accomplished.
There is nothing about this type of system that would limit itself to an age group, a geography, a timeline for completion. No application process would be required.
We currently have 47 percent of our students at community colleges. When we think of free college for all, Princeton may be the image in our mind but in reality what we would be providing and paying for is not that. When you think of the massive efficiencies, environmental impact and of of course the quality of education, it seems like something we need to pursue.
-
Admin, I'm inclined to agree with you some on higher learning. Still, I think we get a little too enthralled with our machines. All those electronic delivery systems have their place with instruction, but if teaching were only that, what a cold, cold world we would live in. Of course, with the sub-par instruction you get in many colleges, maybe electronic teaching could be better> I don't know. I will say in K–12 it's best done on a limited basis.
Ich,
I value value what you guys do. My mom was a teacher and I have seen what that commitment and caring looks like up close. I would suggest that this would begin as a free mode of higher education. Non Linear Education is a huge potential benefit of this system. In my self-directed learning online I have revealed to myself how important a variety of approaches are to the same subject. What is mottled and complex from one teacher can be simply digested from another. How many students reject subjects because they can't follow early on and never truly regain the pace of the class. In this linear environment we lose kids to "I'm bad at math" that could be routed to an approach that worked for them. This is no failing of the teacher. It is not possible to present 100 different approaches as a single educator. In a Non Linear environment this can be accomplished.
There is nothing about this type of system that would limit itself to an age group, a geography, a timeline for completion. No application process would be required.
We currently have 47 percent of our students at community colleges. When we think of free college for all, Princeton may be the image in our mind but in reality what we would be providing and paying for is not that. When you think of the massive efficiencies, environmental impact and of of course the quality of education, it seems like something we need to pursue.
Admin, I don't think there's a teacher out there who wouldn't want more individualized education for their children. I agree -- it's a serious issue. All we need is an increase in education spending to pay for the extra teachers and facilities, and it can happen.
-
Please remember that what is required of education for children and adults is quite different. Education for children is probably in reality more about socialisation than skills training, and for adults it’s more about skills training than socialisation. I think you might be looking at the education process from the perspective of an adult, not what a child needs to become an integrated member of society, with the soft skills and self-awareness (and discipline, perhaps) to succeed. You as adults don’t need those things because hopefully you’ve already got them.
-
The sweet spot for online education is post-secondary, both because of the nature of college and other post-secondary education, and because that's where the money is. The USA spends more than any other country on education per student, but post-secondary is almost three times higher than grammar/HS. The average expenditure per student for college is about 30K including all grants, loans, and subsidies.
Still, when the US ranks fifth in spending on primary/secondary education and ranks 30th in standardized achievement testing it's a tough go to say that more money is the solution. Regardless of what you think about testing as a valid assessment of progress, it's a hard argument to buck politically. And it doesn't make much difference who is in office. Spending has been stagnant for five years and actually declined when President Obama was in office, even in the years when he had a democratic majority in the house and senate.
-
30k/yr vs 10k/yr--ima process that for a minute over here
very interesting data point
-
More money isn’t the problem. It is just in the wrong places.
My daughters last three years of her aerospace master at one of the top engineering schools in the country, $1800 in total tuition.
-
30k/yr vs 10k/yr--ima process that for a minute over here
very interesting data point
Eastie, to bring it closer to home (at least closer to one of your home-breaks), if you look at some of the individual schools statistics you will find anomolies like Asbury Park, where the average cost per student was over $35,000. Clearly, the Asbury Park studens did not get $35,000 in educational value.
In the stats that PB shared, there are likely thousands of data points that mirror this anomoly. A huge chunk of the $35k per student go to non-educational programs. So, in instances where schools are "overfunded" to cover other non-educational programs, the total dollars are included in the overall statistics skewing the results.
-
More money isn’t the problem. It is just in the wrong places.
My daughters last three years of her aerospace master at one of the top engineering schools in the country, $1800 in total tuition.
J - I have to assume you understand that $1,800 per student doesn't pay the bills for the school and that the money is coming from somewhere/someone else.
-
The sweet spot for online education is post-secondary, both because of the nature of college and other post-secondary education, and because that's where the money is. The USA spends more than any other country on education per student, but post-secondary is almost three times higher than grammar/HS. The average expenditure per student for college is about 30K including all grants, loans, and subsidies.
As the owner of an online, post-secondary school I will agree that it is a sweet spot for those two exact reasons. And I will be the first to say that some bad actors in the space have hurt our reputation and ability to operate quite a bit over the past few years. However, the single largest driver of costs for us is regulation. Even my small school is beholden to the Dept of Education, Dept of Defense, Dept of Veterans Affairs, Dept of Labor, our national Accrediting agency, and each state where we have a single student (for me that is 48!). I get that the first three want to be able to look under the hood because they are putting up $ for student tuition, but NONE of them have consistent reporting requirements or regulatory language. And the worst part is that even with all this ridiculously expensive "oversight", bad actors continue to exist in the space.
-
The USA does spend a large amount on student education as compared to other countries. We also have the highest poverty rate, which means that we have higher ratios of kids in our public schools with very high needs.
The USA does not score well on international tests, until you factor in its poverty rate. When you compensate for that, our international scores as defined by the NAEP test are fine. We don't have a failing educational system. Yes, kids in need need extra services, and that costs more. What of it? Until the poverty rate goes down in the USA, this is going to be a constant.
I guess what frustrates me about this conversation is that it seems like everyone is so willing to dump on the system itself for not working or for costing too much. There are many, many people working inside the system to make things better. There are many many teachers out there -- most of them -- doing their best. They are not a corrupt class. The larger system around American education is what's mostly creating the problems, not educators.
If you want better schools, please be part of the solution. Bashing them solves nothing, and after experiencing a couple of decades of teacher bashing and public education bashing and school bashing, it really sucks. There's a reason teachers are leaving the field with shortages happening all over. Between the low pay, long hours, and lack of respect, this is very demoralizing.
-
The sweet spot for online education is post-secondary, both because of the nature of college and other post-secondary education, and because that's where the money is. The USA spends more than any other country on education per student, but post-secondary is almost three times higher than grammar/HS. The average expenditure per student for college is about 30K including all grants, loans, and subsidies.
Still, when the US ranks fifth in spending on primary/secondary education and ranks 30th in standardized achievement testing it's a tough go to say that more money is the solution. Regardless of what you think about testing as a valid assessment of progress, it's a hard argument to buck politically. And it doesn't make much difference who is in office. Spending has been stagnant for five years and actually declined when President Obama was in office, even in the years when he had a democratic majority in the house and senate.
Is that average including 2 year degrees at community colleges? If it is completed 4 years programs, I think it is really low. My oldest, the only one who has completed a degree program, had a total expenditure of over $100k. If you are just talking tuition, the published tuition price would have been over $80k. We didn't actually pay that; they provided a partial scholarship.
-
More money isn’t the problem. It is just in the wrong places.
My daughters last three years of her aerospace master at one of the top engineering schools in the country, $1800 in total tuition.
J - I have to assume you understand that $1,800 per student doesn't pay the bills for the school and that the money is coming from somewhere/someone else.
The someone else would be open to debate but the somewhere else was my point.
It’s a choice where all the government tax revenues go, what is budgeted for what.
That is what may not be so democratically decided.
And the climb of the cost of graduate study since the ‘80s is mind boggling.
The reasons for the higher costs in the US are not tied to superior education.
-
It's a conversation, Ich, and you brought up the notion of "just spend more money". I understand the sensitivity and how irritating it is to have laymen pretending to have sufficient knowledge to be passing judgment on your profession, but the conversation is going to happen, and technological changes that I started talking about are probably inevitable. Even if they are resisted in the USA, much of the rest of the world will have no such sensitivity. Chan mentioned the ML/AI education efforts underway in China. Even looking from the outside it's clear that their investment of resources in this effort is huge. It's obvious why they are doing so, a highly educated population of 1.42 billion walks right over a poorly educated population of 325 million.
And politically, the OECD poverty stats don't fly. OECD measures the number of people living below the median income, which is radically distorted by the inequality of income in the USA. Eliminate the top one percent and that poverty level disappears, the US instantly rises from second to the bottom to 4th from the top. How could that be? Did the lives of those folks "in poverty" change at all? Living below the median doesn't reflect the difference between families living on $5 a day in Slovenia and an individual living on $40 per day in the USA.
-
AI and virtual will be a larger component of education going forward in preK through adult learning. It could enhance and compliment the roll of educators by eliminating rote tasks, covering repetitive materials in dynamic formats, providing better data and implementing data driven educational instruction instantly. The roll of the educator will change. Possibly, more efforts will be allocated to individualized mentoring, guiding group discussion, and providing creative input. Technology has, and will, change all professions over the next decade in ways we couldn’t possibly imagine. I have resisted the electronic know-it-all taking over many of my tasks, but I’ve come to realize, in most instances, the machine outperforms me at my own job. I don’t see this leading to a dystopian future necessarily. I hope that the added benefits will, in time, outweigh the negative aspects. BTW, Klobuchar 2020. Managing millennials is frustrating. Who wouldn't want to chuck a binder on occasion.
-
I kept a stack of them just for that purpose.
-
Amy, Bernie, AOC, Corey, Liz, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Bring it on. Cheers...
-
Yeah, it's starting to look like the Republican party in the last election--ship of fools. I certainly hope Bernie and Hillary sit this out. Thankfully there's a primary. No AOC though, she's still just a kid.
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
At least it is less than half of respondents; all the rest would likely line up behind whatever candidate does get the DEM nod. There are likely people who didn't vote out of disappointment with the current slate of DEMs (and one that hasn't even declared) in the poll but will cast a disappointed vote for the eventual nominee. But as much as I would hate to see it, it is very possible that the DEMs will lose. A lot of people think they will be too free with the borders and too lenient in social programs. Then there are the single issue religious and gun voters that won't vote DEM. We need to somehow wake the sleeping giant that is the youth vote; if the turnout % was the same in all age groups, the DEMs could go pretty far left, almost to where I am ;D , and still crush Trump.
-
QBee... I think Trump is beyond brilliant in a number of ways, mainly in the understanding there are specific constituencies with a total commitment to a narrow band of positions (Abortion, race, public lands, guns, etc). This is a person who gave money to Planned Parenthood but likely has a 100% rating with the anti-abortion people ..voted Democrat ...with no history of religion - has all the fellow hair-model evangelicals in his pocket. He basically put the farm belt in receivership with tariffs, then bribed them with a socialistic wealth transfer from the rest of us. He may not have any particular core values but he can read a mob.
Bernie and Jill Stein 'Ralph Nader'd'* Hillary, and I suspect the same thing to happen in 2020.
Jim
*Bush/Gore totals were nearly equal ...Ralph Nader pulled 3mil votes off the top - likely, the bulk from Gore
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
This is the US. I’m not sure it’s possible for people from other cultures to fully understand the US psyche.
I’m watching the Cohen testimony live right now. Absolutely horrifying at so many levels. Not the least of it being that many US people won’t find it in the least bit horrifying.
“Every nation gets the government it deserves” (Joseph de Maistre)?
-
Education and Surfing - Many years ago, I noticed quite a few young surfers surfing whenever the
combination of tide, swell, sun, etc. were best for a good surf. I wondered how they could be
out there surfing at those times rather than being in school.
It turned out that they were being "HomeSchooled." Many were homeschooled just so they could surf
at the best times. I will say they were very well behaved, very respectful and very good surfers.
And, I felt intelligent. Maybe dealing with the ocean & surfing helped them.
Over time I learned some were homeschooled using a program through the local Junior College,
and some using programs delivered over the internet. Some went on to become sponsored surfers.
Some went on to college.
(I also know two people homeschooled (in a different state - no surfing) by only their grandmother with no special
program - I think the grandmother only graduated high school, years & years ago but she was intelligent.
When I was around, I watched as the grandmother basically made up activities for them to do to learn things.
I will say I wondered how effective this particular home-grown homeschooling would be but,
later, both students got 4-year degrees. One became a grade school teacher in the public school system; the other
later got her MBA and works in business - so, it seems their homeschooling education was at least adequate,
although I think the formalized programs are probably better but don't necessarily have to be).
It is interesting to me because homeschooling seems to be so much cheaper and still effective.
The programs done over the internet are like what has been talked about above,
but not post-secondary, and, yet successful, and I would think at a much much lower cost
than the school districts around here.
-
QBee... I think Trump is beyond brilliant in a number of ways, mainly in the understanding there are specific constituencies with a total commitment to a narrow band of positions (Abortion, race, public lands, guns, etc). This is a person who gave money to Planned Parenthood but likely has a 100% rating with the anti-abortion people ..voted Democrat ...with no history of religion - has all the fellow hair-model evangelicals in his pocket. He basically put the farm belt in receivership with tariffs, then bribed them with a socialistic wealth transfer from the rest of us. He may not have any particular core values but he can read a mob.
Bernie and Jill Stein 'Ralph Nader'd'* Hillary, and I suspect the same thing to happen in 2020.
Jim
*Bush/Gore totals were nearly equal ...Ralph Nader pulled 3mil votes off the top - likely, the bulk from Gore
The really amazing one to me is the tariffs. A *lot* of people believe that the Chinese pay the tariffs when their goods are sold here. Nope; it's the US buyer. At the other end, the Chinese go import from somewhere else instead of paying their own tariffs to import agricultural goods from the US. So with the farmers on hard times, we subsidize them causing a bigger deficit and increased debt. China is one of the largest, if not the largest, holders of US debt. So the Chinese are not paying the price for the tariffs; we are. And we are doing it with money we borrow from China.
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
Our little poll seems to reflect what is going on pretty well. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
His apparent lack of political-polish has rendered him possibly the most transparent US president ever; for many that translates into trust.
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
His apparent lack of political-polish has rendered him possibly the most transparent US president ever; for many that translates into trust.
“The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous."
Recognise the quote? Is it Trump, perhaps?
-
The Democrats have demonstrated previously that they can indeed lose an unlosable election.
Yeah, and made even funnier in that it was an "unlosable" loss to a guy who had previously managed to bankrupt "unlosable" casinos...and here "we" (figuratively not literally, I've despised the MFer long before he ever considered running) go, and give the a-hole the keys to what he thinks is his new castle. Infukingcredible...smh. >:(
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
His apparent lack of political-polish has rendered him possibly the most transparent US president ever; for many that translates into trust.
“The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous."
Recognise the quote? Is it Trump, perhaps?
I've seen that quote before. Can't remember who said it though.
-
Yes A 10, your quote from mein kampf could be, but is certainly not limited to DT.
https://youtu.be/YKc2xk9MYoY?t=1156
-
There are a ton of skilled labor jobs that pay very well, but young Americans want a degree and an office job. They all deserve it I'm sure. We need more Plumbers, Carpenters, Welder's, Electronics Tech's, Machinist, etc. but our youth is apparently better than that.
I agree with you on the premise, but not on the causation. I don't believe it's "our youth" that necessarily think they're "apparently better than that"...it's us, through our school systems who have tried to instill that belief in them with the "everyone needs to go to college" BS.
Not sure about all schools, but the HS I attended that my boys also graduated from umpteen years later...had vocational courses for the non-academia students to find non-higher education options upon graduation in the form of all of the "shop" classes (wood, print, auto, metal, electrical) while I was there...that were all long gone by the time my boys stepped on campus there.
Saw it firsthand in the fire service, where we were getting fire candidates who didn't know their way around a shovel, a mop bucket, and forget about asking them to "go get me a 3/4" box end wrench"...more than once I had the whole tool box wheeled over and we began our fun tool search, question and answer game..."Is this it?", "No", "How about this?", "Nope", "This one?", "Uh-uh", "Got it...this one?", "Ah JC get out of the way....THIS!!", "Oooh OK, but that looks more like a circle than a box". :o >:(
-
I........ ain't go no bo.......dy. Nobody ::) I'm actually a sectarian. The Surf Cult.
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
His apparent lack of political-polish has rendered him possibly the most transparent US president ever; for many that translates into trust.
If you had said, "After everything that Trump has said or tweeted, I could see where you may have a point, but "done"? What governmental thing has he done that negatively effected you in a personal way?
This is I'm pretty sure why you are surprised by Trump's support, it's that his supporters can separate what he says or tweets, from the things he accomplishes. I don't think anybody, if they support him or not, are happy with most of his tweets or his thin skin, that he demonstrates with some of the things he says. He doesn't have to express his feeling about everything, most things he should just let slide, but then again he's not a politician.
So maybe that's the root of the dislike, he's not a politician, and he's definitely not politically correct.
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
His apparent lack of political-polish has rendered him possibly the most transparent US president ever; for many that translates into trust.
If you had said, "After everything that Trump has said or tweeted, I could see where you may have a point, but "done"? What governmental thing has he done that negatively effected you in a personal way?
This is I'm pretty sure why you are surprised by Trump's support, it's that his supporters can separate what he says or tweets, from the things he accomplishes. I don't think anybody, if they support him or not, are happy with most of his tweets or his thin skin, that he demonstrates with some of the things he says. He doesn't have to express his feeling about everything, most things he should just let slide, but then again he's not a politician.
So maybe that's the root of the dislike, he's not a politician, and he's definitely not politically correct.
Who is politically correct these days? The moderates are sitting at net line watching the right getting ready to serve, while the left is smashing their racket on the court in protest.
-
A tennis metaphor, really? ;D
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
His apparent lack of political-polish has rendered him possibly the most transparent US president ever; for many that translates into trust.
If you had said, "After everything that Trump has said or tweeted, I could see where you may have a point, but "done"? What governmental thing has he done that negatively effected you in a personal way?
This is I'm pretty sure why you are surprised by Trump's support, it's that his supporters can separate what he says or tweets, from the things he accomplishes. I don't think anybody, if they support him or not, are happy with most of his tweets or his thin skin, that he demonstrates with some of the things he says. He doesn't have to express his feeling about everything, most things he should just let slide, but then again he's not a politician.
So maybe that's the root of the dislike, he's not a politician, and he's definitely not politically correct.
The root of the dislike, certainly outside the US even if not inside, is quite simple to understand if you have some semblance of a moral code. It’s the character of the man. He’s a philandering, misogynist, narcissistic, lying, bullying, KKK-style braggart who emanates a strong sense of general perviness, and has all the hallmarks of a full-blown demagogue-in-training. The fact that he’s also a terrible orator, has a slim grasp of many things he claims to know about, has a truly ridiculous vain hairstyle and perma-tan panda eyes, denies climate-change and apparently loves dictators the world over just reinforces the ridiculousness of him being your principal US representative on the world stage.
But of course, the more that a person has those characteristics themselves, the more they are likely to approve of him. A person’s support for Trump is no more than a test of their gullibility and decency.
-
The root of the dislike, certainly outside the US even if not inside, is quite simple to understand if you have some semblance of a moral code. It’s the character of the man. He’s a philandering, misogynist, narcissistic, lying, bullying, KKK-style braggart who emanates a strong sense of general perviness, and has all the hallmarks of a full-blown demagogue-in-training. The fact that he’s also a terrible orator, has a slim grasp of many things he claims to know about, has a truly ridiculous vain hairstyle and perma-tan panda eyes, denies climate-change and apparently loves dictators the world over just reinforces the ridiculousness of him being your principal US representative on the world stage.
But of course, the more that a person has those characteristics themselves, the more they are likely to approve of him. A person’s support for Trump is no more than a test of their gullibility and decency.
I have finally gotten to the point where I can't make excuses for people who still support him. For a while I rationalized how they could still be good decent people that were just misguided. By now, they know what kind of moral trade off they are making.
-
Earth to A10 & RTG. Nobody gives a fuck what you think. That is all.....
-
Earth to A10 & RTG. Nobody gives a fuck what you think. That is all.....
I do.
-
A tennis metaphor, really? ;D
I could have used volleyball as the metaphor, but not to many people would dig it ;D
-
Hey Tall Dude. You’re a tennis player? Cool... Me too.. still playing at the 4.0 level for my age. 70’s..... Do you think it teaches you a bit about life in general? You meet all kinds on the court and different personalities become quickly apparent. Some good some bad. Take a guy like pdx. He would be so fun to meet on the court.....
-
This is I'm pretty sure why you are surprised by Trump's support, it's that his supporters can separate what he says or tweets, from the things he accomplishes. I don't think anybody, if they support him or not, are happy with most of his tweets or his thin skin, that he demonstrates with some of the things he says.
I think that's true of SOME supporters. But many of his supporters support him not despite those tweets and statements, but BECAUSE of them.
-
Earth to A10 & RTG. Nobody gives a fuck what you think. That is all.....
Spoken like a true Trump supporter. I notice however than you did not try to argue with any of the criticisms I made against the figure you so admire. Despite me providing a litany of them far beyond those I’d ever have used to describe any previous US president ever, there was no “what evidence do you have to say that?” challenge from you. This is of course because shockingly, the things I said are widely accepted as an accurate description of the character of the man, as reported by many people who have been close to him. The Cohen testimony yesterday was remarkable in this respect. Cohen is clearly a deeply unpleasant lying weasel. But why would Trump have such a person so close to him for so many years if they weren’t the same? “Birds of a feather flock together”, or “judge a man by the company he keeps” are wise old sayings that apply here. Drain the swamp? Really?
-
If you had said, "After everything that Trump has said or tweeted, I could see where you may have a point, but "done"? What governmental thing has he done that negatively effected you in a personal way?
This is I'm pretty sure why you are surprised by Trump's support, it's that his supporters can separate what he says or tweets, from the things he accomplishes.
Do you mean what thing has he done today? :) Here are a few tidbits:
I would not have believed that Reagan Republicans would have stood by him after watching him trash our intelligence agencies in favor of Putin on the world stage in Helsinki.
Running up the National debt at a record pace and to a record level.
Separating refugee kids from their parents at the border with no plans to reunite them.
Shutting down the government in a tantrum (in December - Retailer love letter is in the mail).
Pulling out of Paris Climate deal, Iran deal, again breaking with our allies.
China Trade debacle - An incorrect notion, poorly executed, and failing.
The incessant lying on the world stage.
Giving credibility to fringe racist groups.
Furthering the financial divide between his cronies and working America.
But, I also think that the real #'s come election day (should we get there) will be pretty close to 50% again.
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
His apparent lack of political-polish has rendered him possibly the most transparent US president ever; for many that translates into trust.
If you had said, "After everything that Trump has said or tweeted, I could see where you may have a point, but "done"? What governmental thing has he done that negatively effected you in a personal way?
This is I'm pretty sure why you are surprised by Trump's support, it's that his supporters can separate what he says or tweets, from the things he accomplishes. I don't think anybody, if they support him or not, are happy with most of his tweets or his thin skin, that he demonstrates with some of the things he says. He doesn't have to express his feeling about everything, most things he should just let slide, but then again he's not a politician.
So maybe that's the root of the dislike, he's not a politician, and he's definitely not politically correct.
he's accomplished deficits that all americans are responsible to pay for--a result of his tax handout to the wealthy
he's killed residential real estate throughout the country, especially in blue states--specific impact of tax handout
that's just off the top of my head
what good has he accomplished? for any but the very wealthy, who may wonder if the free $$ was worth it.....
he did beautifully in vietnam this week--i mean are you kidding?
list some credible "accomplishments"---his failings and continual lying to any who'll listen are so innumerable.....
gimme something real and really good that has actually resulted from policy he implemented....
-
Earth to A10 & RTG. Nobody gives a fuck what you think. That is all.....
your thinking is impressive, illuminating
-
Earth to A10 & RTG. Nobody gives a fuck what you think. That is all.....
your thinking is impressive, illuminating
I have also given up on arguing with entrenched Trump supporters. I can't change their minds and I can't make them right.
-
How do Trump supporters view Russia; threat nuetral, or possible ally?
-
How do Trump supporters view Russia; threat nuetral, or possible ally?
A lot of the Trump supporters I know personally don't view much besides Faux News. Outside of that, they mostly keep their heads in the sand or in some other location that restricts their view in a similar manner.
-
he did beautifully in vietnam this week--i mean are you kidding?
list some credible "accomplishments"---his failings and continual lying to any who'll listen are so innumerable.....
gimme something real and really good that has actually resulted from policy he implemented....
Yeah, he failed in Viet Nam just like Reagan did with Gorbachev in Reykjavik Iceland, I'm sure you remember how that ended up in the long run.
Pay no attention to the unemployment accomplishments that covers all races w/in our country, records in every category. Pay no attention to the take-home pay that has finally been increasing. There's more, but I understand the majority of the people on this thread, little use in trying to list everything.
These are things that effect people w/in our country DIRECTLY, everything else listed by the Trump haters, effects them indirectly, supposedly. "I'm doing fine, but it's everyone else that I worry about" and "I really worry about what other people in other countries think about us", you know, people like A10. That keeps my up at night. :o Those concerns only go so far, and then they become tedious.
I'll try not to post on this thread anymore, it's apparently upsetting to so many here, so fear not.
Tennis anyone?
-
weasel, no upset here--just a discussion. hang in there. youre entitled to your pov.
frankly, Trump's claims of, and claims to have caused, job growth and pay gains, are very much in dispute, if not totally debunked.
so your presentation of such as fact is questionable.
but let's assume youre correct in those claims, what specific programs that Trump put it place have caused the "records in every category" jobs and pay gains that you claim to be fact?
serve em up!
-
Reagan had deep respect for our intelligence agencies, and always consulted CIA on all matters, incl Reykjavik---problem with Reykjavic wasnt that he didnt try to prepare with assistance from the US's best and brightest, problem was that the agenda was somewhat unknown, such that reagan had to wing it, in many ways. and he did well. total contrast with what trump has brought to no korea "negotiations" or whatever the hell he's doing. which can only be described as, some 18 months in, a total failure.
try this on:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/before-meeting-with-kim-trump-should-look-back-to-reykjavik/2018/03/15/67eaa876-2877-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.b200cc9757ec
the whole korea thing has been riddled with Trump lies:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/431314-jake-tapper-calls-out-pompeo-over-trump-declaring-north-korea-no-longer-a
glad this aint my kid:
https://www.ottumwacourier.com/news/national_news/trump-accepts-kim-word-he-had-no-role-in-warmbier/article_39365b5c-985c-5a3d-9bc3-16af010e8a0f.html
-
What is hiding in Trump’s tax returns?
-
A10, you can’t tell much about a person’s wealth from a US income tax return. Unlike a corporate return, there is no balance sheet, just income items. It’s just as likely that he is embarrassed about a relatively low income level as he would be having understated his earnings. And if there was an understatement, he would have amended it by now. Amended returns are pretty routine here in the US.
-
I'm in the position of finding both Hillary Clinton and Donal Trump entirely unfit for office--any office, but certainly not President of the United States. I think Donald Trump has divided this country much further than it had been, and I think his supporters talking about improvement in jobs while the president has undermined the rule of law directly, repeatedly, is simply amazing. How can anyone claim to be a patriotic American while ignoring the damage to our form of government, our constitution, even our self-worth. For the President to comment in any way on an investigation that is underway into Russian meddling in the election--even by telegraphing his attitude, would be tampering. President Trump didn't just do that--he called it a witch hunt, and is actively seeking to shut it down. Interfering with the Manafort trial, Interfering with the Flynn investigation. Really? That's OK? What then would it take? Constant lying? Oh, that's just how he is. Ignoring intelligence? Oh he doesn't trust the FBI and CIA, he gets his answers right from Putin, who he does trust.
Seriously. I don't get it. I wanted President Clinton to be booted out of office for lying--he deserved it. He was a smarter version of Donald Trump, but just as slimy. But he's gone and this is who we have, and he lies every time he opens his mouth. They aren't simply stupid lies, they do damage. Go ahead and support him, there won't be much left of America when he's done. Chaos in politics, complete lack of appreciation for the constitutional separation of powers, a divided country, a monumental deficit, loss of any leadership in world politics. If Putin were directly pulling the strings, he couldn't ask for more.
-
A10, you can’t tell much about a person’s wealth from a US income tax return. Unlike a corporate return, there is no balance sheet, just income items. It’s just as likely that he is embarrassed about a relatively low income level as he would be having understated his earnings. And if there was an understatement, he would have amended it by now. Amended returns are pretty routine here in the US.
Did someone actually sat that determining wealth was the point of seeing the tax returns? There have been allegations of tax fraud, and not just from Cohen. Paper losses that likely would not hold up and other tricks. Questions have been raised about some of the sources of income. If there are no issues, why not just hand them over?
-
And then there's the very real likelihood of Russian money laundering. Is there a US bank that would lend Trump money? Is there a contractor of any size who would ever do work for him without money up front? Would you, just knowing what you know? Imagine what people with real experience and real connections think of this guy. Don Jr. said that's where they get their development money. Oops. Is there anyone, even the most rabid Trump fan, who thinks borrowing money from Russia is anything like borrowing money from Wells Fargo?
-
There could be no more fitting end than for Donald to go down for campaign finance violations over hiring a straw man to purchase a painting of himself with charity funds in an effort to appear desirable (and then keeping the painting). You really could not write this stuff.
-
A10, you can’t tell much about a person’s wealth from a US income tax return. Unlike a corporate return, there is no balance sheet, just income items. It’s just as likely that he is embarrassed about a relatively low income level as he would be having understated his earnings. And if there was an understatement, he would have amended it by now. Amended returns are pretty routine here in the US.
Did someone actually sat that determining wealth was the point of seeing the tax returns? There have been allegations of tax fraud, and not just from Cohen. Paper losses that likely would not hold up and other tricks. Questions have been raised about some of the sources of income. If there are no issues, why not just hand them over?
Yes, you and PB have got it. I don’t think anyone is much interested in how much money he has got. It’s about where it comes from and goes too, and evidence of tax evasion, and shady dealings especially with foreign figures who pose a threat to the US.
Tax returns are probably the most telling test of a person’s character that we have in modern life. IMO Trump is fundamentally corrupt, and it seems vanishingly unlikely to me that his tax returns are squeaky clean, or even passably clean. I suspect that when his tax returns finally surface - as surely they must, eventually - it will accelerate the decline of Trump that has already started. What might make this happen? Perhaps multiple actions like this, perhaps?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-jersey-ballot-tax-returns/
-
There could be no more fitting end than for Donald to go down for campaign finance violations over hiring a straw man to purchase a painting of himself with charity funds in an effort to appear desirable (and then keeping the painting). You really could not write this stuff.
If those stories are true, and I suspect that they are, let the chips fall where they may.
-
I'm in the position of finding both Hillary Clinton and Donal Trump entirely unfit for office--any office, but certainly not President of the United States.
Most of the time I vote, the only reason I don't hold my nose is that I need my sense of smell to help me find the least objectionable turd. The two party system sucks, but I won't throw my vote away in protest or the steamer that made my eyes water might get elected. So I voted for Clinton and then went home and took a shower.
-
The most disturbing thing I see in this entire discussion thread is the poll at the top of the page where it shows there are still people who support Trump. I understand it is a very small sample size, but if this is any kind of reflection of the population at large then I’m just at a loss to understand. After everything Trump has done, it just astounds me that he would have any support at all.
His apparent lack of political-polish has rendered him possibly the most transparent US president ever; for many that translates into trust.
If you had said, "After everything that Trump has said or tweeted, I could see where you may have a point, but "done"? What governmental thing has he done that negatively effected you in a personal way?
This is I'm pretty sure why you are surprised by Trump's support, it's that his supporters can separate what he says or tweets, from the things he accomplishes. I don't think anybody, if they support him or not, are happy with most of his tweets or his thin skin, that he demonstrates with some of the things he says. He doesn't have to express his feeling about everything, most things he should just let slide, but then again he's not a politician.
So maybe that's the root of the dislike, he's not a politician, and he's definitely not politically correct.
he's accomplished deficits that all americans are responsible to pay for--a result of his tax handout to the wealthy
he's killed residential real estate throughout the country, especially in blue states--specific impact of tax handout
that's just off the top of my head
what good has he accomplished? for any but the very wealthy, who may wonder if the free $$ was worth it.....
he did beautifully in vietnam this week--i mean are you kidding?
list some credible "accomplishments"---his failings and continual lying to any who'll listen are so innumerable.....
gimme something real and really good that has actually resulted from policy he implemented....
Well, here I am, back to this thread, you ask for something real, I could make a list for you, it would be very easy, but I'm sure it would be met with "pfffft", you seem to be very dug in, so I will do something different.
Here is a link for you or anyone else who is willing, and brave enough, to poke their head outside of the liberal mainstream media bubble, long enough to have a look around.
https://www.walkawaycampaign.com/testimonials
So at the request of this straight, libertarian/conservative, click on some of these testimonials, and read them, it will give you a better understanding of the thought processes behind people like myself.
-
What on earth is that Walk Away drivel? It just looks a complete work of fiction to me. Can we please have some verifiable facts?
-
Well, here I am, back to this thread, you ask for something real, I could make a list for you, it would be very easy, but I'm sure it would be met with "pfffft", you seem to be very dug in, so I will do something different.
Here is a link for you or anyone else who is willing, and brave enough, to poke their head outside of the liberal mainstream media bubble, long enough to have a look around.
https://www.walkawaycampaign.com/testimonials
So at the request of this straight, libertarian/conservative, click on some of these testimonials, and read them, it will give you a better understanding of the thought processes behind people like myself.
A list would have substance; the testimonials I read have little or none. Some Hillary hate and some surprise at how seriously some of us take what is happening to our country under Trump. I didn't see anyone explaining what policies of Trump's attracted them.
-
Hmmm....assuming you were for Hillary, what policies of hers did you like?
(or Bernie's?)
-
whaaah???
this is what youre offering to describe specific programs that Trump put in place that have caused the "records in every category" jobs and pay gains that you claim to be fact?
youve linked a bunch of stories by gays who identify as republicans, who explain how hard it is for them to be appreciated by their fellow gays and others who dont accept anti-gay politics---i am sure it is tough for gays who embrace anti gay politics, to be welcomed by gays who dont support anti-gay politics---
i feel terribly for gays who embrace anti-gay politics, but what of all these "records in every category" job gains---got anything real on that?? or was that just a throwaway?
pence is anything but a decent guy................
-
Actually, I think it's a pretty interesting site. I'd like to see a site that goes the other way as well and compare. I don't really have anything to walk away from, I've always been politically conservative, always been a Republican. My thoughts about politics in the USA get modified constantly. I've been called wishy-washy, but not by anyone who actually knows me--I simply don't assume I'm right. I think the beliefs of the far left are idiotic and ignore history and the fundamental self-interest that humans all have. I don't think there has ever been a socialist state, just socialist revolutions that created a power vacuum that the meanest and best-prepared people rapidly fill. At the same time, it's hard for me to recognize the Republican party these days. Conservatism isn't supposed to be lightweight fascism with a double dose of mean. And it certainly doesn't have room for religious fanaticism.
The thing we all share in the USA is a belief that freedom and equality under the law are critical components of our republic. And that the constitution that spells out the nature of that freedom and equal treatment must be upheld.
I also understand that dealing with what are probably the biggest existential threats to humanity requires global responses, and that equates to leftist policy to most Republicans. It's why the Republican party can't afford to acknowledge the threats at all. It's why they focus on nonsensical issues like immigration, That certain blindness carries over to things like rambling on about Hillary and Bernie--neither of whom are in positions of significant power. It's simply a distraction. Most of the walkaway testimonies I read relate an incident that caused them to become disaffected with the democratic party. I couldn't help but wonder why they don't have similar moments watching the behavior of Republican leadership. I certainly do.
-
here're a couple:
Bernie was one of the few to vote against the w bush war in iraq, a war few consider other than a deadly tragic blunder......
Hillary was known to be a highly effective senator, earning kudos on both sides of the aisle for her ability to get things done........
stuff like sanctioning the crap out of Iran, collapsing their economy, and bringing them to the table to sign the nuclear arms deal that Trump tore up--a deal all of our allies have continually honored and call a good deal to this day--a deal they are glad to have in place--where all trump has said to explain is that "it's the worst deal ever". well, if keeping nukes out of iranian hands for 10 years, where they were en rte to being armed, is a bad deal, what's the better deal?--and, no, nuking iran is not a valid choice--anyway iran is still complying, and our allies are good with the deal--so, much as trump tore the deal up, it is still, effectively, in force--a good thing
hillary was sec of state who presided over our killing of OBL--contrast with the bushies who ignored bora bora, and invaded iraq, which had nil to do with 9/11
woops---most of the 9/11 terrorists came from saudi arabia---a country the repubs carry a whole lortta water for these days---like no problemo mano--aok to torture murder a journalist!! those are exactly the values we want to propagate throughout the world!! makes an american proud!
-
Hmmm....assuming you were for Hillary, what policies of hers did you like?
(or Bernie's?)
I am closer to Bernie on policy, especially with respect to taxing corporations and high earners. I also support the idea of Medicare for All the way he first proposed it - lowering the qualifying age in steps while filling in the gaps in coverage.
I don't think people should have to start their careers deep in debt to get an education.
I support keeping the planet habitable for future generations. I support a woman's right to choice. I think the military budget is ridiculous and needs to be trimmed back. I think that serving in the military should be open to all. I think that racism, xenophobia, homophobia and misogyny have no place in government.
I think that the senate controlling the judiciary by withholding appointment power from one administration to provide it to another is violating the spirit of the constitution's checks and balances; a President abusing executive powers to work around both other branches is also trampling on the constitution.
I am strongly against gerrymandering. I live in a state where the GOP won 10 of 13 seats with 50.3% of the vote. That's not democracy as the forefathers intended.
I am against policies that purport to protect us from an insignificant risk at the polls by means that have been proven to reduce the number of minority voters that turn out. I am against limiting voting locations and days/hours (early voting) to blatantly reduce the number of working poor who are able to vote.
I want big money out of politics. I think Citizens United should be overturned.
If you support Trump, you are supporting someone in opposition to me on every single point. I see that as an immoral choice not because you disagree with me but because some of these are basic values. Trump is morally bankrupt. That's why I have a hard time accepting it when family and others I know well support Trump.
-
Hmmm....assuming you were for Hillary, what policies of hers did you like?
(or Bernie's?)
I am closer to Bernie on policy, especially with respect to taxing corporations and high earners. I also support the idea of Medicare for All the way he first proposed it - lowering the qualifying age in steps while filling in the gaps in coverage.
I don't think people should have to start their careers deep in debt to get an education.
I support keeping the planet habitable for future generations. I support a woman's right to choice. I think the military budget is ridiculous and needs to be trimmed back. I think that serving in the military should be open to all. I think that racism, xenophobia, homophobia and misogyny have no place in government.
I think that the senate controlling the judiciary by withholding appointment power from one administration to provide it to another is violating the spirit of the constitution's checks and balances; a President abusing executive powers to work around both other branches is also trampling on the constitution.
I am strongly against gerrymandering. I live in a state where the GOP won 10 of 13 seats with 50.3% of the vote. That's not democracy as the forefathers intended.
I am against policies that purport to protect us from an insignificant risk at the polls by means that have been proven to reduce the number of minority voters that turn out. I am against limiting voting locations and days/hours (early voting) to blatantly reduce the number of working poor who are able to vote.
I want big money out of politics. I think Citizens United should be overturned.
If you support Trump, you are supporting someone in opposition to me on every single point. I see that as an immoral choice not because you disagree with me but because some of these are basic values. Trump is morally bankrupt. That's why I have a hard time accepting it when family and others I know well support Trump.
Beautifully put.
-
Hmmm....assuming you were for Hillary, what policies of hers did you like?
(or Bernie's?)
I am closer to Bernie on policy, especially with respect to taxing corporations and high earners. I also support the idea of Medicare for All the way he first proposed it - lowering the qualifying age in steps while filling in the gaps in coverage.
I don't think people should have to start their careers deep in debt to get an education.
I support keeping the planet habitable for future generations. I support a woman's right to choice. I think the military budget is ridiculous and needs to be trimmed back. I think that serving in the military should be open to all. I think that racism, xenophobia, homophobia and misogyny have no place in government.
I think that the senate controlling the judiciary by withholding appointment power from one administration to provide it to another is violating the spirit of the constitution's checks and balances; a President abusing executive powers to work around both other branches is also trampling on the constitution.
I am strongly against gerrymandering. I live in a state where the GOP won 10 of 13 seats with 50.3% of the vote. That's not democracy as the forefathers intended.
I am against policies that purport to protect us from an insignificant risk at the polls by means that have been proven to reduce the number of minority voters that turn out. I am against limiting voting locations and days/hours (early voting) to blatantly reduce the number of working poor who are able to vote.
I want big money out of politics. I think Citizens United should be overturned.
If you support Trump, you are supporting someone in opposition to me on every single point. I see that as an immoral choice not because you disagree with me but because some of these are basic values. Trump is morally bankrupt. That's why I have a hard time accepting it when family and others I know well support Trump.
Wow! RideTheGlide. One of the best summaries I’ve seen on why someone is opposed to Trump. Well said.
-
Wow! RideTheGlide. One of the best summaries I’ve seen on why someone is opposed to Trump. Well said.
Thanks. My dislike for Trump and loss of respect for his supporters isn't just a knee jerk reaction. That wasn't even the whole list, just some of the more objectionable points. His bromances with brutal dictators turns my stomach also, but that's not really a policy position. He is completely out of his depth when it comes to the actual work of governing, which is an opinion and also not a policy position. If I lead with those, I am just another Trump basher. I am a Trump basher, but my distaste for his brand of politics is not baseless.
-
RTG.... It’s time to put on your big boy pants and fight for what you believe in. I suggest you dedicate the next year going for your dreams in every way possible.. Quit your job, sell your house, delete your bank accounts, whatever it takes. Trump must go. “Morally Bankrupt” Trump is Trash..... I am actually starting my 2020 Trump Victory Party list. We thought last time was fun but this time ......
-
RTG.... It’s time to put on your big boy pants and fight for what you believe in. I suggest you dedicate the next year going for your dreams in every way possible.. Quit your job, sell your house, delete your bank accounts, whatever it takes. Trump must go. “Morally Bankrupt” Trump is Trash..... I am actually starting my 2020 Trump Victory Party list. We thought last time was fun but this time ......
That seems more like a knee jerk response. What is it about his positions or person that wins your support? Are you against everything on the list of positions that are important to me? What is it that is important to you? If you want to be taken seriously be serious. If you want to reinforce a common perception of Trump supporters, carry on.
-
Hi RTG... Here’s my take on what you want. Tax the Rich. They got that way because they are SMART. They will just take it someplace else. Free Health Care. Way to expensive. You know that. Free College Tuition. Good luck with that. Green New Deal. You’re kidding right? Aborationafter birth. Kind of sick really. Let’s have a crappy army. Really. You’re even dumber than you look. Trans in Seals Unit. LOL, Trumps Supreme Court Judges. Too fucking bad. Life is hard. Trump using EO for wall. Elections have consequences..No voter I D. That’s just bull shit and you know it..In Calif. they call it motor voter. Your Right. I hate everything you want. I’am still looking forward to my 2020 election night party. Your ideas really suck.
-
Rider you’re really a liberal troll right? Please tell me I’m right...
-
Great list Rider. One little tweak--Chris Beck, Seal team six. Now Kristine. You might find her kind of cute.
-
either a troll, or he illuminated very well the superior clarity and expression, at least, of RTG's thinking
i havent much data on rtg's looks, but to call him "dumber than you look" sums up your pov neatly
the "hate" you have is more the message--and it's key to the spewing of bogus right wing talking points
great work if youre a demo troll!!
you dont hate me do you, rider?? tough luck--hate on--im every bit (and likely more) the american than you, and i aint going nowhere.....get used to it: most americans simply arent like you--youre starting to hate the majority of americans--where's your patriotism??
i am pretty damned rich---i am a little bit smart, i work very hard, but i am beyond lucky:
born male straight white in the USA to educated parents of means at least sufficient to insure i got a damned good education to take to the workplace--me? i am a small piece of what has been largely a lucky sperm club layup
and i pay lots of taxes--and ive never taken a dime from anyone, that i didnt earn, from the day i began in the workforce--but i am a lucky SOB, and id be a fool to forget that!
-
Rider’s response above is worrisome in so many ways. It typifies what I’m sure many feel is who the Trump supporter is and the level of intelligence they possess. It is also concerning that this is the type of individual that Trump has emboldened with his rhetoric. Trump has made it O.K. to think like this. But maybe most concerning of all, is that Rider may indeed be correct, in that he may well be partying on election night celebrating a Trump victory. Look at the poll at the top of this thread. Trump now has over 50% of the support.
-
Hi Quick....You have quite the quiver of boards and paddles. That’s just so special.
-
Yea, whats up with that "Quick", what are you, like into stand up paddling or something, huh? ;D ;D ;D
-
ONE SUP Evo 12’ 6” x 24”
Infinity Whiplash 12' 6" x 24 1/2"
ONE SUP Evo 12’ 6” x 26”
Bark Competitor 12’ 6” x 29”
Red Paddle Explorer (Inflatable) 13' 2" x 30
Red Paddle Race (Inflatable) 12’ 6” x 30”
ZRE Power Surge ZX4, Kevlar braided shaft (75”)
ZRE Power Surge Adjustable (75”)
Werner Trance
Ok, I'm betting you aren't promoting a Stand Up Paddle & Paddle Board tax?
8)
-
I will defend one of my points, just to illustrate that I do actually put some thought into it. I don't support universal health care only out of concern for those less fortunate. That is a primary reason for my support but I will set it aside as I know that not everyone wants to look out for everyone else.
I will surprise a few of you by agreeing that is possible for free market health insurance to be more affordable than universal care.
Take a look at this chart:
(https://itdoesnotaddup.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/capture13.png)
I got it from a conservative blog post that seem to be pretty well informed, but I think there is a fatal flaw in their conclusion.
https://itdoesnotaddup.com/2014/10/16/how-do-we-establish-a-free-market-healthcare-system-in-the-u-s/
In that chart, blue is universal care and red is free market. As you can see, most of the major industrialized countries have gone to a universal model. But the other 2 countries that still have free market health insurance are 2 of the lowest 3 by cost. They let private companies participate but use exchanges with subsidies and regulate the crap out of insurance and health providers. IMO, it isn't realistic for us to get there fighting the private insurance companies, their lobbyists and the congress members they buy tooth and nail all the way. If we don't cut the cancer out in one operation, we won't get rid of it. This is the fatal flaw I referred to earlier. What's being proposed might work but you can't get there from here. A solution isn't practical if implementation isn't practical.
-
Hi RTG... Here’s my take on what you want. Tax the Rich. They got that way because they are SMART. They will just take it someplace else. Free Health Care. Way to expensive. You know that. Free College Tuition. Good luck with that. Green New Deal. You’re kidding right? Aborationafter birth. Kind of sick really. Let’s have a crappy army. Really. You’re even dumber than you look. Trans in Seals Unit. LOL, Trumps Supreme Court Judges. Too fucking bad. Life is hard. Trump using EO for wall. Elections have consequences..No voter I D. That’s just bull shit and you know it..In Calif. they call it motor voter. Your Right. I hate everything you want. I’am still looking forward to my 2020 election night party. Your ideas really suck.
This is hilarious. But what is “Aborationafter birth”?
If this is a genuine post rather than a spoof, Rider should join company with the UK “hard Brexiteers” (who want to leave the EU without a deal, which would plunge both the UK economy and perhaps the broader EU and world economy into crisis). They would find a lot in common in values, rationale and style of discourse. Both Rider and his mates and the hard Brexiteers are destroying their country without even knowing it. It is spectacularly unpatriotic of them to hurt their countries so much. But presumably Trump has looked at Putin’s approval ratings (64.8%) and concluded that emulating him is the way to go. Maybe the whole situation is as simple as that. Putin used chemical weapons on the streets of the UK and laughed about it, and his approval ratings (in Russia) actually went up as a consequence. I wonder when Putin will use chemical weapons in the US?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-47414326
Maybe this is why we in Europe are more worried by Trump’s admiration of Putin (and similar dictators) than people like Rider are.
-
dont think trump's random tariff and trade war hasnt affect the sup industry, and the economy as a whole:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-04/evidence-grows-that-trump-s-trade-wars-are-hitting-u-s-economy
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/trump-china-tariffs-trade-deal.html
and something else: i train occasionally at a krav maga school nearby my house
(yes, i keep to myself the fact that i pledge no allegiance to the state of Israel--strictly keep that kinda stuff for the US of A--and i have none and expect no allegiance to Ireland or Scotland, where my roots are, and check into the "troubles" and potato famines for more context, etc--but hey, for all i know the school is likely stocked with haaretz readers--after all it's in Brooklyn)
i digress, but at the school, there is a m to f trans person who is a fixture there, who could easily spray 4 of us down with some serious whuppass--ok maybe not 4 stoney's!!
speaking of whuppass, krav maga is a very efficient way to get one's defense skills up to good speed, and it's a fun fitness routine--lotta stuff like sticky hands in wing chun kung fu (a killer variant, designed originally for women--ill spare you deets)--another art ive messed around with--i have a friend who's become accomplished at krav maga, who spks highly of it, so when they opened a storefront on my block, i checked in--i do it mostly cuz it's a good mixin with the rest of my workout routine
-
rtg--that chart would mean more to me with some sort of overlay with quality of care, mortality of care, etc, data points
like who pays what, for what quality of care
our bang for the buck has been awful, compared to other developed countries
-
Interesting thread. The poll at the top is not really surprising to me. Human nature never really changes. Most people look out for #1 and their family first. Whether the change in economy is conservative policy, or momentum from "Cash for Clunkers", it doesn't matter - if folks have money and freedom they are happy. It would not surprise me to see Trump run away and hide with it in 2020.
Trump is so ubiquitous that I feel like people are getting used to the "Trump stuff". The guy is some cross between a junk yard dog who eats out of the trash and the honey badger. He can just say anything with no apologies and cares nothing for the outfall. The D's can try and tut-tut and schoolmarm but it will bounce off of Teflon Don. If they are smart they would identify policy and just ignore Trump, unfortunately, he has made himself impossible to ignore.
As for myself. I have to vote based on political philosophy. I'm pretty much a small government liberal (libertarian), and the current D party is progressive at any cost. They don't get my votes except for on local elections.
-
I will defend one of my points, just to illustrate that I do actually put some thought into it. I don't support universal health care only out of concern for those less fortunate. That is a primary reason for my support but I will set it aside as I know that not everyone wants to look out for everyone else.
I will surprise a few of you by agreeing that is possible for free market health insurance to be more affordable than universal care.
Take a look at this chart:
(https://itdoesnotaddup.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/capture13.png)
I got it from a conservative blog post that seem to be pretty well informed, but I think there is a fatal flaw in their conclusion.
https://itdoesnotaddup.com/2014/10/16/how-do-we-establish-a-free-market-healthcare-system-in-the-u-s/
In that chart, blue is universal care and red is free market. As you can see, most of the major industrialized countries have gone to a universal model. But the other 2 countries that still have free market health insurance are 2 of the lowest 3 by cost. They let private companies participate but use exchanges with subsidies and regulate the crap out of insurance and health providers. IMO, it isn't realistic for us to get there fighting the private insurance companies, their lobbyists and the congress members they buy tooth and nail all the way. If we don't cut the cancer out in one operation, we won't get rid of it. This is the fatal flaw I referred to earlier. What's being proposed might work but you can't get there from here. A solution isn't practical if implementation isn't practical.
Ok, why is the cost (actually the price) of the USA's "market-based" healthcare system so much higher
than Singapore's and Switzerland's?
(I note the chart is from 2012, so the USA's price is a lot higher now after Obamacare)
-
ha!
that's funny
so high US healthcare costs are because of obamacare--link me something credible
repubs gutted obamacare before it even got out of the starting blox
-
Your healthcare is so expensive substantially because (a) the job of business is to maximise profit, not to give value for money; (b) your litigation culture, and (c) you get charged for a load of procedures and investigations that you wouldn’t be given in other countries (because they probably don’t affect outcome much).
-
Let’s just focus on the US vs Norway for a second. Ok, thanks.
-
Healthcare in the states is a business instead of a human right.
And with the triad of doctor-hospital-pharma and underlying insurance companies powerfully lobbying to keep the status quo.....
-
Let’s just focus on the US vs Norway for a second. Ok, thanks.
I think we could learn more from the vast majority that do it better than us than from the two that do it worse.
-
ha!
that's funny
so high US healthcare costs are because of obamacare--link me something credible
repubs gutted obamacare before it even got out of the starting blox
Healthcare costs have been on a pretty steady rise since the 90s and the compromised version ACA didn't have much impact on the trajectory.
-
Healthcare in the states is a business instead of a human right.
And with the triad of doctor-hospital-pharma and underlying insurance companies powerfully lobbying to keep the status quo.....
I think you are correct.
I think it may be "market driven" but it is hardly "free market."
There are lots of government-granted monopoly powers and subsidies, etc.
that have driven the Price of our healthcare up and up and up. (Of course, insurance is
up because the underlying Price is up). Breaking the stranglehold would probably
be very difficult. On top of that I think there are socialistic transfer payments.
I'd really like to know if those are the primary reason why "market driven"
Singapore and Switzerland's systems have Prices that are so much lower
than ours.
-
Hey Guys, I want to say something and I know this group can hear it. Can we move past all you have to is "earn it"? Talldude, I am guessing you are a white, straight male. And I know you are a badass from pictures and your writing and there is no doubt you worked very hard and your daughter too. You did not compete on an even playing field period! You were highly advantaged even if you started at zero and you were way ahead of ALL women, people of color and gays and god forbid some combination.
My father was at the beginning of his sophomore of college at Lehigh(all male) when his dad at 39 dropped dead of heart attack. My grandfather was a GE salesman with no college education and did not leave much. Lehigh said my dad had to hit a certain grade point and they waived the tuition for 3 years. His two younger sisters were not so lucky. He thinks he is far superior to them. Hmmm. Just illustrating a point.
People need to work hard. Word up. I fear Pono's numbers about healthcare and it is hard to see a solution. My mom and I were just talking about when I was kid and she was a kid we just paid for all healthcare except cancer and car crashes. You need some disposable income to live in that environment. We need better wealth distribution. Nothing in my comments or anybody else's comments are talking about giving away shit for free. Although giving away money to those with nothing has proven over and over again to be cheaper and better for the economy than creating infrastructure that gets bogged down in stasis, politics and corruption but that is a discussion for another time.
Thank you. The playing field is nowhere close to level.
-
The change in opinion on the right in regards to Russia has been one of the most engaging elements of this spectacle. It has been borderline comical to watch them flip out at the mention of extremists such as Sanders, Warren, Cortez, etc. while their boss is publicly idolizing Putin (over American intelligence). It is reassuring to hear some old school republicans who have found this to be out of bounds. That group has pulled away from Trump and will likely be the deciding factor in the next election...if we get that far.
(https://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/07/20/72a18fde-d3ce-461e-a950-fe3d0ea44486/thumbnail/620x288/398080c4f92c186cb744324bcdda187d/republican-change.png)
-
Let’s just focus on the US vs Norway for a second. Ok, thanks.
So we can figure out how to beat them?
Rider is probably right about one thing, absent impeachment (which I think is next to impossible, he could strangle a baby on national TV and his followers would say the baby had it coming) I think Trump is a shoo-in for a second term, not because he is in any way suitable for the job, but because the Democrats are already working hard on tossing the election. The Dems are scaring the crap out of everyone with unbridled far left daydreams, Nancy Pelosi is off being Nancy Pelosi, and the slate of democratic hopefuls looks like a great way to divide up the electorate and leave them at home. The gang that can't shoot straight. Seriously, look at that poll--the front runners of the flock and not a rational centrist among them.
I'd never vote for Trump, but I might have to vote for Pat Paulson. Is he still alive?
-
The change in opinion on the right in regards to Russia has been one of the most engaging elements of this spectacle. It has been borderline comical to watch them flip out at the mention of extremists such as Sanders, Warren, Cortez, etc. while their boss is publicly idolizing Putin (over American intelligence). It is reassuring to hear some old school republicans who have found this to be out of bounds. That group has pulled away from Trump and will likely be the deciding factor in the next election...if we get that far.
(https://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/07/20/72a18fde-d3ce-461e-a950-fe3d0ea44486/thumbnail/620x288/398080c4f92c186cb744324bcdda187d/republican-change.png)
I'm sorry, WHAT? Did you misread that graph?
-
Earth to A10 & RTG. Nobody gives a fuck what you think. That is all.....
FYI, a lot of people on this forum DO care about what Area10 and ridetheglide think.
-
weasel, no upset here--just a discussion. hang in there. youre entitled to your pov.
frankly, Trump's claims of, and claims to have caused, job growth and pay gains, are very much in dispute, if not totally debunked.
so your presentation of such as fact is questionable.
but let's assume youre correct in those claims, what specific programs that Trump put it place have caused the "records in every category" jobs and pay gains that you claim to be fact?
serve em up!
I haven’t noticed any pay gains for the lower class or working poor. Pay gains have happened in liberal cities where the minimum wage has been raised in order to MAYBE keep people off the streets and MAYBE get ahead.
Whose pay has increased because of trump? Perhaps those who didn’t really need a pay raise in the first place?
-
The change in opinion on the right in regards to Russia has been one of the most engaging elements of this spectacle. It has been borderline comical to watch them flip out at the mention of extremists such as Sanders, Warren, Cortez, etc. while their boss is publicly idolizing Putin (over American intelligence). It is reassuring to hear some old school republicans who have found this to be out of bounds. That group has pulled away from Trump and will likely be the deciding factor in the next election...if we get that far.
(https://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/07/20/72a18fde-d3ce-461e-a950-fe3d0ea44486/thumbnail/620x288/398080c4f92c186cb744324bcdda187d/republican-change.png)
I'm sorry, WHAT? Did you misread that graph?
Well, I guess that depends on if you think I meant what I actually meant. :)
In 2015 only 32 % of republicans viewed Russia as friendly or an ally. Now that number is 59%.
In 2015 62 % of Republicans viewed Russia as an enemy. Now that number is 36%.
So, either Russia has become a lot friendlier or the sheep have moved pastures (or more fitting to this thread, they are now bandying their balls about on a different court).
-
Hmmm....assuming you were for Hillary, what policies of hers did you like?
(or Bernie's?)
I am closer to Bernie on policy, especially with respect to taxing corporations and high earners. I also support the idea of Medicare for All the way he first proposed it - lowering the qualifying age in steps while filling in the gaps in coverage.
I don't think people should have to start their careers deep in debt to get an education.
I support keeping the planet habitable for future generations. I support a woman's right to choice. I think the military budget is ridiculous and needs to be trimmed back. I think that serving in the military should be open to all. I think that racism, xenophobia, homophobia and misogyny have no place in government.
I think that the senate controlling the judiciary by withholding appointment power from one administration to provide it to another is violating the spirit of the constitution's checks and balances; a President abusing executive powers to work around both other branches is also trampling on the constitution.
I am strongly against gerrymandering. I live in a state where the GOP won 10 of 13 seats with 50.3% of the vote. That's not democracy as the forefathers intended.
I am against policies that purport to protect us from an insignificant risk at the polls by means that have been proven to reduce the number of minority voters that turn out. I am against limiting voting locations and days/hours (early voting) to blatantly reduce the number of working poor who are able to vote.
I want big money out of politics. I think Citizens United should be overturned.
If you support Trump, you are supporting someone in opposition to me on every single point. I see that as an immoral choice not because you disagree with me but because some of these are basic values. Trump is morally bankrupt. That's why I have a hard time accepting it when family and others I know well support Trump.
You’ve said it well.
-
I guess the reassuring part threw me.
-
I meant only that is reassuring to hear some old school republicans who have found this to be out of bounds. At least a few (hopefully enough) understand what Russia is, what Putin is, and believe that our intelligence agencies have this right. Could you have imagined a time when the republican party would be deriding our intelligence agencies for the likes of Putin and Love Affair Un? I can understand skepticism and criticism of Socialism (Democratic or otherwise) but given the choice I will go Scandinavian before Russian or North Korean.
-
Let’s just focus on the US vs Norway for a second. Ok, thanks.
So we can figure out how to beat them?
Rider is probably right about one thing, absent impeachment (which I think is next to impossible, he could strangle a baby on national TV and his followers would say the baby had it coming) I think Trump is a shoo-in for a second term, not because he is in any way suitable for the job, but because the Democrats are already working hard on tossing the election. The Dems are scaring the crap out of everyone with unbridled far left daydreams, Nancy Pelosi is off being Nancy Pelosi, and the slate of democratic hopefuls looks like a great way to divide up the electorate and leave them at home. The gang that can't shoot straight. Seriously, look at that poll--the front runners of the flock and not a rational centrist among them.
I'd never vote for Trump, but I might have to vote for Pat Paulson. Is he still alive?
You mean Pat Paulsen? I think he's still dead...
Ross Perot is still available, but what is he without Adm Stockdale...
And no, we can't beat the Norwegians on a per catpita cost basis. Thats my point, you might never think that based upon that chart.
-
Healthcare in the states is a business instead of a human right.
And with the triad of doctor-hospital-pharma and underlying insurance companies powerfully lobbying to keep the status quo.....
As you say healthcare is a business not a right in the US, I agree, and I am very interested in how it works in other countries. Does "healthcare as a right" mean that you have a right to a Doctor's labor? I.e. I go to school and become a doctor, and now if you are hurt or sick you can demand my time as your right? If I say no, I am forced to operate at government gunpoint?
It is really weird to think about from my perspective (a lifelong small business guy). The thought of someone demanding my product as a right confuses me.
-
Healthcare in the states is a business instead of a human right.
And with the triad of doctor-hospital-pharma and underlying insurance companies powerfully lobbying to keep the status quo.....
As you say healthcare is a business not a right in the US, I agree, and I am very interested in how it works in other countries. Does "healthcare as a right" mean that you have a right to a Doctor's labor? I.e. I go to school and become a doctor, and now if you are hurt or sick you can demand my time as your right? If I say no, I am forced to operate at government gunpoint?
It is really weird to think about from my perspective (a lifelong small business guy). The thought of someone demanding my product as a right confuses me.
It’s quite simple. In the UK, if you get ill you make an appointment with a General Practioner doctor (a GP). The doctor sees you, and either refers you on to a specialist or eg. gives you a prescription. You take the prescription to the pharmacy and then pay a small amount for it to be filled, or if you can’t afford it, you can get it for free or a reduced rate.
If your illness is more serious you just go straight to your nearest hospital. They will then treat you, no matter who you are, and no matter how serious the illness is. Or you can call 999 (the same as your 911) and an ambulance will take you to hospital if you are too ill to get there yourself.
At no point does money change hands between you and the doctors or hospitals etc, and you will not be billed for your treatment no matter how expensive it was. NO BILLS. This is paid for through general taxation. The UK public believes that free healthcare at the point of delivery is one of this country’s greatest achievements. We do bellyache about taxes, of course, but rarely does anyone question money being spent on healthcare, even if we use it far less than others.
We also have free social services. So, if you get ill and can’t work, you will not end up on the streets. If necessary, you will be housed free of charge.
Yes, some people do abuse the system. But these numbers are surprisingly small, and we think of it as the price you pay to live in a country where you know that the government will look after you if the worst happens to you in life. We do not see our government and their services as the enemy (as you often seem to), but there to look after us.
We would not accost doctors in the way you suggest. They would have the right to refuse you. But since you could just go to your GP or the hospital anyway, why would you? Your GP or hospital will not turn you away.
Our healthcare system is quite a lot cheaper than yours per capita, I think. Imagine never having to worry about healthcare costs ever again, and paying LESS than you currently do in order to have that privilege. That’s why we think your system is nuts.
-
Healthcare in the states is a business instead of a human right.
And with the triad of doctor-hospital-pharma and underlying insurance companies powerfully lobbying to keep the status quo.....
As you say healthcare is a business not a right in the US, I agree, and I am very interested in how it works in other countries. Does "healthcare as a right" mean that you have a right to a Doctor's labor? I.e. I go to school and become a doctor, and now if you are hurt or sick you can demand my time as your right? If I say no, I am forced to operate at government gunpoint?
It is really weird to think about from my perspective (a lifelong small business guy). The thought of someone demanding my product as a right confuses me.
I’ve never heard of that before. But it’s interesting the things we learn on this forum. I could never have imagined that would be an argument against what we in Canada call “universal health care”, but coming from your perspective, and the way you put it, I can see your concern.
But no, it does not work like that. What universal health care means, is that we all have equal access to health care, at least in principle. It does not mean that we can go and tell a doctor on his day off that he needs to treat us now.
I say we all have equal access to health care “in principle” because it doesn’t always work that way. As an example, where the ordinary person might have a waiting period to get an MRI, professional athletes can get them right away. We are also starting to see privatized, for profit medicine creep into our system, which I believe is to the system’s detriment. I personally am not one to believe that the Government needs to be the only provider of health care. But what I don’t want to see is privatized, for profit care in our system, and we are seeing some of that. As an example, if you want to pay, you can now get private MRI’s done, etc.
So our system is not perfect. I’m not sure any system is. But from what I’ve seen, I would take our system over that in the U.S.
The one stark reminder I always have is regarding retirement. I’ve seen a few retirement threads on the Zone over the years and inevitably there are posts from some who need to delay their retirement because of health care costs. Not because of health care concerns, but because of the cost of getting health care coverage. That is something that is foreign to us. When I retired I was in good health, but irrespective of this, the cost of health care didn’t enter into my thinking. Just wasn’t the slightest concern.
-
i operated a business in toronto for a few years--staffed with bank trading executives--when i asked re benefits, they looked puzzled--they all, incl the guy who got prostate cancer during my time there, had no beef with the canadian health care system---and these were pretty well-educated, well-off folk--they could have afforded to supplement canadian "universal health care"---so there's my anecdotal
somehow canada, uk, and most other developed countries can afford to provide universal care for all, rich and poor---but here the repubs call it a laughable far-left liberal fantasy that we can never afford
oh wait college is free in the uk too--somehow they can afford that liberal moron fantasy too--where we saddle our kids with debt before they even enter the workforce
somehow these wacko liberal fantasies get paid for elsewhere-and in most cases data says the health care in these places is superior too!--and most of these countries do it without the massive deficits weve arranged with tax cuts for the wealthy and a moronic war in iraq--but deficits dont matter (unless repubs are trying to cut stuff we cant afford--like food stamps--UE insurance--free health care for poor lazy children--tax and spend liberal stuff like that).
-
i operated a business in toronto for a few years--staffed with bank trading executives--when i asked re benefits, they looked puzzled--they all, incl the guy who got prostate cancer during my time there, had no beef with the canadian health care system---and these were pretty well-educated, well-off folk--they could have afforded to supplement canadian "universal health care"---so there's my anecdotal
somehow canada, uk, and most other developed countries can afford to provide universal care for all, rich and poor---but here the repubs call it a laughable far-left liberal fantasy that we can never afford
oh wait college is free in the uk too--somehow they can afford that liberal moron fantasy too--where we saddle our kids with debt before they even enter the workforce
somehow these wacko liberal fantasies get paid for elsewhere-and in most cases data says the health care in these places is superior too!--and most of these countries do it without the massive deficits weve arranged with tax cuts for the wealthy and a moronic war in iraq--but deficits dont matter (unless repubs are trying to cut stuff we cant afford--like food stamps--UE insurance--free health care for poor lazy children--tax and spend liberal stuff like that).
I get accused of over simplifying when I make that same argument. Most of the industrialized world makes these things work. Are they really that much smarter than us? Lots of hand waving about how it can't work here, running numbers that still include exorbitant fees and ridiculous prescription mark ups. It is hard to fix our broken system if we only make adjustments out at the edges.
-
Imagine never having to worry about healthcare costs ever again, and paying LESS than you currently do in order to have that privilege.
A-10, that’s part of the disconnect. US families that have even the most mediocre medical insurance pay about $15,000 + annually and might also incur upwards to $5,000 in out of pocket deductibles. Approximately 10% of the population is uninsured, so who would be making up the difference? That average family will not be “paying less”.
-
Healthcare in the states is a business instead of a human right.
And with the triad of doctor-hospital-pharma and underlying insurance companies powerfully lobbying to keep the status quo.....
As you say healthcare is a business not a right in the US, I agree, and I am very interested in how it works in other countries. Does "healthcare as a right" mean that you have a right to a Doctor's labor? I.e. I go to school and become a doctor, and now if you are hurt or sick you can demand my time as your right? If I say no, I am forced to operate at government gunpoint?
It is really weird to think about from my perspective (a lifelong small business guy). The thought of someone demanding my product as a right confuses me.
I’ve never heard of that before. But it’s interesting the things we learn on this forum. I could never have imagined that would be an argument against what we in Canada call “universal health care”, but coming from your perspective, and the way you put it, I can see your concern.
But no, it does not work like that. What universal health care means, is that we all have equal access to health care, at least in principle. It does not mean that we can go and tell a doctor on his day off that he needs to treat us now.
I say we all have equal access to health care “in principle” because it doesn’t always work that way. As an example, where the ordinary person might have a waiting period to get an MRI, professional athletes can get them right away. We are also starting to see privatized, for profit medicine creep into our system, which I believe is to the system’s detriment. I personally am not one to believe that the Government needs to be the only provider of health care. But what I don’t want to see is privatized, for profit care in our system, and we are seeing some of that. As an example, if you want to pay, you can now get private MRI’s done, etc.
So our system is not perfect. I’m not sure any system is. But from what I’ve seen, I would take our system over that in the U.S.
The one stark reminder I always have is regarding retirement. I’ve seen a few retirement threads on the Zone over the years and inevitably there are posts from some who need to delay their retirement because of health care costs. Not because of health care concerns, but because of the cost of getting health care coverage. That is something that is foreign to us. When I retired I was in good health, but irrespective of this, the cost of health care didn’t enter into my thinking. Just wasn’t the slightest concern.
Not having to think about the cost of health care is so foreign to most of us in the US. Sounds good to me!
-
Healthcare in the states is a business instead of a human right.
And with the triad of doctor-hospital-pharma and underlying insurance companies powerfully lobbying to keep the status quo.....
As you say healthcare is a business not a right in the US, I agree, and I am very interested in how it works in other countries. Does "healthcare as a right" mean that you have a right to a Doctor's labor? I.e. I go to school and become a doctor, and now if you are hurt or sick you can demand my time as your right? If I say no, I am forced to operate at government gunpoint?
It is really weird to think about from my perspective (a lifelong small business guy). The thought of someone demanding my product as a right confuses me.
I’ve never heard of that before. But it’s interesting the things we learn on this forum. I could never have imagined that would be an argument against what we in Canada call “universal health care”, but coming from your perspective, and the way you put it, I can see your concern.
But no, it does not work like that. What universal health care means, is that we all have equal access to health care, at least in principle. It does not mean that we can go and tell a doctor on his day off that he needs to treat us now.
I say we all have equal access to health care “in principle” because it doesn’t always work that way. As an example, where the ordinary person might have a waiting period to get an MRI, professional athletes can get them right away. We are also starting to see privatized, for profit medicine creep into our system, which I believe is to the system’s detriment. I personally am not one to believe that the Government needs to be the only provider of health care. But what I don’t want to see is privatized, for profit care in our system, and we are seeing some of that. As an example, if you want to pay, you can now get private MRI’s done, etc.
So our system is not perfect. I’m not sure any system is. But from what I’ve seen, I would take our system over that in the U.S.
The one stark reminder I always have is regarding retirement. I’ve seen a few retirement threads on the Zone over the years and inevitably there are posts from some who need to delay their retirement because of health care costs. Not because of health care concerns, but because of the cost of getting health care coverage. That is something that is foreign to us. When I retired I was in good health, but irrespective of this, the cost of health care didn’t enter into my thinking. Just wasn’t the slightest concern.
Not having to think about the cost of health care is so foreign to most of us in the US. Sounds good to me!
Hi Spirit. Yes, it’s sad really. You live in one of the richest countries in the world, yet the cost of health care seems to be a major factor for many. Just seems to be a disconnect there.
-
Does "healthcare as a right" mean that you have a right to a Doctor's labor? I.e. I go to school and become a doctor, and now if you are hurt or sick you can demand my time as your right? If I say no, I am forced to operate at government gunpoint?
-
Imagine never having to worry about healthcare costs ever again, and paying LESS than you currently do in order to have that privilege.
A-10, that’s part of the disconnect. US families that have even the most mediocre medical insurance pay about $15,000 + annually and might also incur upwards to $5,000 in out of pocket deductibles. Approximately 10% of the population is uninsured, so who would be making up the difference? That average family will not be “paying less”.
Two big problems - how health care is paid for, filling the coffers of insurance companies and how much it costs, filling the coffers of big pharma, labs, for profit hospitals, insurance again because of litigation, etc. Too many fingers in too many pies between people and the medication and services they need. One of the biggest disconnects of all is ignoring that. Shuffling around who pays how much is only part of the solution and if you evaluate it alone then of course it doesn't solve the problem. That's not a valid reason to discard it instead of considering it as part of the overall solution.
-
Imagine never having to worry about healthcare costs ever again, and paying LESS than you currently do in order to have that privilege.
A-10, that’s part of the disconnect. US families that have even the most mediocre medical insurance pay about $15,000 + annually and might also incur upwards to $5,000 in out of pocket deductibles. Approximately 10% of the population is uninsured, so who would be making up the difference? That average family will not be “paying less”.
Yes they would/are. The average family in the UK pays nothing like that much money in taxes for their healthcare. Even when they are also paying through taxation for the healthcare of those who pay no taxes.
The difference is that the US healthcare system operates effectively to extract as much money from you as possible, instead of providing the most financially efficient service. In a healthcare system where people cannot make much money out of it, they don’t, and so large wads of money are not being siphoned out of the system at every turn. The money stays in the system.
This is not to say that the UK (for instance) healthcare system is efficient. It certainly is not. Procurement is a particular weakness. But is is still more efficient for the tax payer than having a privatised system. We see this in the few areas of our healthcare system where private companies operate. The assumption of our more right-leaning politicians and those who vote for them is that privatisation will make Services cheaper and better - because state-run operations are inherently less efficient, right? Wrong! Time and time again we see that from the point of view of the customer, the state-run system is more financially efficient. Prices go up and services go down when the private companies take over. Why? Because companies do not exist to serve the customers, but the shareholders.
Most recently we have seen this in the UK with our national train network. Several years ago we privatised large sections of what was previously an entirely state-run operation. Now the system is in crisis. Tickets are more expensive and the services run worse and there are fewer of them. Why? Because the companies are finding inventive ways to take money out of the pockets of the customers and put it into the pockets of the shareholders. When the rail system was entirely state-run, all the income from tickets bought (and taxation) stayed within the rail system. Plus the jobs of the workers were more secure, and so people stayed for longer meaning that the rail system was run by enthusiasts and very experienced individuals rather than marketing men who last week were inventing new ways to sell lavatory roll.
So if you want to really change your healthcare system you might start by challenging your financial (and therefore political) assumptions at a very fundamental level. What evidence do you really have that businesses provide value for money for their customers, vs. Nonprofit alternatives? In what way would a nonprofit system be less fair than the one you already have? It seems to me that your system is propped up by a set of assumptions/beliefs for which you probably actually have little evidence, but where it suits those who make money out of you for you to believe them.
It is also silly to label nonprofit operations like the UK National Health Service as e.g. “socialist” or anticapitalist or whatever. You are just being sold those nonsense labels by people who want to extract money from you. Forget the labels and just ask yourself what would work best for you. That’s all that matters.
-
<As you say healthcare is a business not a right in the US, I agree, and I am very interested in how it works in other countries. Does "healthcare as a right" mean that you have a right to a Doctor's labor? I.e. I go to school and become a doctor, and now if you are hurt or sick you can demand my time as your right? If I say no, I am forced to operate at government gunpoint?>
from what i hear from my friends in canada and europe it's quite the same process as here--make an appt, go see the doctor--only significant difference is that you never exchange payment, or engage any painful paperwork (ever been seriously sick? the paperwork and bill mess, including scary overcharges,etc, is often more stressful than the illness---and many, even those with "insurance", end up bankrupt after all the cheesing around by insurers)--
they report that there are no storm troopers with guns trained on doctors who need, for some reason, to be forced to work--in fact, in the UK, there are few guns and few homicides by gun--street cops dont carry--guns arent in circulation due to this weird thing called regulation of deadly weapons (guns)
thye report that they are occasionally waits for non time-sensitive care
my cousin called the office of my dad's PCP in FL---she was told that first appt for new patients was 6 months out---then she was asked "but who do you know?"
the most profitable approach to the private health insurance biz is to collect huge premiums, and deny all care--they cant do that, but they have certainly jacked premiums/deductibles and they certainly deny any care they can get away with---and they are hugely profitable for shareholders, engage admin inefficiently (compared to medicare, at least), and pay their executive suites stoopid gobs of money.
some things are best run by a democratic government---wars, justice and imprisonment, medical care---nothing like an anti socialist profiteer in search of taxpayer funds---try charter schools, generally a bogus, rigged, ripoff--and for-profit colleges! perfect--tap that GI money and load kids on loans for "schools" that spend 90% of their budgets on telemarketing--atta go devos--dont get me started on amway--what a slimehole
-
Imagine never having to worry about healthcare costs ever again, and paying LESS than you currently do in order to have that privilege.
A-10, that’s part of the disconnect. US families that have even the most mediocre medical insurance pay about $15,000 + annually and might also incur upwards to $5,000 in out of pocket deductibles. Approximately 10% of the population is uninsured, so who would be making up the difference? That average family will not be “paying less”.
Yes they would/are. The average family in the UK pays nothing like that much money in taxes for their healthcare. Even when they are also paying through taxation for the healthcare of those who pay no taxes.
The difference is that the US healthcare system operates effectively to extract as much money from you as possible, instead of providing the most financially efficient service. In a healthcare system where people cannot make much money out of it, they don’t, and so large wads of money are not being siphoned out of the system at every turn. The money stays in the system.
This is not to say that the UK (for instance) healthcare system is efficient. It certainly is not. Procurement is a particular weakness. But is is still more efficient for the tax payer than having a privatised system. We see this in the few areas of our healthcare system where private companies operate. The assumption of our more right-leaning politicians and those who vote for them is that privatisation will make Services cheaper and better - because state-run operations are inherently less efficient, right? Wrong! Time and time again we see that from the point of view of the customer, the state-run system is more financially efficient. Prices go up and services go down when the private companies take over. Why? Because companies do not exist to serve the customers, but the shareholders.
Most recently we have seen this in the UK with our national train network. Several years ago we privatised large sections of what was previously an entirely state-run operation. Now the system is in crisis. Tickets are more expensive and the services run worse and there are fewer of them. Why? Because the companies are finding inventive ways to take money out of the pockets of the customers and put it into the pockets of the shareholders. When the rail system was entirely state-run, all the income from tickets bought (and taxation) stayed within the rail system. Plus the jobs of the workers were more secure, and so people stayed for longer meaning that the rail system was run by enthusiasts and very experienced individuals rather than marketing men who last week were inventing new ways to sell lavatory roll.
So if you want to really change your healthcare system you might start by challenging your financial (and therefore political) assumptions at a very fundamental level. What evidence do you really have that businesses provide value for money for their customers, vs. Nonprofit alternatives? In what way would a nonprofit system be less fair than the one you already have? It seems to me that your system is propped up by a set of assumptions/beliefs for which you probably actually have little evidence, but where it suits those who make money out of you for you to believe them.
It is also silly to label nonprofit operations like the UK National Health Service as e.g. “socialist” or anticapitalist or whatever. You are just being sold those nonsense labels by people who want to extract money from you. Forget the labels and just ask yourself what would work best for you. That’s all that matters.
^ Great reply.
-
One note to make in the universal coverage debate - single payer does not require government run healthcare. I get so tire of opponents of universal coverage steering the conversation there and then arguing against government run healthcare instead of single payer. PACs and politicians conflate them all the time because government run healthcare scares people.
-
Imagine never having to worry about healthcare costs ever again, and paying LESS than you currently do in order to have that privilege.
A-10, that’s part of the disconnect. US families that have even the most mediocre medical insurance pay about $15,000 + annually and might also incur upwards to $5,000 in out of pocket deductibles. Approximately 10% of the population is uninsured, so who would be making up the difference? That average family will not be “paying less”.
Yes they would/are. The average family in the UK pays nothing like that much money in taxes for their healthcare. Even when they are also paying through taxation for the healthcare of those who pay no taxes.
The difference is that the US healthcare system operates effectively to extract as much money from you as possible, instead of providing the most financially efficient service. In a healthcare system where people cannot make much money out of it, they don’t, and so large wads of money are not being siphoned out of the system at every turn. The money stays in the system.
This is not to say that the UK (for instance) healthcare system is efficient. It certainly is not. Procurement is a particular weakness. But is is still more efficient for the tax payer than having a privatised system. We see this in the few areas of our healthcare system where private companies operate. The assumption of our more right-leaning politicians and those who vote for them is that privatisation will make Services cheaper and better - because state-run operations are inherently less efficient, right? Wrong! Time and time again we see that from the point of view of the customer, the state-run system is more financially efficient. Prices go up and services go down when the private companies take over. Why? Because companies do not exist to serve the customers, but the shareholders.
Most recently we have seen this in the UK with our national train network. Several years ago we privatised large sections of what was previously an entirely state-run operation. Now the system is in crisis. Tickets are more expensive and the services run worse and there are fewer of them. Why? Because the companies are finding inventive ways to take money out of the pockets of the customers and put it into the pockets of the shareholders. When the rail system was entirely state-run, all the income from tickets bought (and taxation) stayed within the rail system. Plus the jobs of the workers were more secure, and so people stayed for longer meaning that the rail system was run by enthusiasts and very experienced individuals rather than marketing men who last week were inventing new ways to sell lavatory roll.
So if you want to really change your healthcare system you might start by challenging your financial (and therefore political) assumptions at a very fundamental level. What evidence do you really have that businesses provide value for money for their customers, vs. Nonprofit alternatives? In what way would a nonprofit system be less fair than the one you already have? It seems to me that your system is propped up by a set of assumptions/beliefs for which you probably actually have little evidence, but where it suits those who make money out of you for you to believe them.
It is also silly to label nonprofit operations like the UK National Health Service as e.g. “socialist” or anticapitalist or whatever. You are just being sold those nonsense labels by people who want to extract money from you. Forget the labels and just ask yourself what would work best for you. That’s all that matters.
^ Great reply.
In order for all of that to happen, we would have to go beyond a simple single payer system and adopt a government run healthcare system. That is a hard sell for many here in the US.
-
Bean - if you want something to change, then something will have to change.
Or you can carry on being forcibly bent over and royally shafted hard up the ass for the rest of your life :)
The choice is yours. What have you got to lose?
-
Freedom
-
Freedom
You are free at the moment? Seems like I have a lot more freedom that you have, healthcare-wise. I can choose to be treated for free by the state, or I can pay to go private if I want. It is true that I can’t opt out of the state healthcare - but why the hell would I??! You’d need to be nuts to do that.
You are, I think, being sold a lot of nonsense about government healthcare systems. Even the most extreme right-wing elements in this country support the National Health Service. It gives us freedom to choose to do what we want with our lives such as change jobs, work for charities or in low-wage jobs, live where we want to, retire when we want to etc without fear of ending up without healthcare cover. That’s real freedom, my friend. Having the choice to spend a small fortune on one bad value deal or another one, and to constantly worry about possible healthcare bills is not freedom but servitude.
-
I could schedule a cataract procedure for next week, while somone under the NHS would be bumping into the furniture for 3 months or possibly more.
Here is a serious question for you A-10. Hypothetically, if one of your lawmakers needed a hip replacement would they be subject to the waiting list? Would they simply go private?
-
freedom?? whah??
freedom to choose insurance among competing insurers? to shop around? like in a competitive capitalist market? no such luck herein the US of A
maybe you mean freedom to pick whatever insurance is offered by one's employer? where 50% of costs get deducted from paycheck, and deductibles are thru the roof, and choice of doctors hospitals and care are determined not by elected government officials, but by for-profit insurance technocrats and executives?? like freedom to pick from a couple of crap policies offered by one's employer?
and shop away from your job?? forget it if you want some choice of decent care with reasonable deductibles and freedom to choose care providers-- as a small biz owner i continually check the "open" market, and what's available is crap, at least here in NY and NJ, where my partner lives--
Have you ever shopped for policies?--by design they are all unique and impossible to cost compare--and then when one signs on only to find out their "in network" list is intentionally out of date, such that one's doctors arent even in the plan! then you have the freedom to choose among a list of unknown doctors who cut a deal with the insurer! that kinda freedom?? there's always yelp!!
ive owned a small biz for 23 years, and had to shop often--it's a joke
a part of obamacare that got lobbied away was similar to what liz warren has tried to do with mortgage and cc docs--make them easily cost and terms comparable for non-expert consumers---where there are stock defined policies, terms of which are defined by consortium of docs hospitals pharma, and yes, consumer advocates--where identical policies of variable standard quality are offered by different insurers, in competition with one another--where performance is monitored, so we get what we paid for---that would be freedom to choose, and that was at the top of the repub list of things that had to be removed for obamacare to pass--and of course they've now gutted the watered down obamacare anyway. so whatever that
freedom? here? to choose prudently among decent HI plans? where?
-
id take care with a cataract mill that can take you next week--just sayin'
i almost got my hip replaced last summer at HSS--thk goodness for the 10 week schedule delay--my hip improved so I cancelled the appt
i have many friends in europe and canada, all of whom are appalled when they hear detail about our HI system
all sides to this have their anecdotes at the ready
-
2020 vision???
i thought this was a cataract and eye care thread
haha
glad this shit is contained in this thread!!!
freedom to engage or not--plenty of other threads
like who's gonna steal my 8'10" creek--i think ill go drop the price--make that board truly competitive--down to 750--much as people wont buy new balance sneakers bc--of their pro-trump anti-obama statements (that would include me), my politics here may make my creek a tough sale--bet my cheap price works!
-
Uff...
-
I could schedule a cataract procedure for next week, while somone under the NHS would be bumping into the furniture for 3 months or possibly more.
Here is a serious question for you A-10. Hypothetically, if one of your lawmakers needed a hip replacement would they be subject to the waiting list? Would they simply go private?
My US anecdata for both of your examples - I know or have known a number of people with cataracts; some had surgery and some didn't. They learned about them before they were in the bumping into furniture stage and those that had surgery usually scheduled it weeks or months away because of the downtime. The ones that didn't have surgery had slow developing cataracts. Only a few people I've known with hip replacements and one was treated as something of an emergency because of a break that would not have set properly. I think that would also be an emergency in the UK, but don't know that for certain
A little Googling indicates the average wait time for cataract surgery in the UK is 37 days. There are wide variances in various countries independent of type of health care.
I wonder what the average wait time for surgery is for destitute patients in the US. Both surgeries are considered elective unless deemed medically necessary. That would be due to size and/or growth rate of a cataract or if you have a hip break like my great uncle where there was no chance of recovery.
-
For what it's worth, the argument of taking a doctors labor from them is completely specious. Modern medicine is a huge industry with costs that dwarf almost every individual sector in the US economy and those costs have almost nothing to do with how much doctors are paid--physicians salaries are less than ten percent of the cost. Looking at the way the per capita cost calculations are made it's probably a lot less than ten percent.
-
It'd be interesting to know, if Howard Schultz was added to the poll (that thing at the top of this thread) would anyone change their vote? And if so, would you be voting for him instead of Trump, or instead of a Democrat? He countered criticism by Democrats that he'd be siphoning off Democratic votes, thus helping Trump, by saying he thought he'd have lots of Republicans choosing him over Trump. Not sure that's true. I guess it may be influenced by what Democrat gets picked.
-
I think he's delusional. And probably irrelevant to either side. I can't imagine many people voting for him, but then again, I can't imagine people voting for Trump. But hey, we could run a poll. I think I misspelled some names, but who cares.
-
Good Stuff.
I feel your pain eastbound, buying insurance for a small company is shit in the current market. In WA we have two basic choices. It is definitely not a free market system. The first step to getting one would be elimination of the employer mandate. I would love to give my staff the extra $650-$850 a month in cash to choose the insurance they like best, and that fits their family best.
I get your point Ponobill, but saying "healthcare is a right" makes my point fundamentally true. It is saying I have a right to a doctor's time. The terminology is likely the weakness. My concern with government run healthcare or even single payer is: I believe that more innovation and efficiency comes from an open market than it does from government workers doing it for the greater good.
Here is a Forbes article that states the United States produces about 40% of the worlds medical innovations. But it doesn't say whether or not it is because we are trying to make more money, or are doing it for the greater good. My opinion on human nature remains unchanged for the record.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/#4a101f8f1a71 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/#4a101f8f1a71)
Maybe i'm a cynical asshole, but say you are a urologist: You can get paid by the government $600 for every vasectomy. So you set up to perform vasectomies, 2 per hour, every day. There is a laser system that is available out there for $350,000 that will do vasectomies at 10 minutes on center with no incisions. If you are in the private market you can charge $2,000 cash for each one with a little flashy marketing and drive to work in a yacht (after you pay off the gear)! Without this option does the vasectomy laser machine ever get built and tested?
I worked for the government for 4 years, and the amount of waste, laziness, entitlement, and stupidity has soured me - probably for life.
-
I could schedule a cataract procedure for next week, while somone under the NHS would be bumping into the furniture for 3 months or possibly more.
Here is a serious question for you A-10. Hypothetically, if one of your lawmakers needed a hip replacement would they be subject to the waiting list? Would they simply go private?
Priority is given according to need, and in any case the problem would have been picked up long before it got to that stage. Plus, if you want to, you could go private. You could pay just for that procedure as a one-off, or you can have a healthcare plan - which are cheaper here than in the US because they have to work harder for our business. But with complex procedures most people use the NHS because the doctors and aftercare are better. And it’s free. Everyone knows that if you are a doctor, the more private work you do, the more likely you are to be a money-grabbing charlatan who will bill for anything that you can regardless of whether it is necessary. That’s just what happens when you make healthcare a business: It’s not rocket surgery to appreciate that :) Our doctors do not go into medicine to get rich.
-
Imagine what "world wide" healthcare might look like today if the US had adopted a "socialized" model, say 30 years ago?
Where would the innovation that we have seen in healthcare over the last 30 years come from? Ok now, do your own research...
-
no knowledge on this, but you imply:
that most medical breakthroughs of the last 30 years have come out of USA
that these breakthroughs would not have happened in the US or anywhere had USA had other than a for-profit health insurance system
are these your points? and what makes you think this is true?
before i go off researching
-
Just food for thought.
But, I'm thinking more along the lines of medical breakthrough, not just improving a process (ie. assembly line PRK, USSR '70's).
It's tricky to research, for instance Pfizer moved some research to Shanghai a few years ago but the bulk of the work is still very much U.S. centered.
-
Imagine what "world wide" healthcare might look like today if the US had adopted a "socialized" model, say 30 years ago?
Where would the innovation that we have seen in healthcare over the last 30 years come from? Ok now, do your own research...
Most of the innovations probably start in universities not the companies. The companies probably take it to market but that’s not the same as saying that the innovations come from them.
This has got nothing to do with “socialism” btw. That’s just a bogeyman word that is being used to scare you off. What we are talking about is NON-PROFIT healthcare. In countries which have nationalised non-profit healthcare systems, people both on the left and right of the political spectrum tend overwhelmingly to support it. So you should not associate it with one political philosophy. The problems you face with your system is because of PROFITEERING. The obvious solution therefore is to turn towards a NON-PROFIT model. But I think you have been so indoctrinated into believing the false assumptions that prop up your system that you have trouble seeing beyond it.
For something to change, something has to change.
-
The source of medical breakthroughs and research has virtually nothing to do with healthcare and individual practitioners. You have to do better than that Bean, I can tell from your posts that you're a careful thinker. Breakthroughs come from university research and mega-corporations doing either separate research or implementing discoveries. That is unlikely to change however healthcare is funded. Funny that you bring that up, it's one of the factors that are NOT included in per capita cost of healthcare, and one of the reasons I think the per capita cost of healthcare is understated and the relevance of physician's salaries even at less than ten percent is overstated.
The overwhelming majority of medical research is supported by grants. Oh my God, its SOCIALISM!
Anyone who has spent time working with or for the Feds has nothing but contempt for the inefficiency and laziness. It's the main reason I've always been staunchly conservative, but there are a lot of problems that market forces don't deal with. That's why we have government at all. The current healthcare system in the USA is unworkable, and both sides of the political divide know that. The reason the Republicans under Trump have been unable to completely eviscerate the fundamentally ineffective Obamacare is that they have nothing to replace it with that wouldn't snap shut the purses of a lot of powerful lobbies.
-
Yes. As someone who has invented and marketed diagnostic medical procedures myself, I can tell you that the commercial companies throttle as many new innovations as they promote. The stuff that ends up on the market is not necessarily the best - where on earth did you get that idea?! - but instead is the stuff they can make the most money out of. And they’ll use any trick at their disposal to prevent competition getting a foothold. It’s not their fault. That’s what businesses exist to do. They are there to make money, not make the world a better place.
-
Actually, I was looking at this from the consumer/demand side of the equation. In other words, how would world healthcare look today without the US healthcare economy in the background.
Take another look at the Pfizer example, a few years back they moved antibiotics research to China, but the focus (preceived demand) was still largely in the US market.
By "socialized" model I'm referring to a NHS model and not merely a single payer system.
-
Good Stuff.
I feel your pain eastbound, buying insurance for a small company is shit in the current market. In WA we have two basic choices. It is definitely not a free market system. The first step to getting one would be elimination of the employer mandate. I would love to give my staff the extra $650-$850 a month in cash to choose the insurance they like best, and that fits their family best.
I get your point Ponobill, but saying "healthcare is a right" makes my point fundamentally true. It is saying I have a right to a doctor's time. The terminology is likely the weakness. My concern with government run healthcare or even single payer is: I believe that more innovation and efficiency comes from an open market than it does from government workers doing it for the greater good.
Here is a Forbes article that states the United States produces about 40% of the worlds medical innovations. But it doesn't say whether or not it is because we are trying to make more money, or are doing it for the greater good. My opinion on human nature remains unchanged for the record.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/#4a101f8f1a71 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/#4a101f8f1a71)
Maybe i'm a cynical asshole, but say you are a urologist: You can get paid by the government $600 for every vasectomy. So you set up to perform vasectomies, 2 per hour, every day. There is a laser system that is available out there for $350,000 that will do vasectomies at 10 minutes on center with no incisions. If you are in the private market you can charge $2,000 cash for each one with a little flashy marketing and drive to work in a yacht (after you pay off the gear)! Without this option does the vasectomy laser machine ever get built and tested?
I worked for the government for 4 years, and the amount of waste, laziness, entitlement, and stupidity has soured me - probably for life.
In my opinion, you SHOULD have a right to a doctor's time. That doesn't mean any particular doctor is forced to treat you or face legal consequences which is kind of what you made it look in your previous post. Read the examples in the other posts. I don't have an answer. I can't say whether or not what works in Canada, the U.K., other parts of Europe will work here in the U.S., but it's really pretty sad the way things are. The idea that some just have to accept their fate that they will die or wind up out in the streets is beyond appalling.
-
By "socialized" model I'm refering to a NHS model and not a single payer system.
Please stop associating it with socialism. It's really got f**k all to do with socialism. It is a nationally-sponsored non-profit system. The government has no say in who gets treated and how: The local doctors make those decisions. The government has little or no direct say in what treatments are offered (that is determined by a team of experts who are paid by the government but operate independently from them) or how. The government do have a say in the overall budgets, but the tax-payer holds them to account for that. The local health authorities (whose job it is to allocate resources locally) do have a say in a lot of decisions about how the healthcare is delivered. But they are not making their decisions with profitability in mind, but instead how best to deliver medical care, and to make the tax-payers money stretch as far as possible. It's a non-profit system, where everyone involved in it is trying to do their best for the most people that they can, and no profit is sought. Calling this socialist is just another rude way of trying to dismiss it. It would be like me calling your views "fascist": stupid and reactionary, and does not advance the discussion or our understanding one iota. You are being sold this b*ll*ocks about "socialist" healthcare by people who want to screw you out of your money. If the US switched tomorrow to a non-profit tax-supported healthcare system would it suddenly have turned into a "socialist" country? Of course not - the idea is total nonsense. The government would not be making any more decisions about your healthcare than they do now. Maybe even less, actually.
The UK government does not force its population to have an NHS. It's one of the things we support most! In terms of ratings of trust, the NHS consistently outperforms any other institution, even the church! And certainly the government. It is our CHOICE to have an NHS. We LIKE it. We chose it. We are proud of it. But you are using the word "socialism" to somehow suggest that the government force this upon us. This is utter and complete BS. We the people created it, we run it, and woe betide any government that messes with it (as many politicians have discovered to their detriment).
-
socialism liberal democrat commie pinko hippie==>these words instruct to turn one's brain off and jump in with the hateful dummy mob
what's funny is that, when polls strip away the turn-off-the-brain words, and describe attributes/detriments of specific programs, middle class often votes in favor of programs that they wouldnt were the dummy-mob words included
and yes, hippie---cuz i think this syndrome has roots as much in the 60's as it did in the 50's, courtesy of joe mccarthy nixon and roy cohn, trump's favorite lawyer (who was a close to a human piece of shit as is possible)
fear of those different from you is a powerful motivator if manipulated properly
-
Please stop associating it with socialism.
Based upon PB's response, there was obviously some missunderstanding in my previous post. So, I was merely attempting to differentiate a full NHS from a single payer system.
Here I'll try it again:
By "socialized" model I'm refering to a NHS model and not a single payer system.
Certainly not meant to be a jab...
-
socialism liberal democrat commie pinko hippie==>these words instruct to turn one's brain off and jump in with the hateful dummy mob
what's funny is that, when polls strip away the turn-off-the-brain words, and describe attributes/detriments of specific programs, middle class often votes in favor of programs that they wouldnt were the dummy-mob words included
and yes, hippie---cuz i think this syndrome has roots as much in the 60's as it did in the 50's, courtesy of joe mccarthy nixon and roy cohn, trump's favorite lawyer (who was a close to a human piece of shit as is possible)
fear of those different from you is a powerful motivator if manipulated properly
I grew up watching the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Vietnam on the nightly news and we all knew what the second S in USSR stood for, so socialism became a dirty word. Kids are less afraid to use the term because they mean what it actually is supposed to be, not what the fear mongers define it as and not what the communist bloc countries called socialism. My kids give me a hard time about saying I am a liberal, when they think I am a socialist.
-
Oops... wonder who Trump will blame this one on?
“The US trade gap with the rest of the world jumped to a 10-year high of $621bn (£472.5bn) last year”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47472282
-
Area 10, the post you made above explaining the system is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. The model you describe is pretty much like the educational system in the US. Which is what I have always assumed the NHS is without looking into it.
The US has a lot of geographic and cultural regions. The level of service would vary greatly in an NHS. If some politician came out with a single payer system that allowed for broad choice of providers. I.e. a voucher you can add cash or supplemental insurance to, they could convince me.
It is not going to change how long we live very much, but could simplify things a bit? If they make addiction and mental health services a big part of it, and I mean building big Mental Health Service facilities (fenced and unfenced) I might write a check.
-
Oops... wonder who Trump will blame this one on?
“The US trade gap with the rest of the world jumped to a 10-year high of $621bn (£472.5bn) last year”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47472282
You have to love the Trump tweet in that link: "....I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so. It will always be the best way to max out our economic power. We are right now taking in $billions in Tariffs. MAKE AMERICA RICH AGAIN"
Do you think he knows that it is only American's that pay his tariffs? Possibly it is something else. Which leads me to another Trump favorite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHN4uY27tM
-
Fascinating article on the rise of populist rhetoric. It seems that Trump has a way to go yet before he matches some other world leaders. Maybe we’ll find it ramped up as his failures to deliver what he promised become ever more obvious.
I found it surprising that populism is more common amongst the left in some geographical regions, and the right in others.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2019/mar/06/revealed-the-rise-and-rise-of-populist-rhetoric
-
Maybe we’ll find it ramped up as his failures to deliver what he promised become ever more obvious.
The Trump folks are boasting about the economy but that is already tanking. No real surprises there. Add 2 Trillion to the debt with nonsensical tax breaks and you should get a boost. You would hope that it would last more than a quarter though. GDP hit 4.2, then fell to 3.4, then 2.7, and now we are looking at 1.5. That is dismal. And yet, Trump is still quoting his 4.2 figure from June :). Retail sales were down 1.2% in the all important December (thanks for that shutdown, stable genius) which is the worst since 2009.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta updated its December quarter GDPNow growth rate forecast based on December retail sales and inventories and the estimate took a big hit, falling from 2.7% to 1.5%. This would be a substantial decrease from 4.2% in the June quarter and 3.4% in the September quarter. While the official number may not be as low as 1.5%, it appears certain that the economy isn’t achieving Trump’s statement of, “I see no reason why we don’t go to 4%, 5% and even 6%.”
-
given his performance in the cpac speech, who knows what Trump will produce, as the random dumb economic seeds he's he and the repubs have planted, continue to bear ugly fruit such as already? we have all seen this week's exploding actual "record" current trade and fiscal deficits, right? remember trump the self-anointed "tariff man", who was going to "fix the trade deficit"---it's exploded, to all-time record---nice work---as predicted by anyone who's taken econ 101--this alone could whack 1% off of gd
check your paycheck....and your tax refund this year---atta go---can we now say that the "middle class tax cuts" moniker was a bald lie?
thank god we didnt take them at their word re pre-existing conditions
scary that this guy is US pres---equally scary that there's but a peep out of the repubs
the moronic criminal shit he planted is bearing ugly fruit that will only get uglier---when, finally, the repubs stop supporting this moron, he may get cra cra on us
the cpac speech was alarming---i am appalled there is no uproar on the repub side of the aisle---you guys see that?? that's our president....youre actually ok with this? the guy is a certifiable freak..........
this guy is scary.............
-
Yeah but his voters can understand what he says. I suspect that they usually can’t understand politician’s speeches. And he keeps it entertaining. The rest of the political class needs to learn a thing from this (but this does NOT mean emulate it). After all, it looks like a huge proportion of the Zoners here still support Trump. I think it’s *because* of this, not despite it.
To me he just seems like the loud-mouthed chip-on-the-shoulder guy at a neighbour’s BBQ that you’d spend the whole afternoon trying to avoid. But maybe those are his core supporters. And those who want a race war, of course.
https://youtu.be/g5HHZI_pe3w
-
Wouldn't mind if Obama was my neighbor, but not happy from his presidency.
Wouldn't want Hillary as my neighbor or president.
Wouldn't want an Ahole like Trump as my neighbor, but as president he is at least pushing back some against the globalist and socialists. It pains me to hear him speak and twitter, but I am in agreement with him 100% on immigration.
I was not motivated enough to vote in the Trump/Hillary election. The massive attempt to get Trump out of office instead of working for some better good (and the CT gov race) did motivate me to vote in the last election.
FWIW, the only well known politician I have ever agreed with in modern time is Ron Paul.
JP
-
Ok, thanks for that insight. It’s an interesting approach to want a guy running the country that you wouldn’t want as a neighbour. But if you are getting what you voted for then lucky for you.
In the UK, the people who voted to leave the European Union are overwhelmingly those who are going to suffer most economically from it. Some are going to lose their jobs, and there will be healthcare reductions, less policing, school closures etc. But they still voted for it anyway and are very pleased with their choice. And indeed, as more and more evidence comes out about the hardships they are going to face, they are actually becoming more firm in their opinion that they have done the right thing.
I had always assumed that people would vote principally according to their own financial best interests. But Trump and Brexit are challenging that opinion in my mind.
-
I'll leave the other stuff ... but SupLeave made a good point in his post; "The US has a lot of geographic and cultural regions. The level of service would vary greatly in an NHS." It would, most likely if you look at the way many states apply anything that is a 'grant-to-states' program vs. a nationally administrated program.
My Medicare is nearly a duplicate of the Canadian system I was under living in Toronto. If I had selected an 'Advantage' program it would be a near match. Mostly, it's pretty painless for geezers. My primary says Medicare pays better than insurance companies...
One of my inlaws worked his whole life for the Panama Canal Company - the docs throw out the Red Carpet for him, they appear to reduce no charges and pay very quickly.
Jim
-
I think that the fear of immigration that currents through most places is a fear of the ‘other’. In the UK this was the idea, excuse me, that the ‘pakis’ would be gone. Instead it is the hard working no problem causing Polish waiters and cleaners that won’t be around to help.
In my homeland as well, most who want the wall have probably never had any contact with a southern immigrant, leagal or not. And if these others were to be banished tomorrow there won’t be any noticeable improvement to daily life.
Think of us as we paddle to a peak and start getting vibes before we even catch a wave.
And let me say, humain treatment of the fellow man, women and child as far as basic needs goes, ie shelter food medical care and education is not socialism.
It is called social democracy.
I’ve had the fortune to finish high on the eco ladder and most of the Europeans I work with are conservatives. There is a marked difference when talking of the above mentioned needs. Over here there is a feeling of solidarity in the society.
America more resembles a winner take all Ponzi scheme.
I have to regularly try to explain my homeland to them. It’s hard to explain why the above mentioned list does not pass as human rights.
But having a gun does.
At the end of the day I would rather just paddle out with any and all of you then talk about this So let’s leave any offenses possibly triggered, in this thread.
-
agreed re that--best kept in this specified thread, and kept civil here, if possible----i know some may find my politics offensive, but i hope not to personally insult anyone.
i dont feel insulted, but that may be because those who differ may not see fit to waste time responding to me--which is totally fine, too.
-
Maybe we’ll find it ramped up as his failures to deliver what he promised become ever more obvious.
The Trump folks are boasting about the economy but that is already tanking. No real surprises there. Add 2 Trillion to the debt with nonsensical tax breaks and you should get a boost. You would hope that it would last more than a quarter though. GDP hit 4.2, then fell to 3.4, then 2.7, and now we are looking at 1.5. That is dismal. And yet, Trump is still quoting his 4.2 figure from June :). Retail sales were down 1.2% in the all important December (thanks for that shutdown, stable genius) which is the worst since 2009.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta updated its December quarter GDPNow growth rate forecast based on December retail sales and inventories and the estimate took a big hit, falling from 2.7% to 1.5%. This would be a substantial decrease from 4.2% in the June quarter and 3.4% in the September quarter. While the official number may not be as low as 1.5%, it appears certain that the economy isn’t achieving Trump’s statement of, “I see no reason why we don’t go to 4%, 5% and even 6%.”
Most of the things he claims credit for are trends he didn't screw up. Economic indicators and unemployment charts are continuations of the trajectory the graph was already on.
-
My opposition to illegal immigration is based on the idea that we have lots of legal citizens who are poor, and a constant flood coming in keeps labor rates down. How does this help the poor citizens? As far as the idea that illegals are doing the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do; I see it more like they are doing the jobs that Americans who get paid not to work are not willing to do.
We have a safety net that many people need, also many people take advantage and cheat it. From my own personal experience (friends, family members, and a view of how the system works in the cities), I put this ratio at 50/50.
Of course I come from a Lutheran upbringing where hard work is the #1 quality to judge a person by. JP
-
A sobering statistic.
-
A sobering statistic.
The question is, why is the Price so high?
-
My opposition to illegal immigration is based on the idea that we have lots of legal citizens who are poor, and a constant flood coming in keeps labor rates down. How does this help the poor citizens? As far as the idea that illegals are doing the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do; I see it more like they are doing the jobs that Americans who get paid not to work are not willing to do.
We have a safety net that many people need, also many people take advantage and cheat it. From my own personal experience (friends, family members, and a view of how the system works in the cities), I put this ratio at 50/50.
Of course I come from a Lutheran upbringing where hard work is the #1 quality to judge a person by. JP
I doubt very much that those people who are getting government assistance would, were the money to disappear, work in the slaughterhouses, work in the fields for 12 hours every day, clean motels and rich people’s houses, etc etc, and all for $7.25 an hour. Picture the US economy if all illegal immigrants were to stop working.
As for poor US citizens working or not working, many of us ARE working, but for shit wages in an economy/country that really doesn’t give a damn about the poor. Why can’t trump’s fantasy 5 billion go towards actually helping people in this country?
-
A sobering statistic.
Shameful.
-
Why can’t trump’s fantasy 5 billion go towards actually helping people in this country?
Because that was never his goal...pandering to the lowest common denominator's prejudicial fears was his only true, underlying campaign promise.
Pretending to be able to make the boogyman in the closet go away was going to make everything "great again", was probably one of the greatest marketing campaigns he (or anyone else for that matter) has ever run.
However, finding enough of those dumb enough to actually buy into the blatant scam was the really, incredibly unbelievable part...that even Trump himself never truly expected. :o ??? Smh...
-
My opposition to illegal immigration is based on the idea that we have lots of legal citizens who are poor, and a constant flood coming in keeps labor rates down. How does this help the poor citizens? As far as the idea that illegals are doing the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do; I see it more like they are doing the jobs that Americans who get paid not to work are not willing to do.
We have a safety net that many people need, also many people take advantage and cheat it. From my own personal experience (friends, family members, and a view of how the system works in the cities), I put this ratio at 50/50.
Of course I come from a Lutheran upbringing where hard work is the #1 quality to judge a person by. JP
I doubt very much that those people who are getting government assistance would, were the money to disappear, work in the slaughterhouses, work in the fields for 12 hours every day, clean motels and rich people’s houses, etc etc, and all for $7.25 an hour. Picture the US economy if all illegal immigrants were to stop working.
As for poor US citizens working or not working, many of us ARE working, but for shit wages in an economy/country that really doesn’t give a damn about the poor. Why can’t trump’s fantasy 5 billion go towards actually helping people in this country?
If immigration was controlled, the wage would be higher than the $7.25 you speak of.
-
If immigration was controlled, the wage would be higher than the $7.25 you speak of.
What do you base this on? Businesses wouldn't be greedy if we had tighter controls on immigration? How does that work?
-
yep and something like 65% of all US personal bankruptcies are a result of medical bills
not lazy cheating folk at all--just unlucky folk who had a family member get sick
and many of them had insurance that proved to be crap when the shit hit the fan
-
A sobering statistic.
That is more than sobering. It’s scandalous!
My wife and I were out for dinner last night with another couple and somehow the conversation got onto the U.S. health care system. Our friends told us the story about a friend of theirs who lived in the U.S. and needed a kidney transplant (I’m not 100% sure on this, but I think it was a kidney transplant). In any case, he was told he needed the operation to live. When he looked at the costs, both he and his wife realized they could only afford the after care for two years. After that they had no way to pay for the drugs, etc. that would be needed. He therefore refused the operation and has since passed away.
So very sad. No one should lose their life because they can't afford medical care.
-
Wow!!! My BS detector just exploded. Damn...... Quick, got any boards for sale?
-
Wow!!! My BS detector just exploded. Damn...... Quick, got any boards for sale?
Not B.S., at least not as far as I know. And I do recall our friends telling us about this when the couple was going through all this. So I can’t say for absolute certain it happened, as I don’t know the person (couple) it happened to. But I’ve known the couple who told us about it for a very long time, and they would not make a story up. It’s always possible they are somehow mistaken, that I can’t say for sure. But I can say they would not make it up.
-
So it went down like this.... Honey, I love you so much. I’ll get the operation and we’ll have two wonderful years together. OK dear, if you think we can’t afford it maybe only one year. Yes darling, we do have a little credit card debt. OK OK OK.you’re right honey, we just can’t afford me.
-
So it went down like this.... Honey, I love you so much. I’ll get the operation and we’ll have two wonderful years together. OK dear, if you think we can’t afford it maybe only one year. Yes darling, we do have a little credit card debt. OK OK OK.you’re right honey, we just can’t afford me.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point but from what I gathered, the guy opted not to do the surgery at all because of the debt that would follow and as a result passed away. Doesn't seem that far fetched to me.
-
So it went down like this.... Honey, I love you so much. I’ll get the operation and we’ll have two wonderful years together. OK dear, if you think we can’t afford it maybe only one year. Yes darling, we do have a little credit card debt. OK OK OK.you’re right honey, we just can’t afford me.
O.K. Rider, I think I get it now. You’re not disputing that health care costs could bankrupt someone or leave them with massive debt. You’re disputing that anyone would choose to forfeit their life in order for their family to avoid going bankrupt. Well, I respectfully disagree. I could see a scenario where that could happen. But I suppose the real point is, that no one, ever, should have to choose between the two.
-
So it went down like this.... Honey, I love you so much. I’ll get the operation and we’ll have two wonderful years together. OK dear, if you think we can’t afford it maybe only one year. Yes darling, we do have a little credit card debt. OK OK OK.you’re right honey, we just can’t afford me.
You’re being deliberately obtuse and confrontational.
-
If immigration was controlled, the wage would be higher than the $7.25 you speak of.
What do you base this on? Businesses wouldn't be greedy if we had tighter controls on immigration? How does that work?
Shortage or workers drives up the labor price. It's not out of generosity that a higher wage is paid. Basic economics.
-
Quick, I am not disputing anything. I am just saying you’re full of Bull Shit. That story doesen’t pass the smell test. You can do better! I have faith in you.
-
If immigration was controlled, the wage would be higher than the $7.25 you speak of.
What do you base this on? Businesses wouldn't be greedy if we had tighter controls on immigration? How does that work?
Shortage or workers drives up the labor price. It's not out of generosity that a higher wage is paid. Basic economics.
You don't see the problem with this reasoning?
a) You stated that illegals taking the low waged jobs are the reason poor people are out of work.
b) Because of the illegals taking these low skilled jobs employers are keeping wages low.
c) If we get rid of the illegals, there will be a labor shortage thus driving up wages.
But I thought you said if we get rid of all the illegals, all of the unemployed poor now on state assistance will be able to refill all of those vacated jobs...meaning there won't be a labor shortage, and therefore, no increase in wages.
Or are you saying that before the unemployed poor will go back to work is only if/when employers raise wages to lure them back because they don't have another labor pool to turn to instead...but until then, they'll stay unemployed and on state assistance?
What am I missing?
-
Quick, I am not disputing anything. I am just saying you’re full of Bull Shit. That story doesen’t pass the smell test. You can do better! I have faith in you.
You know Rider, I really couldn’t care less what you believe or don’t believe. I relayed a story as it was told to me. You don’t believe me? Big deal. That’s up to you. I don’t see what about the story you find so hard to believe, and you know what? I really don’t want to know.
-
Quick, I am not disputing anything. I am just saying you’re full of Bull Shit. That story doesen’t pass the smell test. You can do better! I have faith in you.
You know Rider, I really couldn’t care less what you believe or don’t believe. I relayed a story as it was told to me. You don’t believe me? Big deal. That’s up to you. I don’t see what about the story you find so hard to believe, and you know what? I really don’t want to know.
I found it totally believable. I think a common fear of people as they come closer to facing death is putting their children or spouses in the horrible position of a) having to choose between prolonging their life but at the cost of financial disaster, or b) avoiding the financial disaster but at the cost of facing eternal guilt over letting them die.
A parent could work decades to amass an estate of several hundred thousand dollars, knowing that if they die, their spouse or children will have some financial security, but also knowing that that amount of money could evaporate to pay for medical treatment during the last few days of their lives.
I've read accounts of people who've chosen assisted suicide who've said that was a specific major reason for choosing that route. I also believe people have a "will to live" and to some extent, in at least some situations, will choose to die rather than continue fighting to live. And I am sure the fear of seeing their estates go towards medical bills, even after they may lost awareness or control, factors in to their choice to live or let go.
-
Quick, I am not disputing anything. I am just saying you’re full of Bull Shit. That story doesen’t pass the smell test. You can do better! I have faith in you.
The moment you start throwing around insults like this, you have lost the argument.
People make a range of choices when faced with a life-threatening illness. One of those choices often relates to quality of life. If people perceive that the choice is between a shorter period of life with a higher quality of life and a longer period of life but a lower quality of life over that time, with an inevitable death anyway, it is not uncommon for people to choose to save themselves and their family a slow and painful (both physically and emotionally) route and go quickly. This might especially be the case where prolonging life would impact financially upon family members long after their death.
Your comments to Quickbeam suggest to me that you can’t imagine anyone being decent or brave enough to take the “short but sweet” route, when a financial burden is an important deciding factor. From this, I infer that you don’t know anyone with those qualities, and presumably that you don’t have them yourself. That’s a shame, and you have my sympathy. Perhaps when push came to shove, you or your family/friends might surprise themselves. Or perhaps you just don’t have that much experience of what people do when faced with death. It’s funny, you know, some people really do, when faced with death, behave in the most incredibly brave and noble way. It’s quite inspiring. When the manner of your death is the only choice you have, people often put family and friends first in their decision-making - even those, like you, who might have seemed needlessly confrontational and aggressive during the living years.
-
A-10, am I right in assuming that you (also) have Aspergers?
-
A-10, am I right in assuming that you (also) have Aspergers?
Nope. But I can see where you may have got that idea from (I do know a bit about AS).
If you are AS, I’d offer the advice, which, actually, you need a lot less than some here, that the last way a person is going to convince anyone to see things from their viewpoint is to hurl insults at them.
-
That's precisely my point A-10, I think we need to reel back the civility just a bit.
-
A-10, am I right in assuming that you (also) have Aspergers?
Nope. But I can see where you may have got that idea from (I do know a bit about AS).
If you are AS, I’d offer the advice, which, actually, you need a lot less than some here, that the last way a person is going to convince anyone to see things from their viewpoint is to hurl insults at them.
All CAPS with frequent misspellings and puzzling word choices is far more effective (not that I am making fun of any particular goverment official ;D ).
-
That's precisely my point A-10, I think we need to reel back the civility just a bit.
Some people are repeat offenders who perhaps require reminding more frequently than others.
I will refer you to this pleasant comment from a few pages earlier:
Earth to A10 & RTG. Nobody gives a fuck what you think. That is all.....
-
Buddha sez to ask yourself the following question before saying anything..
Is it true, is it necessary, and is it kind?
If not, button it up (sorry Guatama 😎) !
-
If immigration was controlled, the wage would be higher than the $7.25 you speak of.
What do you base this on? Businesses wouldn't be greedy if we had tighter controls on immigration? How does that work?
Shortage or workers drives up the labor price. It's not out of generosity that a higher wage is paid. Basic economics.
You don't see the problem with this reasoning?
a) You stated that illegals taking the low waged jobs are the reason poor people are out of work.
b) Because of the illegals taking these low skilled jobs employers are keeping wages low.
c) If we get rid of the illegals, there will be a labor shortage thus driving up wages.
But I thought you said if we get rid of all the illegals, all of the unemployed poor now on state assistance will be able to refill all of those vacated jobs...meaning there won't be a labor shortage, and therefore, no increase in wages.
Or are you saying that before the unemployed poor will go back to work is only if/when employers raise wages to lure them back because they don't have another labor pool to turn to instead...but until then, they'll stay unemployed and on state assistance?
What am I missing?
I stand by my general statement that increased immigration results in depressed wages. A shortage of workers increases wages. This is why minimum wage is earned by few people in a good economy.
specific plan:
- increase $$$ penalty for hiring illegal aliens.
- make it more difficult to collect bennies for citizens and illegals
- path to citizenship for some employed illegals, maybe partner with businesses
- Some illegals will leave on their own accord with no work or bennies.
- more citizens re-enter or enter the workforce.
Both parties had been against illegal immigration until just recently. But actually this was just lip service. Both parties actually like it for the cheap labor. Now we have this open border stuff where some politicians are happy to take in folks who might vote for them.
JP
-
Fair competition is what drives productivity and ingenuity. We have always been an immigrant nation. Illegal immigration has been down for 11 years by all reliable metrics. Where is the increase in wages? Let's just call it self-rationalized fear of change. Change in the color of our country, change in the replacement of human jobs by automation, change in our condiments.
-
That's precisely my point A-10, I think we need to reel back the civility just a bit.
Some people are repeat offenders who perhaps require reminding more frequently than others.
I will refer you to this pleasant comment from a few pages earlier:
Earth to A10 & RTG. Nobody gives a fuck what you think. That is all.....
I pretty much ignored it. It was such a clever comeback that I figured I would only embarrass myself if I tried to surpass it.
-
Fair competition is what drives productivity and ingenuity. We have always been an immigrant nation. Illegal immigration has been down for 11 years by all reliable metrics. Where is the increase in wages? Let's just call it self-rationalized fear of change. Change in the color of our country, change in the replacement of human jobs by automation, change in our condiments.
That’s a good argument.
-
Fair competition is what drives productivity and ingenuity. We have always been an immigrant nation. Illegal immigration has been down for 11 years by all reliable metrics. Where is the increase in wages? Let's just call it self-rationalized fear of change. Change in the color of our country, change in the replacement of human jobs by automation, change in our condiments.
First statistic I find: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states
There have been ebbs and flows to our immigration rate. In the early 1900's thru some time in the 1960's, VERY few immigrants came in. Look at 1960's to present and the rate is high. JP
-
As I mentioned, Illegal immigration has been down for the past 11 years. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ . The same is true of illegal immigrants in the workforce and labor force numbers. There has been no corresponding increase in wages. What you believe is contradicted by all fact.
-
As I mentioned, Illegal immigration has been down for the past 11 years. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ . The same is true of illegal immigrants in the workforce and labor force numbers. There has been no corresponding increase in wages. What you believe is contradicted by all fact.
Note that the big drop you speak of corresponds to the US economy going into near depression. i.e. they went back home due to lack of jobs here. At the same time, The number of US citizens receiving gvmt assistance increased by alot. Look at ssdi alone: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-09/number-us-citizens-disability-now-larger-population-greece
I'm done here, not going to argue with the moderator anymore.
-
Illegal immigration has been in decline for 10 years past the recession. Statistically the period of economic growth (not recession) that we have been in is actually long and at the end of its cycle. Have you been moderated here? Has anyone ever been moderated for a political point? They haven't.
-
Illegal immigration has been in decline for 10 years past the recession. Statistically the period of economic growth (not recession) that we have been in is actually long and at the end of its cycle. Have you been moderated here? Has anyone ever been moderated for a political point? They haven't.
Have a sense of humor, well maybe mine isn't so good.
I wrote: I'm done, not going to argue with the moderator anymore.
Thinking that your name Admin means that you run this board, you would be moderator.
-
Quick, I am not disputing anything. I am just saying you’re full of Bull Shit. That story doesen’t pass the smell test. You can do better! I have faith in you.
SPORTS!!!
-
Illegal immigration has been in decline for 10 years past the recession. Statistically the period of economic growth (not recession) that we have been in is actually long and at the end of its cycle. Have you been moderated here? Has anyone ever been moderated for a political point? They haven't.
Have a sense of humor, well maybe mine isn't so good.
I wrote: I'm done, not going to argue with the moderator anymore.
Thinking that your name Admin means that you run this board, you would be moderator.
I am actually moderate (moderater than many). Certainly by today's standards. A lot of us have to vote pretty far from our politics due to the choices on the ballot. Post assured, you may be disagreed with but you won't be moderated based on a political opinion.
-
Here’s an interesting fact check article about Trump’s claims about immigration from 2017.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs?t=1552119923480
An interesting factoid from this:
“The share of the population that's foreign born today is about the same as the late 1800s and early 1900s, according to the U.S. Census”.
But presumably the origin of these foreign born people is different?
It also contains this: “an open letter signed by 1,470 economists argued that "the benefits that immigration brings to society far outweigh their costs, and smart immigration policy could better maximize the benefits of immigration while reducing the costs."
Here’s the letter:
https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/feature/an-open-letter-from-1470-economists-on-immigration/
It says: “Immigration undoubtedly has economic costs as well, particularly for Americans in certain industries and Americans with lower levels of educational attainment. But the benefits that immigration brings to society far outweigh their costs, and smart immigration policy could better maximize the benefits of immigration while reducing the costs”.
So could it be that the effect of immigration on the US economy is a similar situation to here in the UK, where it might be the case that certain categories of worker are impacted negatively by immigration (of all sorts), but that most people benefit (because it is good for the economy overall)?
Might this explain why some citizens are so anti-immigration, while others are not?
There are of course separate issues to consider in relation to legal vs. illegal immigration also.
Mostly here in the UK we are more worried about the long-term impact of automatisation/robots and AI on jobs, and the move from a manufacturing economy to a service one (which might favour people with different skills sets). We see this as a far bigger and more troublesome threat than immigration. However there is also a discussion around whether the availability of cheap foreign labour has encouraged businesses to avoid investment in more efficient methods, and has therefore led to our relatively low productivity. There are also specific issues about cultural change surrounding the unequal distributions of immigrants and asylum seekers across the nation. There are some pockets of the UK where the local population have seen substantial influxes of particular foreign-born groups, and this has led to a change in the hard-to-define “cultural flavour” of the area. To some this is welcome, but others find it hard to adjust to. Other regions have not seen such changes but there is a strong fear that it might happen. These issues very directly contributed to Brexit, which is the UK’s version of the Trump phenomenon.
As someone who has lived in areas which have seen recent change like this, and also others where the fear of change is more palpable than the reality, as well as areas with established immigrant populations, I can see all sides: concerns from some sections of society that immigration etc is impacting upon them in multiple ways (some of which might be justified and others that are more about perception or fear than reality), and the economic claims from others (usually those in higher-skilled jobs or industries) that immigration and a ready supply of labour is good for them and the economy overall.
It’s a pretty toxic argument. I don’t think we are going to detoxify it by not acknowledging the impact (real or feared) upon some sections of society. And it’s all become bound up with vicious arguments about racism, when it should be able to be discussed dispassionately in relation to cultural norms and economics. Perhaps certain areas and population groups might need more help than others to deal with the large-scale changes that are going to come from macro-level economic and industrial changes. Part of that relates to immigration. But the weaponisation of the language by certain vested interests, and the polarisation of the populace is making that ever more difficult to achieve.
-
Illegal immigration has been in decline for 10 years past the recession. Statistically the period of economic growth (not recession) that we have been in is actually long and at the end of its cycle. Have you been moderated here? Has anyone ever been moderated for a political point? They haven't.
Have a sense of humor, well maybe mine isn't so good.
I wrote: I'm done, not going to argue with the moderator anymore.
Thinking that your name Admin means that you run this board, you would be moderator.
I am actually moderate (moderater than many). Certainly by today's standards. A lot of us have to vote pretty far from our politics due to the choices on the ballot. Post assured, you may be disagreed with but you won't be moderated based on a political opinion.
We have been largely in agreement on this thread. But if we had a disagreement, even though I have only been here a short while, I have learned what your kryptonite is...
This is my workstation:
-
10, There is kinda of a current surge if you need a talking point. The 'totally ignored' impact is from the 12-20 million that are here working in service industries, including cleaning the loo for famous rich people. These are totally disposable humans. Cut your self in a meat plant, or fall off a construction ladder and you're told; "Get the F' out of here before I call la migre." There even a reported 1/2-million Irish in NY and Boston about to pour you green beer.
They created a law —2007— with a glossy cover page saying employers must check status, but pg. 2-20 are blank. We have large green/white INS buses that have basically sat idle for years about a mile from me, when virtually every chicken plant, farmer, service industry and many individuals hire them. (they could work 24/7 for a few years just in this area) Typically, illegals make great employees - perhaps, partially, because at all times the ground they stand on is a trap door.
There is no solution Right or Left; they both have too much to gain.
Jim
-
Wetstuff - thanks for that very clear and very sad picture. You guys have clearly got it a lot worse than we have in the UK. What do you think would happen to the labour market, and US business, if all those undocumented workers you refer to were somehow magically repatriated to their original countries tomorrow?
-
powers that be always benefited from lax enforcement of immigration laws--that's what got us here
strong laws provide basis for the trap door for any who get uppity cuz they lost a lousy finger or an eye or some shit
while the rest of em behave and keep their heads down, such that program provides infinite supply of highly compliant low-cost workers--good business
any mystery why they work in toxic dangerous industries like meat processing, and agriculture??
-
powers that be always benefited from lax enforcement of immigration laws--that's what got us here
strong laws provide basis for the trap door for any who get uppity cuz they lost a lousy finger or an eye or some shit
while the rest of em behave and keep their heads down, such that program provides infinite supply of highly compliant low-cost workers--good business
any mystery why they work in toxic dangerous industries like meat processing, and agriculture??
I’m
I’m afraid you’ll have to explain to a foreigner (me) why it is that you apparently blame your government for this situation, rather than the unscrupulous business owners who employ the undocumented workers and mistreat them?
-
powers that be always benefited from lax enforcement of immigration laws--that's what got us here
strong laws provide basis for the trap door for any who get uppity cuz they lost a lousy finger or an eye or some shit
while the rest of em behave and keep their heads down, such that program provides infinite supply of highly compliant low-cost workers--good business
any mystery why they work in toxic dangerous industries like meat processing, and agriculture??
I’m
I’m afraid you’ll have to explain to a foreigner (me) why it is that you apparently blame your government for this situation, rather than the unscrupulous business owners who employ the undocumented workers and mistreat them?
The government comes into play when they don’t enforce OSHA laws. The illegal immigrants can’t report OSHA violations or hazardous workplaces or not getting paid for overtime, etc because they fear deportation.
If all the illegal immigrant workers in this country disappeared, the majority of those empty jobs would not be filled by unemployed Americans. There’s no way to know this as a fact, but given that American workers expect to be paid overtime, and get health insurance (or at least Worker’s Comp, which illegals are not covered by), then employers would have to really revamp their businesses. Of course they would rather hire from the pool of hard-working illegals! It saves them money, and it gets them employees who will work their asses off.
-
powers that be always benefited from lax enforcement of immigration laws--that's what got us here
strong laws provide basis for the trap door for any who get uppity cuz they lost a lousy finger or an eye or some shit
while the rest of em behave and keep their heads down, such that program provides infinite supply of highly compliant low-cost workers--good business
any mystery why they work in toxic dangerous industries like meat processing, and agriculture??
I’m
I’m afraid you’ll have to explain to a foreigner (me) why it is that you apparently blame your government for this situation, rather than the unscrupulous business owners who employ the undocumented workers and mistreat them?
The government comes into play when they don’t enforce OSHA laws. The illegal immigrants can’t report OSHA violations or hazardous workplaces or not getting paid for overtime, etc because they fear deportation.
If all the illegal immigrant workers in this country disappeared, the majority of those empty jobs would not be filled by unemployed Americans. There’s no way to know this as a fact, but given that American workers expect to be paid overtime, and get health insurance (or at least Worker’s Comp, which illegals are not covered by), then employers would have to really revamp their businesses. Of course they would rather hire from the pool of hard-working illegals! It saves them money, and it gets them employees who will work their asses off.
But the source of the problem is the businesses and the business leaders, not the government. What you are doing here sounds to an outsider like the equivalent of blaming the police for crime: “if only the police did their jobs then there wouldn’t be any crime”. The chief responsibility lies with the criminals not the police. And the main responsibility for exploitation of undocumented workers is surely the people who are hiring and exploiting them? I suspect that there’s an inherent “pro-business” and “anti-government” mindset at work. It might be a cultural difference: In the UK we’d see, in the situation described, the CEO of the company as chiefly responsible for the exploitation not the government officers who are supposed to catch him.
On the other point - what would happen if the businesses couldn’t employ undocumented workers, I suspect two things would happen. Some companies would invest in new technologies to reduce the need for such a large workforce. And others would move their operations overseas to a source of cheap labour. Neither of these outcomes would make the labour market any better for “born-in-the-USA” workers. Does that sound plausible?
-
I have learned what your kryptonite is...
This is my workstation:
Good Lord.
-
the problem is both government and business leaders.
government passes immigration laws that it enforces selectively, at behest of business, which benefits in ways already explained--all well-lubed by lobbie$t$, dc law firms etc.
-
The businesses/employees are the culprits as far as not giving illegal immigrants the safeguards that citizens have. But as illegals, it’s a given that they’re making a more direct trade: their labor for x amount of dollars. They are not given the protections that citizens have. Both the employees and the government are at fault. The gov could crack down on these employers, but then what? No citizens would work in some of those places for such a low wage.
I think the workers...all workers...should be given the protection of OSHA, overtime laws, etc, without risk of deportation. I don’t see how that could work, though.
I guess my thought is that Americans are not going to work those dangerous, shitty jobs for minimum wage, so why not give the people who ARE willing to do so the full protection of US employment laws, as well as let them reap the benefits of their contributions to social security.
-
Yes, well, that would be the civilised thing to do. But... err... shedloads of people voted for Trump and are going to vote for him again. The less civilised he gets, the more they seem to like it. They’ll be cheering him on even as he points the cannons at them. There’s clearly a lot of fear and anger out there.
The parallels with the Brexit-voters in the UK is remarkable. It would be exactly the same people who support Trump who would vote for Brexit, and for very similar reasons. Even many of those that stand to lose their jobs because of Brexit still support it, because of fantasy notions of “taking back control” and “gaining sovereignty”. If you ask them what they actually want or expect out of Brexit in terms of specifics they usually can’t say. It’s just a vote made purely with the heart, and if the heart says cut off your nose to spite your face, then it must be right... a kind of directionless venting of spleen. (It’s funny, because there are actually perfectly good reasons for being very sceptical about the European project. But none of those reasons are the ones you hear. But that may be where the analogy with Trump breaks down.)
-
Touched on earlier - lots of jobs going away that won't come back:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/record-number-of-robots-were-put-to-work-in-north-america-in-2018.html
A little tidbit at the end:
Meanwhile, a 2018 report from the International Labour Organization concluded that robotization in developed countries negatively affects employment in emerging countries.
Not all the cheap labor being replaced is local.
-
The automation of work issue is not so much robots as it is computers. We've been replacing physical labor with machines for 200+ years, and it's generated more jobs than it replaced. But now the cognitive part of work is being replaced, and other than easy portability and versatility, there isn't a place to hide. All work sectors are vulnerable.
The nature of labor has changed dramatically already. There are far fewer bullshit jobs, except in government. Traditional management is probably going to collapse suddenly. Who needs heirarchy when you can track everything everyone does, automatically? That's one big reason why investing in a college degree or advanced education requires more care and attention today.
-
Right. If you were to listen to the news you would think that manufacturing output has tanked in the US. Not so. We produce more than twice as much as we did in the 80's. It takes 20% less people to do it. Think how staggering that is. That is just one sector. There is no industry that is not effected. This factor dwarfs immigration in terms of jobs/wages.
(https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/reports/2010/b2476/b2476_chart5.jpg)
Also worth keeping in mind what immigration does for our country.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/jee5C_DsEz75hhrck1y3Iq6hE0E=/0x0:1980x982/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1980x982):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10023581/Y4sdE.png)
-
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
https://youtu.be/WX_96uKZ7yQ
-
Right. If you were to listen to the news you would think that manufacturing output has tanked in the US. Not so. We produce more than twice as much as we did in the 80's. It takes 20% less people to do it. Think how staggering that is. That is just one sector. There is no industry that is not effected. This factor dwarfs immigration in terms of jobs/wages.
I have a certain level of cynicism about how people think about the world around them, we're really all kind of stupid. We're only capable collectively. How anyone could think immigration is a significant problem is simply amazing. That curve isn't going to slow down, it's going to drastically climb. The time period for the graph covers the 23 years BEFORE cognitive labor replacement really got rolling. The middle class in the USA isn't being wiped out by immigration, it's dying because the jobs that supported it are irrelevant.
-
Illegal immigration is just a political football. Neither side wants it solved, because it is such an easy campaign issue. Complete immigration reform could be pretty easy. You have a job, you get to be legal (show two months pay stubs for citizenship?). If you get here and don't have a job, get a job - show 2 months pay stub. The problem is enforcement on the business side, and it has do be done through competition. I.e. rat out your competition if they are hiring illegals and you are following the law. We HAVE to let people come here to work, it is a massive portion of the American economy. Having people come here to take advantage of the social safety net is solved by getting more people to work.
Take "the wall" for example. Ignore the cost per foot (which is ridiculous, even for government work), but the idea itself is sound. The R's are telling us that it is for safety of Americans (utilizing fear), the D's are telling us the wall is inhumane (making sure the R's look like heartless SOBs).
It is just a wall. There is already lots of wall, and yet we it has become this divisive political symbol. In my opinion, the wall does not really create much more safety for Americans (a negligible percentage increase), but a massive safety increase for illegal immigrants by coordinating their entry points and eliminating dangerous desert crossings run by criminals.
-
Illegal immigration is just a political football. Neither side wants it solved, because it is such an easy campaign issue. Complete immigration reform could be pretty easy. You have a job, you get to be legal (show two months pay stubs for citizenship?). If you get here and don't have a job, get a job - show 2 months pay stub. The problem is enforcement on the business side, and it has do be done through competition. I.e. rat out your competition if they are hiring illegals and you are following the law. We HAVE to let people come here to work, it is a massive portion of the American economy. Having people come here to take advantage of the social safety net is solved by getting more people to work.
Take "the wall" for example. Ignore the cost per foot (which is ridiculous, even for government work), but the idea itself is sound. The R's are telling us that it is for safety of Americans (utilizing fear), the D's are telling us the wall is inhumane (making sure the R's look like heartless SOBs).
It is just a wall. There is already lots of wall, and yet we it has become this divisive political symbol. In my opinion, the wall does not really create much more safety for Americans (a negligible percentage increase), but a massive safety increase for illegal immigrants by coordinating their entry points and eliminating dangerous desert crossings run by criminals.
Actually, the DEMs and many REPs are saying that the wall really won't help much at all and it is a giant waste of money. That's the primary argument against it.
-
Sure, they both think the money could be better wasted elsewhere.
-
Sure, they both think the money could be better wasted elsewhere.
There is a lot of other waste, but in this case the argument is against increasing the budget (and therefore the deficit and therefore the debt) by the amount of money he wants for the wall and not spending this particular sum of money we don't have at all.
-
A10, Moonie gone, Ox gone. Thanks for posting one of my favorites!
Perhaps Karl Marx had a point in his statement that Capitalism is the Root of All Evil!
-
I think it was Marx that said “under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it’s just the opposite” but it probably wasn’t Karl
-
I think it was Marx that said “under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it’s just the opposite” but it probably wasn’t Karl
I think that came from a movie.
A similar one is "a system where most is given to to those who do the least", which can be used to describe either one.
-
https://youtu.be/WX_96uKZ7yQ
John made me want to play the Bass,
Kieth made me want to play drums
Pete made me want to play the guitar...and reminded me why I should never dance.
-
i call it a bargain, the best i ever had
-
Dizzy in the head and I'm feeling blue
-
Interesting tidbit, Townshend would not allow Michael Moore to use Won't Get Fooled Again in Fahrenheit 9/11, he considered Moore a bully.
-
ya---prolly best not to delve into pete towshend's tidbits
much as i love the who--and hope it aint true
-
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
https://youtu.be/WX_96uKZ7yQ
Capitalism at it's finest. The Who made millions singing what the streets want to hear. I think Pete was the Pied Piper. Bell Boy.... keep my lip buttoned down! Keith Moon was just off the hook the whole time he was alive.
-
Loved The Who, but felt a little taken advantage of after attending their “farewell tour” at the Kingdome in 82.
-
what's your point, TD?
-
Capitalism at it's finest. The Who made millions singing what the streets want to hear. I think Pete was the Pied Piper. Bell Boy.... keep my lip buttoned down! Keith Moon was just off the hook the whole time he was alive.
Yes, but it was genuine. They were selling music, a product, and a feeling that went along with it. Buyers got to sample the goods before they bought and they (we) got our money's worth. I see a prob right now which is a societal reality suck. We wanted to be Townsend or Entwistle, but we wanted the skills. If we wanted to be recognized, it was for doing something extremely well. Now we have a fame first, money first mentality that circumvents the steps of being great at something. It is there in the "Shark Tank" BS as well. Pump and dump businesses. It works if money is the only end game, but where the goal is the quick sale the mentality changes. A lot of shitty steps can be taken to boost sales and reduce costs that a business owner would never consider if they were planning to to run a company for life. A lot is lost in that transition.
-
Loved The Who, but felt a little taken advantage of after attending their “farewell tour” at the Kingdome in 82.
Ha. Seems I remember that as well. Saw them with The Clash on that tour in Oakland. It was quite the crowd and concert and had no idea who The Clash was then. I can still picture the crowd and the mosh pit of thousands happening on the field as I watched from the upper deck thinking how bizarre it looked. Elbows and bodies flying every which way.
what's your point, TD?
Maybe this?
Hadn't heard "Ox" in ages. Roger needs some love. Is that Bellboy? (don't think I have heard that reference to any of them before.) That dude can belt out a song like no one else. Not sure about a range of notes or anything but just pure........power.
Yeah, they were one of the best and their music holds up so well.
-
but what's this got to do with capitalism??
-
That’s right, the Clash! They were great, but unfortunately had a short trajectory. I will still spin a Who album on occasion.
-
yeah the who were awesome, and had a great powered up unique style---but what's this got to do with capitalism? cant get my arms around that....
saw the clash 2 years prior at red rocks colorado--i think i saw the who that year at folsom stadium-i--bet youve been to red rocks luca--saw so many good shows there--talking heads that year (tina weymouth on bass, pregnant! bet that baby can dance!)-tom tom club the next---santana too--denver comes out big for carlos--incredible energy at red rocks when he played there
woops, carlos santana is a first generation mexican immigrant--came to the us as a young boy, naturalized at 18--an american rock icon!
and of course the dead--thus "dead rocks"
-
c'mon bean "brand new cadillac" spin dat!
-
yeah the who were awesome, and had a great powered up unique style---but what's this got to do with capitalism? cant get my arms around that....
It makes me wonder, could a superband of the 70's and the 80's have had the degree of commercial success without a significant degree of capitalism.
-
again, not clear.
do you mean a "significant degree of capitalism" in a given artist's message?
or are you saying the artist/band must have originated in a "significantly capitalist" country?
or is that the band's music must have been sold in "significantly capitalist" countries?
but hey, why guess what TD meant? I'm sure he'll explain at some point
sharif dont like it, rock the casbah---not so different with the saudis in the present..............
-
again, not clear.
do you mean a "significant degree of capitalism" in a given artist's message?
or are you saying the artist/band must have originated in a "significantly capitalist" country?
or is that the band's music must have been sold in "significantly capitalist" countries?
but hey, why guess what TD meant? I'm sure he'll explain at some point
sharif dont like it, rock the casbah---kinda timeless---not so different with the saudis in the present..............
-
again, not clear.
do you mean a "significant degree of capitalism" in a given artist's message?
or are you saying the artist/band must have originated in a "significantly capitalist" country?
or is that the band's music must have been sold in "significantly capitalist" countries?
but hey, why guess what TD meant? I'm sure he'll explain at some point
sharif dont like it, rock the casbah---kinda timeless---not so different with the saudis in the present..............
No, not guessing what TD meant, just chiming in.
But, to go just one step further, imagine the music industry, in an economy without any degree of capitalism. In other words without the capitalists, the people that put up the money for the tours the productions, you know, the producers/investors. Over time, the super groups got away from their "record labels" and became economically self-sufficient, in otherwords, they became their own capitalists (in the truest sense, providers of capital).
-
My point. The British Invasion. Go to America and make it rich. My point is most of the words in a song are written to sell a hook. Love, screw the system, f- the rich, trip out, and such. Most artists dream of making it big. By most, I mean all excluding classical, or jazz artist. They spend their lives focused on perfecting their craft. Art for the sake of preserving the arts, with little to gain. The rest just want to make a millions of dollars. 3 chords in 4/4. Pete Townshend and John Entwistle were skilled, trained artist. They could play jazz, bluegrass, etc. but they went the commercial path and reaped the rewards. My point, they sold it, and we bought it. I'm trying to think of a rock artist who wasn't about fame and money?? Though they are more folk singers, maybe Woody Guthrie or Bob Dylan? Maybe. The government didn't like them, but that's my point. That's what brought them fame.
My point? People hear something they like and they buy into it.
I just thought of one...Tom Waits!
I vote for Carl Sagan 2020...... his atoms are part of all of us, and we are all a part of each other.
https://youtu.be/W5c59qUUnAY
-
A10, Moonie gone, Ox gone. Thanks for posting one of my favorites!
Perhaps Karl Marx had a point in his statement that Capitalism is the Root of All Evil!
Don't know how to quote myself. My initial remark was not meant to be taken literally in regards to the Who!
More in the spirit of new boss old boss being the same and our culture is primarily motivated by money and acquiring things.
John Entwhistle passed a while back. May the Ox rest in peace.
-
More in the spirit of new boss old boss being the same...
I suspected as much, Tony Danza and Brue Springsteen are the same... ;D
-
More in the spirit of new boss old boss being the same...
I suspected as much, Tony Danza and Brue Springsteen are the same... ;D
Off subject, but I gave Tony Danza his first ski lesson and Ronnie Wood's manager. ;D A long time ago... Back on subject, I benefited from the trickle down effect.
-
Off subject, but I gave Tony Danza his first ski lesson and Ronnie Wood's manager. ;D A long time ago... Back on subject, I benefited from the trickle down effect.
As I get older, I find "the trickle down effect" to have a whole new meaning...and I'm not sure I really like it all that much any longer. :-[ :)
-
My point. The British Invasion. Go to America and make it rich. My point is most of the words in a song are written to sell a hook. Love, screw the system, f- the rich, trip out, and such. Most artists dream of making it big. By most, I mean all excluding classical, or jazz artist. They spend their lives focused on perfecting their craft. Art for the sake of preserving the arts, with little to gain. The rest just want to make a millions of dollars. 3 chords in 4/4. Pete Townshend and John Entwistle were skilled, trained artist. They could play jazz, bluegrass, etc. but they went the commercial path and reaped the rewards. My point, they sold it, and we bought it. I'm trying to think of a rock artist who wasn't about fame and money?? Though they are more folk singers, maybe Woody Guthrie or Bob Dylan? Maybe. The government didn't like them, but that's my point. That's what brought them fame.
My point? People hear something they like and they buy into it.
I just thought of one...Tom Waits!
Okay, now you've got me going, am I trying to make a point, no, not really, other than what's at the bottom of most people's minds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFte3lhDpI
-
Tom Waits not making any money here... but I love his perspective. Most of these people, right and left are bused to these protests and paid for their time. Actually, just about everyone involved with these staged protests is on the clock. Some even making double time.
https://youtu.be/n_pWpW4JlrM
-
nice song--im a fan of both marc ribot and tom waits-saw ribot at a benefit for fukishima victims---
and great message--anti-fascism--especially appropriate in the age of trump duterte putin le pen etc etc--lotta fascistic nationalism going on round here
but paid protestors??-- that'd be one hellofa a payroll--and double for double time
cash? 4 hours at 10 an hour, the 200,000 who showed up for the march for our lives would require 8 million $$ be handed out--double time 16 million $$--so after the protest they all line up? or does soros mail them checks?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/09/the-real-purpose-of-the-paid-protester-lie/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1754915a484f
these supporters were, in fact, paid
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/donald-trump-escapes-fec-punishment-paid-actors-at-presidential-announcement-966428
-
The double time was in reference to all the government workers assigned to the protest security. Of course the reporters all get paid. The Irony of that short Film was the last shot. The gentleman holding the Scr-w Trump sign, and the street vendor next to him profiting from the protest.
And yes some protesters are paid. They call it “astroturfing” ? I think I need some of that on my roof ;)
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-crowds-extortion-20181021-story.html
https://youtu.be/Q0Ri0NnoVQU
-
Wow! I was involved in some 60's demonstrations ( Riots actually ) and we definitely did not get paid.
Social security supplemental. Can make thermite bombs out of ammonium nitrate.
That's quite enough!
Never happened! Hehe!
-
I saw Pete Buttigieg interviewed last night. He needs to be added to the list. Very bright, articulate and level headed. Rhodes Scholar at Oxford and Harvard Undergrad. Six languages. Served in Afghanistan. 37 YO. He currently serves as the chair of the “Automation and the Impacts on America’s Cities” task force at the United States Conference of Mayors. Would be an outstanding contrast to Trump on a debate stage. Could be very interesting. Have a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJCwUwziRvY
-
Very articulate, very reasonable. But IMO his style of communication is too abstract and intellectual for the majority, I fear. His words just wash over you. And the only things from that interview that will stick with the average voter will be: Butt-cheek; transgender toilets, too young, blah blah blah... what was that about “freedom to” vs. “freedom from” - what the hell is he talking about?”. So, yes, reasonable and educated people will feel comfortable with this kind of dialogue, but I think to the MAGA masses, this is just another slick PC politician with a funny name who doesn’t understand what matters to them.
IMO the Democrats need to find someone who can communicate with people as simply as Trump does. And who doesn’t see transgender toilets as the most important issue facing the world right now. Sadly, this guy isn’t that person. AOC does better.
It seems that there is so little real political talent on the world stage right now - not just in the US, but across the free world. I guess there are easier ways to become rich and influential these days than be a politician.
-
I think Pete Buttigieg is probably on every other DEM's short list for VP. I like him a lot, but I am not sure he can garner enough support in this cycle. For those with a short attention span, watch the last minute or two of the video Admin linked instead of the beginning.
I do have to put things in perspective when I listen to people speak. I am bad about blowing through concepts in a sentence or two and jumping into implementation and I am pretty good at following people who do the same. As I am often reminded, most people do not. I often get stopped in design meetings and asked to start over. The freedom and faith points really resonated with me even though I am not a person of faith. The freedom one is a major point that really needs to be delivered in a way that is easier to understand. Government is not nearly as oppressive as the overlords of unregulated capitalism.
-
Very articulate, very reasonable. But IMO his style of communication is too abstract and intellectual for the majority, I fear. His words just wash over you. And the only things from that interview that will stick with the average voter will be: Butt-cheek; transgender toilets, too young, blah blah blah... what was that about “freedom to” vs. “freedom from” - what the hell is he talking about?”. So, yes, reasonable and educated people will feel comfortable with this kind of dialogue, but I think to the MAGA masses, this is just another slick PC politician with a funny name who doesn’t understand what matters to them.
IMO the Democrats need to find someone who can communicate with people as simply as Trump does. And who doesn’t see transgender toilets as the most important issue facing the world right now. Sadly, this guy isn’t that person. AOC does better.
It seems that there is so little real political talent on the world stage right now - not just in the US, but across the free world. I guess there are easier ways to become rich and influential these days than be a politician.
I didn't find him slick at all. Pretty well the opposite. Not a lot of ego showing. I think a lot of people (who might potentially vote Dem) would relate to him. Very midwestern. Lives in the town he grew up in. The MAGA group will vote for Trump. That has to be considered a foregone conclusion. Cortez won't be running. She can't. I basically like her but I would prefer a candidate who did not brand themselves socialist (any flavor, Bernie included). I know the party sees that as a positive right now but it is not.
-
As stated by RideTheGlide- "Government is not nearly as oppressive as the overlords of unregulated capitalism."
Victims of Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, and other similar government leaders would disagree.
-
As stated by RideTheGlide- "Government is not nearly as oppressive as the overlords of unregulated capitalism."
Victims of Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, and other similar government leaders would disagree.
Agreed.
"overlords of unregulated capitalism", seriously?
Who would those "overlords" be? Our corporations who are taxed higher than corporations in all other countries?
And if it's "unregulated", then those "overlords" are doing a terrible job at regulating it.
It's like saying 'I'm in favor of capitalism, I just don't like our capitalism', even though our country is to most popular country in the world, due to our economy, that people are dying to get to.
That mud doesn't stick.
-
Would be an outstanding contrast to Trump on a debate stage.
It would be futile, Trump doesn't debate, he fabricates, exaggerates, and placates to the lowest common denominator of the voting public if you hadn't noticed from the last time.
Whomever could speak intelligently for five minutes, be 100% correct in what s/he was saying, and Trump's only respond need be....
(https://i.imgflip.com/1bbujr.gif)
...to get a standing ovation from his base, and then go on with some superlative laced gibberish that means nothing, but that his throng eat up like he's throwing out candy to all of them.
It's sad, but we've finally succumbed to political debates that more resemble a gladiator forum battle, than an educated, and intellectual discussion of the topics. "Henny Penny" politics is the name of the game now, and someone who's "Very bright, articulate and level headed" don't stand a chance...unless he's "bright" enough to throw that all out the window, and just jump in the pig pen, get dirty, and out crap-mouth the king of it. >:(
-
Would be an outstanding contrast to Trump on a debate stage.
It would be futile, Trump doesn't debate, he fabricates, exaggerates, and placates to the lowest common denominator of the voting public if you hadn't noticed from the last time.
Whomever could speak intelligently for five minutes, be 100% correct in what s/he was saying, and Trump's only respond need be....
(https://i.imgflip.com/1bbujr.gif)
...to get a standing ovation from his base, and then go on with some superlative laced gibberish that means nothing, but that his throng eat up like he's throwing out candy to all of them.
It's sad, but we've finally succumbed to political debates that more resemble a gladiator forum battle, than an educated, and intellectual discussion of the topics. "Henny Penny" politics is the name of the game now, and someone who's "Very bright, articulate and level headed" don't stand a chance...unless he's "bright" enough to throw that all out the window, and just jump in the pig pen, get dirty, and out crap-mouth the king of it. >:(
Trump has his base. He can't win with just his base. Getting down in the muck won't work. Most people are tired of it now. Talk straight, make sense, don't get rattled by gibberish. We ran an ill chosen candidate last time. I voted for her and will vote for any of this group but we will still need the margin to win as well and we can't scare them home with "socialism" and fringe policy.
-
Unfortunately, our elections are now simply sound bites, and name-recognition popularity contests, that someone like Buttigieg has no more of a chance of winning than if you or I running. Heck, his name alone will give Trump, and his dimwitted followers pages of memes, and Twitter fodder that will overshadow any intellectual rebuke Pete (or most anyone else) will attempt to counter with.
For instance, I'm 50 miles from the SoCal "southern border" where all of these "illegal aliens are pouring in" if you listen to my neighbors, and city folk in general, and all we need is a wall to quell the flow. None of them want to hear that the "caravaners" are coming here seeking asylum at legal ports of entry. Nope, they're all storming the border past all of the poor helpless Border Patrol agents, and heading to the first hospital, welfare office, food bank, and shelter they can get to for all of the free incentives the "liberals" have sent up for them.
Actual facts, data, and attempted intelligent discussion fall on deaf ears with them...because Trump told them these YUGE caravans are upsetting their daily life - even though they couldn't identify an "illegal alien" if they were standing next to one - so we must spend billions of dollars on a useless wall...now that Mexico is no longer going to pay for it like they were told it would a couple years ago. F'n amazing the stupidity...it's embarrassing actually. :-[
-
As stated by RideTheGlide- "Government is not nearly as oppressive as the overlords of unregulated capitalism."
Victims of Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, and other similar government leaders would disagree.
I should have qualified that better; I meant our government. I meant more government controls over capitalism like we used to have when nearly everyone working full time could afford to pay rent, buy groceries and take a vacation every now and then.
-
his name alone will give Trump, and his dimwitted followers pages of memes, and Twitter fodder that will overshadow any intellectual rebuke Pete (or most anyone else) will attempt to counter with.
He tried that with Barack Hussein Obama, another clear worded intellectual who was a public unknown a few years before his election. He won't convert your neighbors. Neither will the others.
-
Can we just be honest here. The Dem’s have nobody who can really challenge Trump for 2020. The main street media did Trump a HUGE favor. MSNBC, CNN, NBC. Sorry, their ratings are in the toilet. Might be time for you’all to just chill and HOPE for 2024.....
-
some things are best handled by fair democratically elected government--(and i hope we all still aspire to fair legit democratic elections, accessible easily to all americans)---and better not handled by private profit-motivated entities--i certainly prefer that stuff like war and our military, and imprisonment, criminal justice and law enforcement--all be handled by our elected government, and not by profit-motivated corporate entities---corporate "privatized, for-profit army"?? no thanks
but then i'd include health care, education (public schools), and our civil courts, too
but i believe in capitalism and capital markets, which, if reasonably regulated, provide best path to business development and long-term growth--for cars and houses and shoes and food and computers and all the rest of the stuff our amazing economy does
kinda hydrid---but, yeah, totally prefer good democratically elected government look after certain shit--stuff business profiteers' "invisible hand" cant be trusted with
not sure how Stalin and Hitler figure in to good well regulated democratic capitalism---i like to think that's what we are all about......i mean, Hitler??? really?? like that's what we'll face if we stop letting our energy policy be owned by the fossil fuel industry??
-
eastbound..... I still detect some deep seeded bitterness in your post. Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the......
-
I saw Pete Buttigieg interviewed last night. He needs to be added to the list. Very bright, articulate and level headed. Rhodes Scholar at Oxford and Harvard Undergrad. Six languages. Served in Afghanistan. 37 YO. He currently serves as the chair of the “Automation and the Impacts on America’s Cities” task force at the United States Conference of Mayors. Would be an outstanding contrast to Trump on a debate stage. Could be very interesting. Have a look
I watched most/some/part of it.
isn't there some guy every time who somehow seems to make some sense...……..and then something happens..
Jerry, Pat, Ross, Ralph, Donald, Thomas...?
Its barely Spring '19.
-
some things are best handled by fair democratically elected government--(and i hope we all still aspire to fair legit democratic elections, accessible easily to all americans)---and better not handled by private profit-motivated entities--i certainly prefer that stuff like war and our military, and imprisonment, criminal justice and law enforcement--all be handled by our elected government, and not by profit-motivated corporate entities---corporate "privatized, for-profit army"?? no thanks
but then i'd include health care, education (public schools), and our civil courts, too
but i believe in capitalism and capital markets, which, if reasonably regulated, provide best path to business development and long-term growth--for cars and houses and shoes and food and computers and all the rest of the stuff our amazing economy does
kinda hydrid---but, yeah, totally prefer good democratically elected government look after certain shit--stuff business profiteers' "invisible hand" cant be trusted with
not sure how Stalin and Hitler figure in to good well regulated democratic capitalism---i like to think that's what we are all about......i mean, Hitler??? really?? like that's what we'll face if we stop letting our energy policy be owned by the fossil fuel industry??
East,
I agree with most of that. Here is my issue. Of your list, Military, Courts, Public Schools, Prisons (mixed) and many more are already government tended with no socialist labeling. Health and Higher Ed raise more debate but they certainly do not require self-labeling as Socialist. When you brand yourself socialist the question of further intention is immediately present and many individuals will not wait for or trust the answer.
-
who said i brand myself "socialist"?? i believe that much in our society should be run by democratically elected government, in fair accessible elections--where the majority of initiative investment and resource allocation shd be determined by free markets
hell ive made my living trading capital markets for the past 38 years--they are the lubricant of our generally excellent capitalist economy
and there are many profiteers who have made good inroads into obscenely profitable contracting associated with our wars, with running our prisons, and leaching from our ridiculously over-leached health care, etc etc
and labels schmabels--weve had profiteers trying to get their hands on taxpayer-paid education funding for years--and look at the con of charter schools.... yes, in fact our military can be called a "socialist" entity within our system---so what?
rider, youre dating yourself with that McCarthyist crap--hope youre just trolling, and not dementing.....you should keep an eye on that...
-
Here is my issue. Of your list, Military, Courts, Public Schools, Prisons (mixed) and many more are already government tended with no socialist labeling. Health and Higher Ed raise more debate but they certainly do not require self-labeling as Socialist. When you brand yourself socialist the question of further intention is immediately present and many individuals will not wait for or trust the answer.
Agreed. I hate to say I am a socialist for the same reason many (most?) in my generation do - it's the second S in USSR. My kids don't have this hang up and say I am a socialist and see that as a positive because they only think of the true meaning - that I believe many things should be provided equally for all - protection (law enforcement and military), roads, education, health care and a few other similar needs. I believe we should provide food and shelter for those who need either. I don't think everything should be government owned and/or controlled.
who said i brand myself "socialist"?? i believe that much in our society should be run by democratically elected government, in fair accessible elections--where the majority of initiative investment and resource allocation shd be determined by free markets
hell ive made my living trading capital markets for the past 38 years--they are the lubricant of our generally excellent capitalist economy
and there are many profiteers who have made good inroads into obscenely profitable contracting associated with our wars, with running our prisons, and leaching from our ridiculously over-leached health care, etc etc
and labels schmabels--weve had profiteers trying to get their hands on taxpayer-paid education funding for years--and look at the con of charter schools.... yes, in fact our military can be called a "socialist" entity within our system---so what?
rider, youre dating yourself with that McCarthyist crap--hope youre just trolling, and not dementing.....
I agree with everything you say, but the "labels schmabels" doesn't survive the test of harsh reality yet. Admin stated that best, IMO, in the part of his post I bolded. As was clearly demonstrated in 2016, perception can be as important as reality if not more so.
-
who said i brand myself "socialist"??
Hi East,
I wrote that poorly. I wrote "When you brand yourself socialist" but I should have written, "when a candidate brands his/her self as socialist". I didn't think that you were conveying that at all.
-
Why do you guys in the US get so uptight about the word “socialist”? You do realise that the rest of the world uses that word all the time to describe a general orientation, or degrees of it - it’s not a religion or an absolute thing, right? Mainly outsude the US, and in everyday language (and when not being used by despotic dictators to hide their true intent) it just refers to the belief that the rich will prey mercilessly upon the poor unless you do what you can to provide the poor with opportunities to better their situation. And believing that having the rich prey mercilessly upon the poor is not healthy for a society. Some of the poor will make the most of the opportunities you provide, and some won’t. That’s up to them. But socialism is about trying to ensure that those opportunities exist - i.e. that there can be social mobility. There are a gazillion ways of doing that, and none are absolute. So you just choose the flavour that suits you. Isn’t the possibility of social mobility at the heart of the “American Dream”?
So, it’s not such a scary and hideous thing, surely? Honestly, in the US it seems that if you describe yourself as a socialist you get the same reaction as if you said you were a paedophile. It’s no big deal, OK? Anyone who has even an ounce of compassion or empathy, or a sense of fairness and justice, in their personality already has a little bit of socialist going on inside them.
-
The political labels are more than a bit screwed up, both in the USA and worldwide. People use fascist and capitalist for anyone with right wing sympathies, liberal, socialist, and communist interchangeably for the left.
Technically, Liberal means anyone who believes in personal liberty, and equal treatment under the law.
Socialism refers to government ownership of the means of production and worker's exercising their power as the fundamental creators of value--they get paid for their work and can spend wages as they choose.
Communism means the workers own everything and work towards communal goals, with resources delivered according to need with no difference in resources provided by working more than is required.
Capitalism permits private ownership and owners keep and invest excess production.
Fascism is Socialism with capitalist overtones: Government regimentation and control of society and the economy.
Personal definitions aside, Socialism is a dirty word in the USA, and if it refers to the real Socialist deal, it is deservedly so. True socialism yields poverty, pogroms and misery and always results in the best connected, best prepared, and most ruthless people seizing power. Rich countries enacting social policies to give people an opportunity to escape the situation they were born into need a new label.
-
“Rich countries enacting social policies to give people an opportunity to escape the situation they were born into need a new label“.
This is true. But that’s the real “everyday definition” of what people really mean by “socialism” in the Western world, rather than the obscure “academic definition” you gave earlier in your post (which was sure enough the definition a first-year student of political philosophy might give but would not be the one most people who vote left in the developed world would give, if you asked them “what does it mean to be a socialist?”).
But people who have little empathy or desire for equality of opportunity deliberately equate one with the other in order to disparage straightforward kindness and decency. It’s as accurate to equate the GOP with Nazi fascism as it is to equate socialism in the Western world with e.g. the Chinese form of government. It’s just another form of fake news to do that, and it would be nice IMO if my US friends would just calm down about that word and try to understand what people are actually meaning when they are saying it. They might find that it’s nothing to be scared about, after all. No-one is going to come and turn your house into a commune against your will, or force you to buy only one brand of toothpaste that is made by the government. We are just talking about how to help the little guy who has the will to succeed to be able to make it, in a society run by Harvard graduates and CEOs with deep pockets who don’t give a damn about him.
-
It is indeed a matter of perception and definition. But none of this is going to change prior to our next election.
"Just 18 percent of Americans react positively to the mention of socialism" https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/03/americans-mixed-message-for-2020-presidential-candidates-keep-your-socialist-hands-off-our-government-programs.html
That means we are talking about a huge # of democrats or potential Dem voters that do not see this as a positive term. We can do without that.
-
Just invent a new term then. That’s how language evolves. None of your supposedly “socialist” candidates are really proposing anything like Pono’s definition of socialism. They mainly just mean a set of policies that aim to guard against the worst excesses of capitalism (eg. exploitation of people at the bottom of the social hierarchy), and to try to ensure that the economy (and broader society) works for as many people as possible, not just an elite few, so that everyone gets a fair chance in life. It shouldn’t be too hard to find a word for that aim.
-
Just invent a new term then. That’s how language evolves. None of your supposedly “socialist” candidates are really proposing anything like Pono’s definition of socialism. They mainly just mean a set of policies that aim to guard against the worst excesses of capitalism (eg. exploitation of people at the bottom of the social hierarchy), and to try to ensure that the economy (and broader society) works for as many people as possible, not just an elite few, so that everyone gets a fair chance in life. It shouldn’t be too hard to find a word for that aim.
We have a phrase for that, it's "Life ,Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", in our country we do everything we can to insure that everybody has a fair chance at "life", and we do a pretty good job at it. The conflict comes when the outcome doesn't seem to live up to some people's expectations, not enough people living up to their full potentials.
We can guarantee a fair chance, as best we can, but we can't, and shouldn't even try to guarantee equal results with everybody, you have the "liberty" to fail.
When we try to gigger the system so that everybody has the same results, then you've entered the world of socialism. Less liberty to insure equal results, or in other words, everyone has the equal chance to rise to the same level of mediocrity. No "happiness" there.
-
Perhaps some people who have won the genetic lottery, and so are bright enough and presentable enough to climb the social ladder, feel that for the sake of a happier society, they might want to give a little bit of their income to others who weren’t so blessed in the genetic lottery, or in the parents they had, or the luck in life they got. It’s quaint Weasel that you believe that we all get what we deserve in life. But many feel that it’s often a case of “there but for the grace of God go I”, and take pleasure in helping other people (or trying to). Sometimes altruism is its own reward. A re-balancing of the cosmos, if you like.
But of course some people are just greedy and selfish. These people will typically attribute anything good in their lives to their own magnificence, and anything bad as being directly caused by others. However, these same people will attribute anything good in others’ lives to the good fortune of that person, and anything bad to the other person’s character.
These personality characteristics and attitudes to life are usually reflected in their voting patterns. So I guess each person just has to ask themself which group of people they want to hang with most, and vote that way.
Weasel, you’ll love this video:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-us-2016-35636893/us-election-2016-did-socialism-save-this-us-town
-
Wow area, it sucks to be you. I think I know why. I had the misfortune to be downtown London a couple weeks ago. Looking for deals on sailboats. What a worthless piece of shit city. London sucks big time. Been there many times and it just keeps getting worse. I feel really SORRY for you. NOT.....
-
Wow area, it sucks to be you. I think I know why. I had the misfortune to be downtown London a couple weeks ago. Looking for deals on sailboats. What a worthless piece of shit city. London sucks big time. Been there many times and it just keeps getting worse. I feel really SORRY for you. NOT.....
Thanks for sharing. That’s why I don’t live in London any more.
-
So you’re good with London being a worthless piece of shit. It’s not just London, but you know that. Where do you go next?
-
Just invent a new term then. That’s how language evolves. None of your supposedly “socialist” candidates are really proposing anything like Pono’s definition of socialism. They mainly just mean a set of policies that aim to guard against the worst excesses of capitalism (eg. exploitation of people at the bottom of the social hierarchy), and to try to ensure that the economy (and broader society) works for as many people as possible, not just an elite few, so that everyone gets a fair chance in life. It shouldn’t be too hard to find a word for that aim.
How about the new term "Democratic socialism"?
I think Bernie and AOC know that when opponents hear there proposals, they'll try to vilify them by calling them Socialist. They're trying to deflect that by using the new term "Democratic socialist" . They can't deny that wanting public education and health care is anything but socialistic, so they have to embrace the term. When AOC was asked in an interview if she wants to turn the US into a socialist country like Venezuela, she said no, like Norway, the happiest country in the world.
The term socialism has a different connotation to millennials that it does to baby boomers like me. I was taught that there was very little difference between socialism and communism and communism is very very bad.
-
I’ve got it. Let’s take up a collection and send area 1 to Venezuela. We’ll put in a good word with Maduro. With your past education, you could become “The Magestrate del SUP de Venezuela “. While it lasts..... 8)
-
Hard to believe that politicians need marketers, you'd think with all their experience at lying that they'd be good at it. Democratic Socialism is probably the worst possible label. Well, maybe Nazi is a little worse, and of course that was actually the National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) which sounds like something Bernie and AOC would sign right up for, and hence my notion of Fascism as Socialism with an authoritarian twist.
Words matter, and it's simply stupid to buck that tide. The dumbest thing you can do in marketing is try to educate your audience or change their mind. If the democrats nominate someone who calls him(her)self a socialist they will lose. Flat out. Lose.
As far as the simplistic definitions go, I doubt that 10 percent of people, regardless of their education, intelligence or nationality would get all five right. Certainly very few people understand what "Liberal" means or realizes that the root idea of the word is liberty. And a fundamental tenet of Socialism is that the government owns the means of production. Living under a different system and calling it Socialism simply adds to the confusion.
I'm constantly stunned by people using Norway as an example of anything applicable to a different country. A population of less than 6 million, about the same as the SF Bay Area, with racial attitudes that would embarass most US republicans.
-
Our party has also scripted itself into a sensitivity hole. We destroy ourselves over the tiniest disruption while the other side sheds flagrant abuses. Joe the hair sniffer? Really? Toss him in the pile with air groper Franken.
-
[When AOC was asked in an interview if she wants to turn the US into a socialist country like Venezuela, she said no, like Norway, the happiest country in the world.
Certainly one of the most beautiful countries in the world, but I’m not so sure about the happiest, especially in the northern most parts of the country.
But, we can’t compare the US to a country like Norway which has a significantly lower economic drag. It would be like a top Sumo attempting to run like a Kenyan in a marathon...
-
norway seems pretty happy to me, tho with the value of their oil, and that that value is not owned by a couple of billionaires, so the wealth is shared with the citizens, it seems a layup---------
but we will never be norway--but we certainly can learn from the norwegians on many matters---like education
really, tho, the funniest part of all this are the claims that AOC will turn the US into venezuala!! so moronic....
wait, inforwars said she's actually venezuelan--makes sense with a name like ocasio-cortez!! i smell a conspiracy here--where's alex jones when we need him??
-
Maybe she said Finland, I didn't Google first
(CNN) — Finland has a lot to celebrate.
Not only does it have a capital city bursting with gastronomic creativity, the spectacular Northern Lights and Santa Claus's year-round home (plus the reindeer support staff) in Lapland. It's also the happiest country in the world for the second year in a row, according to the latest World Happiness Report.
It's followed by Denmark, Norway, Iceland and The Netherlands.
Anyway, if AOC and Berrnie called themselves anything else, Fox would just say that anything was a code word for Socialist
-
kiwi's are said to be a happy bunch--and NZ is said to be one of the environmentally cleanest countries in the world
in fact most of the top-listed countries on the happiness index are among the environmentally cleanest, least polluting countries in the world----and they all long ago accepted and implemented policy to deal with the knowledge that human caused global warming is acutely upon us
-
Anyway, if AOC and Berrnie called themselves anything else, Fox would just say that anything was a code word for Socialist
This is true. They are not going to unring that bell. Even so, it seems that we now need to hear everything through the AOC filter. That is madness to me. Her unfavorables are really high, dems included. Why is this now a requirement?.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2611
-
Denmark, which regularly tops the happiness charts, has an economic system that you guys would probably label as “socialist”: very high basic levels of taxation and a political system where trying to ensure that the gap between rich and poor does not get disruptively large is not considered an offence.
It doesn’t mean that their system would scale for the US, because they have a more homogeneous society. And it’s a small country. But it’s worth bearing in mind that what most people under 40 years old now call “socialism” doesn’t automatically lead to misery and disaster, as some here might like to claim.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia page for socialism contains the following:
“In 21st century America, the term socialism, without clear definition, has become a pejorative used by conservatives to taint liberal and progressive policies, proposals, and public figures”.
It also makes the point that there are many different varieties of socialism, with no single definition encapsulating them all. So PB’s definition of socialism
Is already long dead, I think. Maybe the prejudice is just old folks recounting the prejudices they learnt from the past, and the new political figures like AOC aren’t worried about the label because they know that the generation they are appealing to are more open-minded, and don’t have the older associations with the word that the wrinklies do. And the younger voters are more likely to have visited places like Denmark (or aspire to), and so are less ready to accept that e.g. having a really good national health service that is free for everyone is the devil’s work (especially when it’s a lot cheaper than the system you have). Old Trump voters are a lost cause for the new young democrats anyway, so why bother pandering to them? Maybe better to look to a bright new future run by younger folk, and one way to clearly distinguish yourself from the stereotype Trump voter is to use the word “socialist”, and see the steam pour out of their ears. In fact maybe it’s becoming code for “I appeal to the younger generation“, and that is why some Dems are comfortable using it.
-
My prejudice against the term is that I want us to win this next election and would prefer that we run a centrist Democrat and not tilt at windmills right now.
-
My prejudice against the term is that I want us to win this next election and would prefer that we run a centrist Democrat and not tilt at windmills right now.
I am entirely sympathetic to this view - indeed, I might easily have said almost these same words about the situation in the UK right now.
-
As much as I would love a far-left (socialist, if you will) government, I agree that we have to run someone who will beat trump. An earthquake gives notice before it fully lets go, the sky gives notice before a tornado. We have been given notice. Trump and his minions want to dismantle everything that is helpful and supportive of people who are “less fortunate” (grrr); they want to cut aide to Central America, which will only make life worse for its citizens, thereby increasing the need/desire to emigrate; they want to destroy ocean mammals, and possibly the sea itself, by allowing offshore drilling off the east coast; they want to drill in pristine arctic habitats. Etc etc etc.
When the SHTF, no one will be able to say “I didn’t see this coming”.
I want trump and pence and Graham and McConnell, et al, OUT! GONE! I don’t care how it happens.
-
So, Trump cheats widely at golf. There’s a surprise...
https://news.sky.com/story/new-book-claims-trump-cheats-at-the-highest-level-on-the-golf-course-11681097
If he cheats at golf he’ll be cheating his taxes too. We need to see his tax returns. Tax returns are the litmus test for honesty.
-
So, Trump cheats widely at golf. There’s a surprise...
https://news.sky.com/story/new-book-claims-trump-cheats-at-the-highest-level-on-the-golf-course-11681097
If he cheats at golf he’ll be cheating his taxes too. We need to see his tax returns. Tax returns are the litmus test for honesty.
I doubt we’ll ever see them. He’s obviously hiding something.
-
Appealing to the younger generation might have some effect if they actually voted. Never more than 50 percent, and generally less than 40 percent vote. So how they interpret socialism doesn't actually mean much--even assuming that some theoretical straw man notion of the term existed. The hard data says it doesn't, people simply assume it means something between far left and communist, but what is data compared to arm waving. At least you said "maybe" A10, though the polls say no fucking way. 18 percent of Americans across all voting ages and political affiliations respond positively to the term Socialist and 50 percent respond negatively. At the same time 55 percent of Americans say the government should do more to help them. It doesn't take much analysis to see that democrats need to convince Americans that they won't push the country towards a "socialist state" but they will do more to help them.
It shouldn't be any surprise that millennial don't vote, since they don't in the UK either, though they did turn out in unprecedented numbers for the EU vote, and of course that worked out well.
-
If he cheats at golf he’ll be cheating his taxes too. We need to see his tax returns. Tax returns are the litmus test for honesty.
That's potentially insulting to many golfers A-10. I have dealt with plenty of clients that were conviceted tax-cheats but would never dream of cheating in golf... ;D
-
ha!
-
Bill's right... Voting is for chumps. A couple of older women who work for me - their families do not vote, never have. They both talk game, "Obama!" .. "Trump!" ..but stay home?! I heard, like 43% of eligible, did not vote in '16.
Fuc'm... "You do not get a tax refund .. welfare .. medicare .. VA benefits .. Social Security ...unless you are on record as having voted."
The lazy Fucs ...'s no wonder we're turning into an oligarchy.
Jim
-
i am fed up and i am not going to take it any more!
for those who cant name our VP--or the touchy-feely one from before (who i think is innocent of trying to get anything remotely sexual from anyone but his wife)--not so sure anyone wants them voting--but i respect that they do have a right, shd they care to vote
but for those who opine on whatever they perceive to be unfairnesses dealt them? yet they dont vote--STFU! im with wettie on this!!!
I waver from suspending any practicality in my voting, and angrily supporting whoever has agenda most aligned with me--sick of kleptocrat wolves in demo sheep's clothing--like my effing schmuck "ill suck any xxxx on wall street or in right wing israel" schumer--id rather lose than vote for him
but then the current state of affairs scares shit outta me, so i may defer to my stepson who will likely end up some sort of political operative (already getting plenty of work) when he grads college--he is totally on my progdemo team, but has a real knack for seeing the practicalist approach to winning--glad he's on my team! but i may do as he says to.....
peripheral takeaway--there are jobs in politics--after citizens united exploded PAC funding etc, DC is a huge toilet swirling with buckeroos!!
-
Voting is so weird, I have worked on local issues. School bonds and levies etc. Have worked nights and weekends with people (mostly in their 30's and 40's) to get these bonds across. You can get a list of who voted in each election, but not how they voted. It was surprising to see that there were a few people that we worked with for months, not vote at all on the VERY ELECTION WE HAD BEEN POLITICKING FOR! Sometimes losing small local elections by 6 or 7 votes and the people doing the work didn't vote! It was too embarrassing to ask them why after the fact.
I have also been involved with Bond strategists quite a bit and in looking at the demographics people my age, who are actively trying to make money in this market, vote at like 8% in this area, it is the people who are trying to protect what they got (retired ones) who vote a lot more.
The psychology behind it fascinates.
-
Yes. It is a reasonably well-established psychological principle that people are more motivated to avoid losing something they already have than they will be to gain something that they don’t yet have. This may in part explain why older folks are apparently more motivated to vote: they may have more to lose (in material terms) than to gain, whereas younger folk in the main will have more to gain than to lose.
Older folk are also simply a lot more organised, and their lives tend to more regular in terms of scheduling.
-
Area, Did you grow up watching Star Trek? Your last post was a Perfect impersonation of Spock. Are you a Vulcan?
-
Area, Did you grow up watching Star Trek? Your last post was a Perfect impersonation of Spock. Are you a Vulcan?
Well if I am, I’m probably not the only one. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for his work on this phenomenon in behavioral economics. It is called “loss aversion”. Google it and you will find lots of writing that reads stylistically like my post, even if intellectually the academic work is of infinitely higher quality (obviously).
-
Are you a Vulcan?
Spock might have responded, "it would be most interesting to impress your memory engrams on a computer, Rider. The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most entertaining." ;D
-
Yes. It is a reasonably well-established psychological principle that people are more motivated to avoid losing something they already have than they will be to gain something that they don’t yet have. This may in part explain why older folks are apparently more motivated to vote: they may have more to lose (in material terms) than to gain, whereas younger folk in the main will have more to gain than to lose.
Older folk are also simply a lot more organised, and their lives tend to more regular in terms of scheduling.
Older folks also vote with their dollars and their health.
So Mick needs a new heart valve, he chooses to have it done here in the U.S. as opposed to his native G.B.
-
Trump’s latest lie is that wind turbine noise causes cancer.
Is there a webpage somewhere that lists all of Trump’s lies? I guess it runs to many pages.
https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-claims-wind-turbine-noise-causes-cancer-11683102
-
Yes. It is a reasonably well-established psychological principle that people are more motivated to avoid losing something they already have than they will be to gain something that they don’t yet have. This may in part explain why older folks are apparently more motivated to vote: they may have more to lose (in material terms) than to gain, whereas younger folk in the main will have more to gain than to lose.
Older folk are also simply a lot more organised, and their lives tend to more regular in terms of scheduling.
Older folks also vote with their dollars and their health.
So Mick needs a new heart valve, he chooses to have it done here in the U.S. as opposed to his native G.B.
Yes, clearly Mick has unlimited choice in where to have surgery, but what if he didn't? What if the US had an NHS model like the UK? Who would be the world standard-setter in healthcare?
-
Trump’s latest lie is that wind turbine noise causes cancer.
Is there a webpage somewhere that lists all of Trump’s lies? I guess it runs to many pages.
And that his father was born in Germany. I like that one
Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star has been fact checking since the beginning. He is a good follow on Twitter
https://www.thestar.com/news/donald-trump-fact-check.html
https://twitter.com/ddale8
-
Yes. It is a reasonably well-established psychological principle that people are more motivated to avoid losing something they already have than they will be to gain something that they don’t yet have. This may in part explain why older folks are apparently more motivated to vote: they may have more to lose (in material terms) than to gain, whereas younger folk in the main will have more to gain than to lose.
Older folk are also simply a lot more organised, and their lives tend to more regular in terms of scheduling.
Older folks also vote with their dollars and their health.
So Mick needs a new heart valve, he chooses to have it done here in the U.S. as opposed to his native G.B.
Yes, clearly Mick has unlimited choice in where to have surgery, but what if he didn't? What if the US had an NHS model like the UK? Who would be the world standard-setter in healthcare?
the only americans who have any choice in their healthcare are the very rich--and yes, we have best care in the world for our wealthy--but the data on overall quality of care and cost for the avg joe in the us vs that of the average bloke in europe clearly favors the care in europe
often the very rich from around the globe come to the states for complex care--a guy worth 400mln could care less about paying 300k full retail for a heart valve fix--so they come to the US and choose the best care available and throw what is chump change for them, at the best facility for the procedure
avg joe in the US??--no such luck --he goes to whatever hospital his carrier has contract with and tough luck if that facility sux-(if he has "insurance" at all, that is)--choose? better have beaucoup bux, or be ready to join the ranks of those who file for personal bankruptcy, some 70% of whom are there bc of medical event costs
hell, a good number of the medically bankrupted get there, even tho they have insurance---overwhelmed by coverage caps deductibles and out of pocket costs--yep avg joe's WITH health insurance
it's great to be rich in the usa, esp re medical care--so much so that rich people from other countries come here for the coveted precious care than can be bought here----less than rich, working class??? not the case at all
so yeah mick, a guy worth 400mm, who needs a sensitive med procedure, is drawn to US for that, since money rules quality of med care here. makes sense.
if i had 400mm i would ignore my crappy med insurance and seek care based on quality only, without the paranoia about sneaky hidden costs that will end up coming out of my pocket--
like the poor guy who passed out after a flu shot, got in an ambulance and owed 20k (and has insurance!)---mick doesnt sweat that kinda stuff!
-
Are you a Vulcan?
Spock might have responded, "it would be most interesting to impress your memory engrams on a computer, Rider. The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most entertaining." ;D
Fascinating.
-
...like the poor guy who passed out after a flu shot, got in an ambulance and owed 20k (and has insurance!)---mick doesnt sweat that kinda stuff!
I wouldn't disagree with you on any of your fine examples, but my point was simply, where would healthcare be today without the capitalist driven healthcare industry in the US? Who would set the standard?
-
china--as they are catching up to us in biomed, and are the unarguable world leader in genetic research--they run crispr's like we run mcdonald's fry machines
and breakthroughs are great, but need to be available to others than the rich
none of us will get near the level of care Mick will pay cash for
-
I don’t know about that. Remember when David Letterman brought the docs who did his heart surgery on the show? They were the same docs who operated on my b-in-law ( who turned 95 this year) . I believe he was on Medicare at the time.
-
china--as they are catching up to us in biomed
Missing my point and making it, in the same breath...Yes China, like the rest of the world are catching up. Maybe they can set the bench marks for us to follow once we adopt an NHS model.
-
...like the poor guy who passed out after a flu shot, got in an ambulance and owed 20k (and has insurance!)---mick doesnt sweat that kinda stuff!
I wouldn't disagree with you on any of your fine examples, but my point was simply, where would healthcare be today without the capitalist driven healthcare industry in the US? Who would set the standard?
The obvious answer is--someone else. The USA lost the edge in medical tech a few years ago--it's simply become too expensive to do research in the USA, and the healthcare system is the reason why. Japan clearly leads today from a technology standpoint. I researched this in-depth a few years ago as part of my retirement book. At that time most experts put the USA in second place, South Korea third, China fourth, then a few other countries I don't remember, then England and Canada. From a Biotech standpoint, USA doctors and researchers led the way two years ago, with the most published results, but China was close behind and coming up fast. Given the shape of the curve in 2017 I'd assume they passed USA briskly and haven't looked back. That could only be a surprise if you haven't been paying attention. Pick up any medical device you are using and read the label. Made in the USA? Well, maybe Puerto Rico, but generally--China or South Korea. Fucking WD40 is made in China now. Tech isn't the same as care or results. In terms of the general term "care" the USA ranked 19th. In terms of results the USA ranked 37th.
MAGA? Really? You'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb. Especially dumb. Anyone celebrating the fact that the Democrats are working hard at losing the next election is cheering for an assemblage of self-interested scum dismantling a once-great nation that was a light to the world. The Democrats wouldn't do much better, the far left makes me puke, but at least the slime level would recede a bit.
-
Bill, chill man. It’s not as bad as that. Maui can drive a person crazy. I get that. We ended up on the one month plan but had to leave after three weaks. A couple weeks back in the Gorge, and you will be fine. It’s not like you don’t have projects. You seem to name them all. Oh.....and foiling....it’s all good....
-
To be clear, I was not talking about medical technology and or where medical devices are mfg.
-
you talkin' bedside manner??
ok, so nuffa of the 20 questions,
pls explain what are you talking about
-
oh--exonerated??---no collusion??
lol
here comes the first of it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/limited-information-barr-has-shared-about-russia-investigation-frustrated-some-on-muellers-team/2019/04/03/c98e8a02-567a-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html?utm_term=.257b0478d07b
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/william-barr-mueller-report.html
"But members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant."
what a cheap criminal con this pathetic presidency is
-
"I don’t know about that. Remember when David Letterman brought the docs who did his heart surgery on the show? They were the same docs who operated on my b-in-law ( who turned 95 this year) . I believe he was on Medicare at the time."
poor phrasing on my part: i shd have qualified as re medicare--medicare patients do have decent choice-and at 95 your bro in law certainly has medicare--my dad had his knee replaced at HSS, one of the best-reputed ortho surgery centers in the country---he's on medicare-not one shred of paperwork--my private for-profit insurance has no contract with HSS---i cant admit there for any surgery without putting up a 100k deposit, where i will then charged 2-5 times what medicare pays!! and they'll just tap my money, and send me unintelligible bills!!!
"choice"--this is newspeak for privateers coming for your money--you hear the word "choice", turn your brain on hi
-
oh--exonerated??---no collusion??
lol
here comes the first of it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/limited-information-barr-has-shared-about-russia-investigation-frustrated-some-on-muellers-team/2019/04/03/c98e8a02-567a-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html?utm_term=.257b0478d07b
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/william-barr-mueller-report.html
"But members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant."
what a cheap criminal con this pathetic presidency is
The interesting part is the obstruction charge. I regards to obstruction, Barr wrote, "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," He, and other republicans are misleadingly using this as a basis for no obstruction. Essentially their argument goes, no provable election interference from the president means no collusion. Of course that is nonsense.
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."
You can obstruct justice that results in no eventual crime. This one of course resulted in numerous crimes and convictions, and a determination that Russia definitely interfered in the election. All of these being a poor reflection on this president. Not to mention that it uncovered affairs, more lies, shady legal dealings etc. He was certainly very strongly motivated not to have this investigation. It will be interesting to see the pro/con evidence on that portion.
-
...pls explain what are you talking about
Imagine where the various national healthcare systems of the world would be today if not for the high benchmarks set by the capitalist based healthcare system of the US.
While the fact that Sir Jagger has chosen a doctor and facility in the US is somewhat anectodal, it speaks volumes about the current state of world healthcare.
-
Yes. It is a reasonably well-established psychological principle that people are more motivated to avoid losing something they already have than they will be to gain something that they don’t yet have. This may in part explain why older folks are apparently more motivated to vote: they may have more to lose (in material terms) than to gain, whereas younger folk in the main will have more to gain than to lose.
Older folk are also simply a lot more organised, and their lives tend to more regular in terms of scheduling.
Older folks also vote with their dollars and their health.
So Mick needs a new heart valve, he chooses to have it done here in the U.S. as opposed to his native G.B.
Yes, clearly Mick has unlimited choice in where to have surgery, but what if he didn't? What if the US had an NHS model like the UK? Who would be the world standard-setter in healthcare?
the only americans who have any choice in their healthcare are the very rich--and yes, we have best care in the world for our wealthy--but the data on overall quality of care and cost for the avg joe in the us vs that of the average bloke in europe clearly favors the care in europe
often the very rich from around the globe come to the states for complex care--a guy worth 400mln could care less about paying 300k full retail for a heart valve fix--so they come to the US and choose the best care available and throw what is chump change for them, at the best facility for the procedure
avg joe in the US??--no such luck --he goes to whatever hospital his carrier has contract with and tough luck if that facility sux-(if he has "insurance" at all, that is)--choose? better have beaucoup bux, or be ready to join the ranks of those who file for personal bankruptcy, some 70% of whom are there bc of medical event costs
hell, a good number of the medically bankrupted get there, even tho they have insurance---overwhelmed by coverage caps deductibles and out of pocket costs--yep avg joe's WITH health insurance
it's great to be rich in the usa, esp re medical care--so much so that rich people from other countries come here for the coveted precious care than can be bought here----less than rich, working class??? not the case at all
so yeah mick, a guy worth 400mm, who needs a sensitive med procedure, is drawn to US for that, since money rules quality of med care here. makes sense.
if i had 400mm i would ignore my crappy med insurance and seek care based on quality only, without the paranoia about sneaky hidden costs that will end up coming out of my pocket--
like the poor guy who passed out after a flu shot, got in an ambulance and owed 20k (and has insurance!)---mick doesnt sweat that kinda stuff!
Amen to this. I have serious issues that can’t be addressed because I don’t have health insurance. I’ll just have to wait until I need an ER visit, and then deal with the consequences.
-
...pls explain what are you talking about
Imagine where the various national healthcare systems of the world would be today if not for the high benchmarks set by the capitalist based healthcare system of the US.
While the fact that Sir Jagger has chosen a doctor and facility in the US is somewhat anectodal, it speaks volumes about the current state of world healthcare.
The decision for Mick Jagger as to where he was treated may have been made more on clinical grounds than any other. It is not advisable to be hopping on transatlantic flights with a heart condition. Indeed, he may have had specific medical advice against it, and there would be insurance issues also.
You can get some of the very best care in the world in the UK free of charge. The hospital where I do a lot of research is one of the very best in the world, by any standard. You can receive the best treatment in the world there, at the hands of the some of the very best surgeons, and if you are a UK citizen it will be completely FREE at all stages. No paperwork either.
I imagine that if Mick had been in the UK when his heart problem was detected, he’d be receiving treatment in the UK right now. Or France if he was in France, or Germany if he was in Germany etc. And if he’d been in France and Germany he’d have either got it free as well, or if he went private (almost certain, with his need for privacy etc), he’s pay a LOT less than he’s paying now no doubt in the US, and would have a truly world-class team around him.
But I shouldn’t have to say this. We’ve done this dance a thousand times on this forum. You guys are getting ripped off for your healthcare, OK? And part of the reason is because as soon as anyone suggests a national health service you all start catastrophising about reds under the bed, and the end of the free world, just like you do when gun control is mentioned. So that’s fine. Have your health system, and pay through the nose for stuff you don’t need, and then can’t afford the stuff you do. And have no gun controls and have your kids shot dead in their classrooms. That’s the beauty of rampant capitalism: You get to choose your risks, and if you want to make decisions against your own interests then there will instantly be someone there at your shoulder willing to profit from it, with glee, and tell you that it’s the only sane choice, and that anything else is just un-American commie nonsense.
So go out now and vote for a demagogue. Oh, sorry: you already did.
Not that the UK is any better state right now. There’s some seriously shady stuff happening right now with secret and well-funded social media campaigns trying to destabilise our country and unstall a demagogue of our own (Boris Johnson looks like the most likely), who can then be controlled by the unelected Masters of the Universe, free from pesky interference from the European Parliament laws on protection of workers rights, the environment, etc. Soon, we will have our own Trump. And then he will privatise our NHS and we’ll be in exactly the same situation as you.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/03/grassroots-facebook-brexit-ads-secretly-run-by-staff-of-lynton-crosby-firm
-
A-10, you carry the weight of the world on your shoulders...
So, if Mick happened to have been in the Philippines, he would have the surgery there? (well, they do have the capability)
More than 10 percent of Brits find the need to also have private insurance to cover care provided outside the tax-funded NHS system. That's an unacceptable conflict of interest.
-
A-10, you carry the weight of the world on your shoulders...
So, if Mick happened to have been in the Philippines, he would have the surgery there? (well, they do have the capability)
More than 10 percent of Brits find the need to also have private insurance to cover care provided outside the tax-funded NHS system. That's an unacceptable conflict of interest.
We have a mixed model system, so you can pay for stuff if you want to, and some things that you can pay for privately you wouldn’t get on the NHS because it’s not deemed sufficiently of clinical need for the taxpayer to pay for you (eg. some forms of cosmetic surgery).
Some doctors work only privately. Quite a few do a bit of private and a bit of NHS. Most only do NHS. It’s up to them. Most doctors don’t go into it to get rich.
There is indeed a tension between private healthcare and the NHS. It is not a very happy marriage. But it’s a compromise we’ve arranged at. Quite a few services (eg. cleaning, maintenance etc) are contracted out to private companies by the NHS. Amongst staff there is the widespread opinion that service gets worse and costs go up when this happens. It’s great in theory, but in practice the private companies find ways to game the system and so screw money out of the poor taxpayer to line their shareholders’ pockets.
No system is perfect. But I’d far rather have ours than yours. No wonder you guys are so angry. For you, being poor can be a life and death matter. But here, if you fall on hard times you can still be seen by the same world-class docs as just operated on Mick Jagger, whose heart is probably giving out because of nonstop sex with some beautiful fit female half his age :)
-
why? anyone with any means at all here in the US gets medicare supplemental insurance. seems like an identical situation. works great. cant wait to get it. wish i could buy it.
-
You can get some of the very best care in the world in the UK free of charge. The hospital where I do a lot of research is one of the very best in the world, by any standard. You can receive the best treatment in the world there, at the hands of the some of the very best surgeons, and if you are a UK citizen it will be completely FREE at all stages. No paperwork either.
The UK is not different than any other developed country, there is no such thing as "free", you pay for it one way or another, usually thru your taxation. I'm surprised that anyone still falls for that "free" claim. Free is not affordable for the people providing that service. The only people that I know of providing free medical is Doctors Without Borders, are they working in the UK also? I doubt it.
-
why? anyone with any means at all here in the US gets medicare supplemental insurance. seems like an identical situation. works great. cant wait to get it. wish i could buy it.
Not really the same Eastie. In the US, supplemental insurance only closes the out of pocket gap - since Medicare only pays 80%.
In the UK 100% is covered unless you elect private pay to utilize non NHS medical services.
Of great concern is that the lower the perceived standard of care provided by the NHS, the more likely the patients will seek private pay services. This in turn, results in a gross conflict of interest.
-
Most doctors don’t go into it to get rich.
If Trump said that, would you believe it? ;D
There are plenty of Doc's that give back substantially to society, including those that contribute their time to Doctors Without Borders. But after it is all said and done, they are merely a cross section of our society. Some great, some not so great...
-
there are plenty of doctors that charge way in excess of allowable medicare--check into concierge charges
-
why? anyone with any means at all here in the US gets medicare supplemental insurance. seems like an identical situation. works great. cant wait to get it. wish i could buy it.
And for those who can’t afford the supplemental?w
-
You can get some of the very best care in the world in the UK free of charge. The hospital where I do a lot of research is one of the very best in the world, by any standard. You can receive the best treatment in the world there, at the hands of the some of the very best surgeons, and if you are a UK citizen it will be completely FREE at all stages. No paperwork either.
The UK is not different than any other developed country, there is no such thing as "free", you pay for it one way or another, usually thru your taxation. I'm surprised that anyone still falls for that "free" claim. Free is not affordable for the people providing that service. The only people that I know of providing free medical is Doctors Without Borders, are they working in the UK also? I doubt it.
If you want to get a feel for how “free” the Canadian model of health care is, figure your taxes as if you lived in British Columbia. Mine went up four fold. And that doesn’t include the 15 percent sales tax.
-
If you want to get a feel for how “free” the Canadian model of health care is, figure your taxes as if you lived in British Columbia. Mine went up four fold. And that doesn’t include the 15 percent sales tax.
I’d be curious to know how your taxes went up fourfold? From what date to what date did they go up fourfold? And also, British Columbia’s sales tax is not 15% as you claim. The provincial sales tax is 7% and the federal GST is 5%. I’m having a difficult time figuring out how that equates to 15%???
-
Hey Quickbeam, don’t go spoiling a good argument by quoting perfectly reasonable statistics. There are some US citizens here who want to tell you that you are a commie bastard with a healthcare system that is an affront to the natural order of things. And they aren’t gonna let a few pesky statistics get in the way of that. Not when there’s some serious cognitive dissonance to get your dander up. :)
-
Two buck Chuck is $17.00 and gas is crazy. You sell Salmon by the quarter pound because nobody would buy $50 dollar salmon. Nice place to visit but.....
-
Two buck Chuck is $17.00 and gas is crazy. You sell Salmon by the quarter pound because nobody would buy $50 dollar salmon. Nice place to visit but.....
...it’s full of commies, right?
-
Not at all. The people are great. When they come to the Gorge for wind sports, they are blown away by the cheap prices. They wait to get tires at Les Shwab, no sales tax in Oregon. Lot’s of happy campers. I take it you don’t get out much Pilgrim.
-
I take it you don’t get out much Pilgrim.
Rider, it seems you may have misspelled Pinko 🤔
-
why? anyone with any means at all here in the US gets medicare supplemental insurance. seems like an identical situation. works great. cant wait to get it. wish i could buy it.
And for those who can’t afford the supplemental?w
That’s a serious concern, but there are indigent programs and ultimately Medicaid. No question, here in the US, healthcare costs can bankrupt you.
-
Hey Quickbeam, don’t go spoiling a good argument by quoting perfectly reasonable statistics. There are some US citizens here who want to tell you that you are a commie bastard with a healthcare system that is an affront to the natural order of things. And they aren’t gonna let a few pesky statistics get in the way of that. Not when there’s some serious cognitive dissonance to get your dander up. :)
Too funny A10. But maybe also contains a ring of truth ;)
-
You can get some of the very best care in the world in the UK free of charge. The hospital where I do a lot of research is one of the very best in the world, by any standard. You can receive the best treatment in the world there, at the hands of the some of the very best surgeons, and if you are a UK citizen it will be completely FREE at all stages. No paperwork either.
The UK is not different than any other developed country, there is no such thing as "free", you pay for it one way or another, usually thru your taxation. I'm surprised that anyone still falls for that "free" claim. Free is not affordable for the people providing that service. The only people that I know of providing free medical is Doctors Without Borders, are they working in the UK also? I doubt it.
If you want to get a feel for how “free” the Canadian model of health care is, figure your taxes as if you lived in British Columbia. Mine went up four fold. And that doesn’t include the 15 percent sales tax.
up four fold from what? under what circumstances? what's your marginal tax rate? sales tax 15%? in BC? you mean 12%, dont you? i smell garbage......
i hear theyve got cheap prescription drugs up there!! cuz big pharma owns our congress down here!!
-
Last week, a 71 year old British Doctor living next to me in Portugal, fell down a small cliff and really messed himself up.
Deep, long cut over his eyes, both eyes swollen shut and dark purple.
Arms and legs cut up.
His knee was so badly swollen and painful, that I basically had to carry him.
Ambulance took him to several hospitals the day it happened.
I took him to follow-up treatment so he could get approval to fly home.
I asked how the care was in Portugal.
His answer:
"I am really glad this happened in Portugal, not England"
-
Last week, a 71 year old British Doctor living next to me in Portugal, fell down a small cliff and really messed himself up.
Deep, long cut over his eyes, both eyes swollen shut and dark purple.
Arms and legs cut up.
His knee was so badly swollen and painful, that I basically had to carry him.
Ambulance took him to several hospitals the day it happened.
I took him to follow-up treatment so he could get approval to fly home.
I asked how the care was in Portugal.
His answer:
"I am really glad this happened in Portugal, not England"
I'm curious, do you know how much it cost him and who paid for it?
-
I don't know about his hospital and ambulance expenses, I wasn' there for that part.
When I was with him:
He didn't have his Euro card or passport cuz he left them in his apartment,
so he had to pay cash up front when I took him.
8 Euros for the Nurse
34 Euros for the Doctor
-
You mean that he just payed the doctor cash for a service? How can this be?
Doesn't there need to be 15 levels of administration and papers shuffling, computers whirring, to even determine a cost of a medical process? Does not a doctor salary come from some conglomeration of a quasi government bureaucracy? Doesn't the patient need to check in, tell the person at the front desk their job, insurance carrier, normal doctor's name, marital status and what kinds of pets they have, drugs they take? Then wait in another room for the pre-nurse to talk to them, then the nurse, then the doctor can talk to you for 16 seconds while clicking a mouse??
Has to be refreshing.
-
Yes, except for the fall of course.
While these are all just individual experiences, it just seems that there are too many to ignore. Who are we to believe, those that have a vested interest in either a change (or the status quo) or individuals that have no stake other than their own health?
-
Speaking of healthcare, with so many people here doing downwinding, does anyone know if you get cancer from the wind itself, or is it only caused by the noise from the windmills?
-
No one downwinds any more, that's the only time you can watch TV.
While on a trip with couples from the US, England, and Australia we discussed health care. Basically, they were puzzled why any Americans would not want government assisted health care. They each said what the cost of a procedure was such as fixing a broken arm or a doctors visit if you had the flu or a cold. I forget the actual cost but it was quite reasonable and they knew approximately what the cost would be.
They asked me what that would cost in the US and I had to tell them it was complicated and I had no idea. "Well, my wife has an insurance policy which costs $X per month, but it has a deductible so she pays out of pocket until the deductible is met. They will bill her some unpredictable charge that she will have to pay. But the price will depend upon if she goes to an in-service or out of service provider. Some times the Doctor is in-service, but the guy that does the Xrays is out of service and the discounted price and deductible only applies to one of the charges. Now, if she worked for one company, they would pay for some of her insurance and she could chose from a couple of insurance companies that provide different services at different costs. If she worked for a different company, they could offer different health insurance plans"
-
The administrative cost of US healthcare are probably greater than the cost of the healthcare. While care is still private, the administrative cost, between the insurance companies doing their best not to pay for anything and the government requiring staggering amounts of documentation there simply isn't anything remotely resembling efficiency.
-
It’s ridiculously high but not quite that high.
NYT reported last year that the administrative cost over the average overall healthcare cost was about $5700/$19000.
-
On a second look, I see that the NYT article from July 2018 was actually based upon a 1999 study. There has to be better data...
-
Actually, wasn't one of the first things to hit the insurance companies from the ACA a cap on admin costs? I got a refund check and a lot of others did also, depending on who they had insurance with/through.
-
We have some younger friends that are members of Medishare. I’am guessing around 6 or 7 years now. They both have had semi serious “issues “. They seem totally happy. Yes it is for Christians, but could the concept work for other groups?
-
I guess I should add. Semi serious issues were a completely refurbished hip and major inner ear surgery. All bills were paid.
-
On a second look, I see that the NYT article from July 2018 was actually based upon a 1999 study. There has to be better data...
Things have probably got much more efficient since then.
-
PDX...... what about Medishare? No wisecrack?
-
I knew a guy who was an HMO administrator. He died a few years ago, and when he went to heaven, God himself invited him in. Then just as he was walking through the gates, St. Peter appeared and said, "Wait a sec, you worked for an HMO? Well, come on in, but you can only stay for three days."
-
That’s supposed to be funny? It must suck to be as dumb as you.
-
The surf gang is coming for bbq tonight. Fresh halibut. Lot’s to do. Cheers.....
-
Do they know that you refer to them as a “surf gang”? You have a special handshake?
-
I knew a guy who was an HMO administrator. He died a few years ago, and when he went to heaven, God himself invited him in. Then just as he was walking through the gates, St. Peter appeared and said, "Wait a sec, you worked for an HMO? Well, come on in, but you can only stay for three days."
That is so funny. I shared with my wife. She laughed also.
-
Actually, wasn't one of the first things to hit the insurance companies from the ACA a cap on admin costs? I got a refund check and a lot of others did also, depending on who they had insurance with/through.
The cap is for insurance admin costs, not health care admin.
-
That’s supposed to be funny? It must suck to be as dumb as you.
Wow, not THAT is really funny.
-
That’s supposed to be funny? It must suck to be as dumb as you.
Wow, not THAT is really funny.
I think you meant now instead of not and I agree. I don't like to make generalizations, but from personal experience with both discussions where I am participating or ones I just read, there does seem to be a significantly larger number of responses that are personal attacks posted by people who are right of center. To be fair, they are often provoked by posts using liberal tools like facts and math (there might be a little bias in this statement).
-
That’s not helpful RTG...
-
That’s not helpful RTG...
Comments born of frustration rarely are.
-
That’s not helpful RTG...
Pretty accurate though.
-
I knew a guy who was an HMO administrator. He died a few years ago, and when he went to heaven, God himself invited him in. Then just as he was walking through the gates, St. Peter appeared and said, "Wait a sec, you worked for an HMO? Well, come on in, but you can only stay for three days."
😄😄
-
That’s not helpful RTG...
Pretty accurate though.
What exactly did you find accurate in his statement?
-
That’s not helpful RTG...
Pretty accurate though.
What exactly did you find accurate in his statement?
A little self defense - it was 100% accurate as it was IME. Could be that my choice of forums skews my anecdata. Also keep in mind that I am talking about personal attacks on other posters and not including colorful descriptions of politicians. But it isn't a "maybe, kinda" observation; it's not close at all.
-
That’s supposed to be funny? It must suck to be as dumb as you.
Wow, not THAT is really funny.
I think you meant now instead of not and I agree. I don't like to make generalizations, but from personal experience with both discussions where I am participating or ones I just read, there does seem to be a significantly larger number of responses that are personal attacks posted by people who are right of center. To be fair, they are often provoked by posts using liberal tools like facts and math (there might be a little bias in this statement).
From my observations, these type of personal attacks seem to be coming mostly from one person. And I think they say a whole lot more about that particular person than any of those he is directing his attacks at.
-
That’s not helpful RTG...
Pretty accurate though.
What exactly did you find accurate in his statement?
That on this forum, the majority of the crudest personal attacks have been written by those most sympathetic to the right of the political spectrum (and Trump supporters, specifically).
-
That’s just opinion, do you have anything else?
-
That’s just opinion, do you have anything else?
Actually, you can quite easily read through this thread (and related ones, if you wish) and count up the number of vile posts, then determine the political affiliations of the authors, and then you will see this is fact, not opinion.
While it is not the case that all right wing posters on this forum write unpleasant and yobbish posts, it does seem that most of not all of those posts that meet that criterion are by written Trump supporters. However it is important to observe that “all tomatoes are red, but not all red things are tomatoes” as regards this situation: In other words this is not an observation aimed at all of those here who hold right wing views, only a subsection of them. However I would expect those who are right wing but not also yobbish to recognise that the current White House encumbant has attracted a certain element, and his particular style of discourse has perhaps emboldened that kind of behaviour. That seems to show itself on this forum. And *that* is an opinion, not a fact.
-
So you lump ‘em all together? I expect better from you A10 ( I’ve seen it). ;D
-
That’s just opinion, do you have anything else?
Actually, you can quite easily read through this thread (and related ones, if you wish) and count up the number of vile posts, then determine the political affiliations of the authors, and then you will see this is fact, not opinion.
While it is not the case that all right wing posters on this forum write unpleasant and yobbish posts, it does seem that most of not all of those posts that meet that criterion are by written Trump supporters. However it is important to observe that “all tomatoes are red, but not all red things are tomatoes” as regards this situation: In other words this is not an observation aimed at all of those here who hold right wing views, only a subsection of them. However I would expect those who are right wing but not also yobbish to recognise that the current White House encumbant has attracted a certain element, and his particular style of discourse has perhaps emboldened that kind of behaviour. That seems to show itself on this forum. And *that* is an opinion, not a fact.
In my earlier post, I wasn't just referring to this forum and not to just a single poster. This seems to be pretty widespread. I agree with your opinion about why. Trump is saying things like "sick people"and "pencil neck" and hurling a host of other insults when talking about members of congress, judges and even members of his own administration. I also agree not all posters who are right of center do that.
-
Yup. It's not right or left, any more than Trump being a pathetic dick has much to do with right or left. He just is. It's asshole/not an asshole. Fundamental criteria. Trump spent most of his life ostensibly being a Democrat. It's not a matter of "Rider is a right-wing asshole". He's just an asshole. And apparently thrilled about it.
-
Hey, when you’re right your right (even if we sometimes lean a little left) ;D
-
However it is important to observe that “all tomatoes are red, but not all red things are tomatoes” as regards this situation: In other words this is not an observation aimed at all of those here who hold right wing views, only a subsection of them.
Hillary forgot that with her basket of deplorables (ughh) comments and in doing so alienated reachable middle leaning Republicans. The far right is unreachable. These are your snowflake callers. They thrive on the offense of the left and it strokes their actions. On our side we have the metal straw crowd. They wouldn't be caught dead eating a red tomato. Only filthy rednecks that hate diversity would eat that non-heirloom crap.
Is a group on one side being more racist, hateful, and intentionally vulgar. Yes. There is a result to Trump's actions. It has been an OK light for a certain group to exercise their worst behavior. Setting tone may be the President's most important function. It is an odd thing to want to turn off the TV when the president is on because there are kids in the room, but I do. That mocking smirk, insultary grin and uncontainable anger coupled with the incessant insults is the exact opposite of what I would want them exposed to. The constant image of that angry orange face has had an effect. The group which has found this liberating is not matched on the other side in number or in severity.
(https://cdn3.volusion.com/kceqm.mleru/v/vspfiles/photos/44-2.jpg?1521734349)
-
“...is a group...more racist..yes.”
That’s just inflammatory. And, demonstrates just how polarized we can be in our rhetoric once we get acclimated to a “popular” view. This of course, is not limited to one side or the other.
-
There’s a similarity in the way politics seems to be going across the West right now. There are more and more extremist elements. For instance, the main opposition party in Germany is now a far right party, which would have seemed inconceivable only a few years ago. This is threatening German national security:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47822835
But this isn’t just true of Germany; it is happening across Europe:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/nov/20/how-populism-emerged-as-electoral-force-in-europe
The rise of populism, especially far-right populism, is threatening not only each individual country’s security (for instance, Brexit will leave the UK far most exposed to attacks from terrorists and international organised crime because we will leave the pan-European police and security organisations when we leave the EU), but also is threatening the existence of the European Union itself. Inevitably of course there is the damage that Brexit will do, but we are just at the vanguard of what seems to be a growing anti-EU feeling in eg. Germany, France and Itsly.
https://m.dw.com/en/how-europes-far-right-parties-view-the-eu/a-47078383
In some cases, the growth of the far right is being enabled by a growth in the far left (as in the UK, where the fate of the leader of our opposition (Corbyn) is largely controlled by a far-left group called Momentum): as extremism flourishes, it tends to flourish on all sides, and one tends to grow in response to the other.
This is happening in some places outside the EU too, in geographically close countries. For instance there is the growth of the far right in Israel. Young people in Israel are more right-wing than their parents, on the whole. Bibi is of course encouraging and benefitting from this, and is enabled by his bromance with Trump.
This (ie. the growth of populism) is a cultural movement, and is not localised to just one country. There are many interacting causes, including automation and the loss of manufacturing to the Far East (and consequent growth in the service sector, which some folk cannot adjust to; migration, immigration, and refugees; the growth of globalisation; the growth of zero hours contracts and the weakening of worker rights; taxation unfairness and the growth of companies who are bigger than countries in their economic influence; and a cultural reaction by white folk who are starting to find themselves a minority in their environments (substantially because the birth rate has been falling far faster in the richest countries than the poorest ones, across the world).
But all of this has been accelerated greatly by the “echo chamber” effect of social media, and the fact that now any nutter with half-baked extremist views can reach a gullible audience and convince them to vote against their own interests. Plus the growth of well-funded (sometimes state-funded) unscrupulous, and extremely highly skilled groups of computer and behavioural scientists who will interfere with social media to your advantage, if you pay them.
So, let’s indulge if what academics pretentiously call a “thought experiment”: let’s imagine that most developed countries continue to lurch progressively to the right, for many years. What will this lead to? What is the logical endpoint? What if Trump wins in 2020 and then the next president is even MORE right-wing? And the one after that? And the one after that.
I expect this to happen, unless there is a splitting of the right (and indeed, probably the left). It is not clear to me that old two-party systems will work any more. It may be that Republicans for instance need to start making a choice about whether they are happy to keep heading in the direction that Trump is taking the US government, or whether they need to cut the more far-right loose. It seems to me that many right-leaning governments and parties across the West are aware that a decision will have to be made soon. But they are afraid to make it, because for the moment it suits them. I don’t know what the trigger events will be that will cause the centre-right to separate from the far-right, but they must surely happen, or we will end up living in highly authoritarian societies with very restricted freedoms, and persecution of minorities. Like some countries in the Middle East, in other words.
I would be very happy if someone can give me an alternative vision of what life in the US or a European country will be like if we keep moving steadily and inexorably to the right. For those of you who are right-leaning, what would be too much for you? What would need to happen for you to say “that’s too much, we need to reel this back in and redirect”? Because, to be frank, if that isn’t Trump, then I’m at a loss as to what it might be. The numbers at the top of this thread say that you are nowhere near that point yet. So, how much will be too much? What are your “red lines”, you wouldn’t cross?
-
“...is a group...more racist..yes.”
That’s just inflammatory. And, demonstrates just how polarized we can be in our rhetoric once we get acclimated to a “popular” view. This of course, is not limited to one side or the other.
Are you saying that you do not believe that there is a racist element among Trump supporters that have become emboldened by his rhetoric and actions?
You won't find an equal racist, misogynistic faction on the left. It is important to point that this is deviant behavior and to remind ourselves and the world that there is a group (on both sides) that does not agree with the president on this.
This is not my view because it is popular. I've watched the president speak on Charlottesville etc. He is not speaking in code. Defend that as you may, it is racism.
-
Are you saying that you do not believe that there is a racist element among Trump supporters that have become emboldened by his rhetoric and actions?
Racist element? Yes, but not the entire "group" of conservatives.
A-10 is on the right track, we need to look closer at the actual issues not just supporting a party view.
-
Not all Trump supporters are racist, BUT every racist I know strongly supports Trump
-
You don't need to be affiliated with any one party or individual to be offended by racism.
-
Not all Trump supporters are racist, BUT every racist I know strongly supports Trump
Same. I was born in AL, raised in GA (still visiting AL relatives frequently) and now live in NC. The sample size for my anecdata for this observation is embarrassingly large.
-
trump has made many overtly racist comments (among many offensive things he's said) historically and, of recent, as our president, he has continued.
Most republicans still support Trump---so his racist comments (and all the other awful lies and things he's said and done) certainly dont bother them enough to cease supporting him.
So, yeah, since most repubs still support Trump, his racism doesnt seem to matter to them---does that mean those rebups are racist? who knows? but clearly they're ok with their president, Trump, saying racist stuff.
-
You don't need to be affiliated with any one party or individual to be offended by racism.
I agree with that. That was in my last post. It seems like you think that this shouldn't be discussed because you see it as a party view. It may be shared by the party, but it is also a personal view and one that is not coming from from the media but from perception.
What I am saying is that there are racists in our country, and the do belong almost entirely to one party. This group has become emboldened and significantly more vocal under Trump.
-
What I am saying is that there are racists in our country, and they do belong almost entirely to one party.
Almost entirely huh...? ;D
-
Yes, almost entirely.
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138358/charlottesville-protests-david-duke-kkk
David Duke, the former KKK grand wizard, is unambiguous about what Saturday’s alt-right and neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, means to him: It’s the fulfillment of President Donald Trump’s vision for America.
“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”
-
Supporters of that regime (Duke, KKK Neo Nazi) are relatively few and not representative of American conservatives.
-
Supporters of that regime (Duke, KKK Neo Nazi) are relatively few and not representative of American conservatives.
There is a much larger group that hold racist ideologies. Again, it is not my point that this is the entirety of the Republican party. It is however a group that Trump is reaching out to. When he opened his campaign with the rapists and murderers comment he was making an appeal to that larger. This was his very first message as an official candidate.
We won't agree on this and I am fine with that. It is important to me that the focus be on these differences rather than letting the public argument sway to hair sniffing, Conway's husband's new tweet, or the likes.
-
semantic hair-splitting aside:
many trumpians are racists, and most repubs still support trump, despite all his racist commentary, and his racist supporters (guys like duke, who think trump is embracing his agenda---where trump does not dispute that at all--"good people both sides" etc)
i have some repub friends who refuse to vote for trump, under any circumstance---stuff like lying, cheating, racism, draft-dodging, friendships with duterte, putin, and kim jong, insulting handicapped, insulting gold star families, insulting john mccain, etc etc etc--they just cant stand in support of that kind of behavior from our president, or any elected official
but most repubs still support trump......
-
What I am saying is that there are racists in our country, and they do belong almost entirely to one party.
Almost entirely huh...? ;D
There are NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) liberals who publicly support equality but don't practice it personally. They think everyone is entitled to equal opportunities but that not everyone should be required to provide them. I am am not sure whether to call them racist or not. If you think they are racist then I will have to amend my earlier statement when I said that all the racists I know support Trump and just say that the vast majority do.
-
It is important to me that the focus be on these differences rather than letting the public argument sway to hair sniffing...
I would agree, the "hair sniffing" is total nonsense. While I might not agree with all of Biden’s political views, I think he has handled this most recent barrage of negative press about as graciously as could be expected from anyone. In fact, I would say that there is an endearing quality in how he has conducted himself.
-
For sheer racial hatred it's tough to beat the highly democrat east coast. I spent a lot of time in the south, and while there were no lack of bigots and deep-down racists, I never saw the general animosity that I grew up with in Massachusetts. People as a group don't change their minds, individuals grow up, and learn new things--or don't. Donald Trump is an embarrassment to conservatives, and a bellweather for the petty manipulations and self-serving of republican leaders.
The republican party isn't historically about dismantling social safety nets, raping the environment and blowing the deficit to absurd levels. In theory it's for restrained government, aiming in theory at least to do only those things that require the size and financial power government can bring--defending the country, protecting freedom and opportunity and keeping capitalism from running amok at the destructive level it can ultimately achieve. It has morphed recently into a kind of defensive meanness that probably comes from people feeling increasingly irrelevant and powerless. Unfortunately neither party has answers for that irrelevance, just distractions. It's going to get a lot worse.
-
and what about "family values"? used to be a key tenet of republicanism--if youre gonna be behind trump, gotta jettison your "family values" concerns--or pull off some serious spin gymnastics
joe's holding up very well------------certainly compared to cavanaugh's appallingly pathetic angry crybaby act
-
Yes, he is. I sincerely believe this episode could be a springboard of sorts.
And PB, you are right the GOP ain't what it used to be. There is a lot of work to be done.
-
Ok so there’s a majority view here, and it is that there are a cadre of Trump supporters who are outright racists, and generally pretty dangerous people. And that these people have been emboldened by Trunp, and the mainstream conservative Republican voters are largely tolerating it, for the moment, at least. So, as I asked before, at which point do you think that moderate Republicans would be so offended by Trump that they would actually vote Dem?
I think Admin made a key point earlier: Trump has had such a large cultural effect that he seems to have wiped out all memory of normal Republican leaders in the past, who e.g. tried not to tell lies (or at least, were embarrassed when they were caught doing so), tried to distance themselves from the KKK and other extremist groups, and tried reach out to voters from other parties, in order to build a centrist consensus, and to build bridges with sympathetic countries around the world (rather than insult and pull away from them), and would go to lengths to try to ensure they didn’t legitimise dictators and tyrants around the world. Remember the Bush era, and even Ronnie Ray Gun? Pinko commie liberals like us Europeans didn’t like them much. But we could see that they shared a recognition of the need for a certain set of behaviours and constraints in order to manage the fine balance that is a democracy. Trump has thrown all that out of the window. This makes this era about something else altogether: it’s a re-alignment of politics. And it is happening in lots of places, not just the US.
This can be seen very clearly in the UK. The constitutional crisis that Brecit has created has led to some strange bedfellows. Many people now to the left of centre have found themselves cheering for those on the right they used to detest. And they find themselves despising some politicians on the left more than their traditional rivals on the right. Brexit has crossed political boundaries, because it offers two particular visions for the future which are not about economics and much as they are about life philosophy: Everyone, including ardent Brexiteers (ie. those who want to leave the EU even if we don’t get a political and economic deal with them) agrees that Brexit will make the UK poorer - possibly for generations. But half the population think the price is worth it. Half do not. There is almost no middle ground: you are either strongly for Brexit, or you are strongly against. Whatever the outcome, the police and armed forces are preparing for widespread riots and civil disobedience, once this Brexit situation is decided.
And so it is with Trump: you are either strongly for him, or you are strongly against him. And most people did not vote for him, but still here is his, doing the thing that he does, causing havoc, sewing seeds of discontent and divisions between people. Just as the Brexiteers like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have done in the UK: similarly with no regard for the truth. They just simply say whatever will advance their own careers. Boris Johnson, who is favourite to become our next Prime Minister, has had a career in journalism where he has been sacked twice for telling outright lies. And that is who might be out next PM!
So, what are these new divisions in politics? Well, they come a lot down to:
1. How much store you put in truth and evidence-based decision-making.
2. The degree to which you care about personal integrity.
3. The degree to which you care that every person be treated equally under the law, regardless of race, religion, sexuality etc.
4. The degree to which personal restraint impresses you.
5. The degree to which you see altruism as an admirable quality.
6. The degree to which you are open to change.
7. The degree to which you fear “outsiders”.
8. The degree to which you are a “now” person (who values short-term reward) rather than a person who is willing to work for a bigger but more distant gain.
People who fall on either side of the spectrum for these characteristics can be found both on the left and the right of the political spectrum. Accordingly, IMO the growth of populism (of which Trump is just one highly visible example) is causing a realignment along these lines rather than the almost purely economic lines that has dominated Western democracies until now.
-
A10 in your first paragraph you ask the question: So, as I asked before, at which point do you think that moderate Republicans be so offended by Trump that they would actually vote Dem and the answer is simple and plain. As soon as the D's run out a moderate politician for president. There are plenty of blue collar voters that will make the switch. It could be so easy. Thing is I have a feeling that the Ds are going to go more left of Hillary because they think she was not progressive enough, but the fact is she was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign. How do you lose to Trump? Making something that could be easy unattainable.
Almost all of my friends are like me right of center, and own small businesses. I also know that most 'real people' are not strongly for Trump, but are strongly for themselves and their individual rights. There is nothing that I believe more in than the power of an individual to make their way in this country and so my votes nearly always follow that line. Maybe I will age into different thought patterns.
The thing about politicians is that I mistrust them immediately, no matter their political view. Why would anyone go into politics in this day and age without having a screw loose? With Trump everyone knew he was scum before he ever ran, it came baked into the cake. He occasionally pretends he is something he is not, but only the MAGA people believe any of it. While the media makes it look like there are MAGA people everywhere, I don't know any. The results of this thread, follow along what I kind of think pervades nationally.
-
Ok so there’s a majority view here, and it is that there are a cadre of Trump supporters who are outright racists...
Yes a cadre, a small group (ralatively)...
A-10, perhaps you should administer the marshmallow test ;D
-
A10 in your first paragraph you ask the question: So, as I asked before, at which point do you think that moderate Republicans be so offended by Trump that they would actually vote Dem and the answer is simple and plain. As soon as the D's run out a moderate politician for president.
Count me in SL!
-
Let’s make my question to the Trump supporters here less abstract. Let’s imagine that Trump did the following things. Which of them, if any, would lead to you actually voting for a Dem in the next election, regardless of who the Dems pick?
1. Trump brings in a new taxation system that rewards those whose families have lived longest in the US.
2. Trump brings in a system of local taxation differences where regions that make higher demands upon policing, Medicare and other government-supported resources have to pay much, much, more, in order to pay for it.
3. Trump makes all forms of sales tax illegal. Why should people be penalised for spending, right?
4. Trump sends US troops into the Middle East to defend Israeli interests, especially against Palestinians. Many Palestinians die.
5. Trump spends 70 billion dollars on his wall.
6. Trump withdraws from all strategic military alliances with existing allies.
7. Trump enters into strategic military alliances with Russia, China and North Korea.
8. Trump enters into a full-blown trade war with the European Union.
9. It is discovered that Trump paid for several abortions for women he impregnated.
10. It is discovered that Trump had sex with underage girls in Russia.
11. It is discovered that Trump had sex with underage boys when he was in Vietnam, recently.
12. It is discovered that Trump knowingly passed AIDS to a young foreigner during anal sex.
13. Trump makes promotion of climate change issues illegal.
14. Trump makes homosexuality punishable by death (like his friend the Sultan of Brunei).
15. Trump orders the closing of all Mosques in the US.
If you voted for Trump, which of these (if any) would be a deal-breaker for you?
-
Btw, in response to claims about Trump’s effect upon the economy, it is easy to see that the figures are just a continuation of trends which were already well under way during Obama’s presidency. Here is a good summary, and is likely to be about as unbiased as you are going to find:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-45827430
-
Let’s make my question to the Trump supporters here less abstract. Let’s imagine that Trump did the following things. Which of them, if any, would lead to you actually voting for a Dem in the next election, regardless of who the Dems pick?
1. Trump brings in a new taxation system that rewards those whose families have lived longest in the US.
2. Trump brings in a system of local taxation differences where regions that make higher demands upon policing, Medicare and other government-supported resources have to pay much, much, more, in order to pay for it.
3. Trump makes all forms of sales tax illegal. Why should people be penalised for spending, right?
4. Trump sends US troops into the Middle East to defend Israeli interests, especially against Palestinians. Many Palestinians die.
5. Trump spends 70 billion dollars on his wall.
6. Trump withdraws from all strategic military alliances with existing allies.
7. Trump enters into strategic military alliances with Russia, China and North Korea.
8. Trump enters into a full-blown trade war with the European Union.
9. It is discovered that Trump paid for several abortions for women he impregnated.
10. It is discovered that Trump had sex with underage girls in Russia.
11. It is discovered that Trump had sex with underage boys when he was in Vietnam, recently.
12. It is discovered that Trump knowingly passed AIDS to a young foreigner during anal sex.
13. Trump makes promotion of climate change issues illegal.
14. Trump makes homosexuality punishable by death (like his friend the Sultan of Brunei).
15. Trump orders the closing of all Mosques in the US.
If you voted for Trump, which of these (if any) would be a deal-breaker for you?
This is supposed to be less abstract? What could be less abstract than if the D's run a better candidate, I will vote for him. If Trump did the things in your list it would be pretty easy to run a better candidate, right?
-
That would depend on what you value. I suspect that most Trump supporters would say that it wouldn’t matter if he did any of that as long as they were personally doing ok financially. So who the Democrats put forward would be irrelevant.
-
My first reaction to Howard Schultz is "egotistical billionaire running despite the certainty that he will help elect Donald Trump". But then I watched this, and my mind changed. This is exactly the kind of person I'd like to see as president. Whether he's a spoiler or not remains to be seen. I certainly won't vote for Trump despite being a lifelong Republican, and I REALLY don't want to vote for anyone on the far left. At least he might give me someone to waste my vote on that won't make me gag.
https://www.thirteen.org/programs/firing-line/howard-schultz-gaftom/
To Bean's point, and in response to your questions, A10, I think the answer is here. Look at the poll at the top of this page, then look at this poll--tongue in cheek as it was: https://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php/topic,34555.0.html
At some point in the trajectory Schultz will get committed to running (or not). If the democrats wanted to head that off, their best tactic would be to run a centrist. They've demonstrated they can force a candidate through the primaries, might be a good time to see if they can get behind someone like Bloomberg right now. I think anyone that looks reasonable can beat Trump--he has to run on his record, which just simply couldn't be much worse unless he started WW3. But the democrats can certainly lose.
-
My first reaction to Howard Schultz is "egotistical billionaire running despite the certainty that he will help elect Donald Trump". But then I watched this, and my mind changed. This is exactly the kind of person I'd like to see as president. Whether he's a spoiler or not remains to be seen. I certainly won't vote for Trump despite being a lifelong Republican, and I REALLY don't want to vote for anyone on the far left. At least he might give me someone to waste my vote on that won't make me gag.
https://www.thirteen.org/programs/firing-line/howard-schultz-gaftom/
To Bean's point, and in response to your questions, A10, I think the answer is here. Look at the poll at the top of this page, then look at this poll--tongue in cheek as it was: https://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php/topic,34555.0.html
At some point in the trajectory Schultz will get committed to running (or not). If the democrats wanted to head that off, their best tactic would be to run a centrist. They've demonstrated they can force a candidate through the primaries, might be a good time to see if they can get behind someone like Bloomberg right now. I think anyone that looks reasonable can beat Trump--he has to run on his record, which just simply couldn't be much worse unless he started WW3. But the democrats can certainly lose.
Tactically, a centrist running as a Democrat would be ideal should they be nominated. The bulk of the far left might not find their perfect in a Biden or in a Mayor Pete (Schultz left those two off of his early list in the video) but they will vote for them over Trump. They would also do well (or well enough) with the right of the left and the left of the right. At least that is how I envision it. :). A centrist as an independent on the other hand... The middle is tiny, the left is not going to risk it and the right see him as a lifelong Democrat.
Trump didn't recognize the Republican party but he knew he had to compete as a Republican to win. The same is true of Howard. If he runs as a Dem and wins, then possibly, but as an independent he would only replace Hillary in holding the thanks a lot crown.
-
Let’s make my question to the Trump supporters here less abstract. Let’s imagine that Trump did the following things. Which of them, if any, would lead to you actually voting for a Dem in the next election, regardless of who the Dems pick?
1. Trump brings in a new taxation system that rewards those whose families have lived longest in the US.
2. Trump brings in a system of local taxation differences where regions that make higher demands upon policing, Medicare and other government-supported resources have to pay much, much, more, in order to pay for it.
3. Trump makes all forms of sales tax illegal. Why should people be penalised for spending, right?
4. Trump sends US troops into the Middle East to defend Israeli interests, especially against Palestinians. Many Palestinians die.
5. Trump spends 70 billion dollars on his wall.
6. Trump withdraws from all strategic military alliances with existing allies.
7. Trump enters into strategic military alliances with Russia, China and North Korea.
8. Trump enters into a full-blown trade war with the European Union.
9. It is discovered that Trump paid for several abortions for women he impregnated.
10. It is discovered that Trump had sex with underage girls in Russia.
11. It is discovered that Trump had sex with underage boys when he was in Vietnam, recently.
12. It is discovered that Trump knowingly passed AIDS to a young foreigner during anal sex.
13. Trump makes promotion of climate change issues illegal.
14. Trump makes homosexuality punishable by death (like his friend the Sultan of Brunei).
15. Trump orders the closing of all Mosques in the US.
If you voted for Trump, which of these (if any) would be a deal-breaker for you?
You ever watch Live PD? This is exactly what people that are high on meth are ranting as they pound their foreheads against the protective glass in the back of a patrol car. "F" this and "F" Trump and "F" you "F'n" police. You're all going to die... Continue to pound head ;D
If a sane moderate comes in the running, I'll be interested. Any party. Just a sane moderate... Please. I don't like Trump, but I can't stand the Clinton's. Trump's abrasive and rich. The Clinton's are slimy and rich. California is covered with rich slime. Got to keep those teeth white, hair slicked back, and that face tan. All politicians are ego maniac's. I'd just like to see one that know's how to keep it in check, and in their own pants.
-
I do think Schultz is right in saying that there are a lot of centrist republicans (and even some far-right ones who are conservative because of their moral convictions) who would vote for an independent Centrist when they would never have the stomach to vote democrat. It's a chancy calculation and a chancier bet, but these are very different times. The republicans run Trump, the democrats run Bernie or one of the leftiest seven of the current 17. That means 25 percent love Trump, 25 percent happy to vote far left, and an easy 270 electoral votes hanging in the middle. The extreme polarization creates an opportunity.
Realistically, I think the current "success" of the GOP dooms them in the long term. Fifty years ago there was room for young republicans like me who saw the party as realistic and moral (at least in comparison to the unrealistic, racist left with their "worker's unite" mentality). That's over with. Now their constituency is bitter geezers, Ayn Rand fans (all 30 of them) and skinheads or their current incarnation. Their best bet for long term viability (though completely unlikely) would be to ditch Trump and run a centrist right candidate that could say the word "morality" without everyone laughing at them.
-
My first reaction to Howard Schultz is "egotistical billionaire running despite the certainty that he will help elect Donald Trump". But then I watched this, and my mind changed. This is exactly the kind of person I'd like to see as president. Whether he's a spoiler or not remains to be seen. I certainly won't vote for Trump despite being a lifelong Republican, and I REALLY don't want to vote for anyone on the far left. At least he might give me someone to waste my vote on that won't make me gag.
https://www.thirteen.org/programs/firing-line/howard-schultz-gaftom/
That was a fascinating link because of the similarity between the issues as Schultz was discussing them, and another one of the videos in that series, which was Tony Blair (the UK’s most successful centre-left Prime Minister). He (Blair) makes the point that populism rides a wave of emnity (as he put it), but ultimately goes nowhere because it provides no solutions. He draws strong parallels between the Trump phenomenon and Brexit, and the rise of populism elsewhere. His solution is much the same as the one proposed by you here: a “muscular” centrist candidate. But what he also advocates is teaching people (from a young age, presumably) about the institutions essential to democracy, why they are important, and why a respect for the rule of law is so critical.
https://www.thirteen.org/programs/firing-line/tony-blair-hvixhi/
-
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-canada-death-medical-costs-family-father-quebec-vacation-florida-20190409-a4gzyas42vceppqudl33fgtt3y-story.html
-
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-canada-death-medical-costs-family-father-quebec-vacation-florida-20190409-a4gzyas42vceppqudl33fgtt3y-story.html
It’s wrong that this family needed to go through this.
What medical costs would they have incurred post-mortem? Assuming there would be no autopsy, wouldn’t they have had to pay just for transport back to Quebec? That wouldn’t be cheap, I imagine.
-
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-canada-death-medical-costs-family-father-quebec-vacation-florida-20190409-a4gzyas42vceppqudl33fgtt3y-story.html
It’s wrong that this family needed to go through this.
What medical costs would they have incurred post-mortem? Assuming there would be no autopsy, wouldn’t they have had to pay just for transport back to Quebec? That wouldn’t be cheap, I imagine.
Probably transport to the hospital for an autopsy and/or certification of death. I wouldn't jump to the assumption of no autopsy. There are legitimate reasons for wanting to examine someone who died here after recently having been abroad, though a vacationing Canadian is highly unlikely to have some dread disease.
-
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-canada-death-medical-costs-family-father-quebec-vacation-florida-20190409-a4gzyas42vceppqudl33fgtt3y-story.html (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-canada-death-medical-costs-family-father-quebec-vacation-florida-20190409-a4gzyas42vceppqudl33fgtt3y-story.html)
It’s wrong that this family needed to go through this.
What medical costs would they have incurred post-mortem? Assuming there would be no autopsy, wouldn’t they have had to pay just for transport back to Quebec? That wouldn’t be cheap, I imagine.
Probably transport to the hospital for an autopsy and/or certification of death. I wouldn't jump to the assumption of no autopsy. There are legitimate reasons for wanting to examine someone who died here after recently having been abroad, though a vacationing Canadian is highly unlikely to have some dread disease.
I can understand the decision. It's logical. You can't look up what the costs would be. How would you ask?--"How much would it cost to deal with a person who dies while vacationing here? Asking for a friend". And the answer might be off by 10x or 100x. And once you ask, you lose the option of taking the body back to Canada yourself.
-
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-canada-death-medical-costs-family-father-quebec-vacation-florida-20190409-a4gzyas42vceppqudl33fgtt3y-story.html (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-canada-death-medical-costs-family-father-quebec-vacation-florida-20190409-a4gzyas42vceppqudl33fgtt3y-story.html)
It’s wrong that this family needed to go through this.
What medical costs would they have incurred post-mortem? Assuming there would be no autopsy, wouldn’t they have had to pay just for transport back to Quebec? That wouldn’t be cheap, I imagine.
Probably transport to the hospital for an autopsy and/or certification of death. I wouldn't jump to the assumption of no autopsy. There are legitimate reasons for wanting to examine someone who died here after recently having been abroad, though a vacationing Canadian is highly unlikely to have some dread disease.
I can understand the decision. It's logical. You can't look up what the costs would be. How would you ask?--"How much would it cost to deal with a person who dies while vacationing here? Asking for a friend". And the answer might be off by 10x or 100x. And once you ask, you lose the option of taking the body back to Canada yourself.
That’s funny! “Asking for a friend”. Yeah, right! 😄😄
-
Dying outside your home country, no matter where that is, is problematic. But it's not so much a healthcare issue as it is a transportation issue.
-
I’m sensing a business opportunity here. Charge a fee to transport bodies. Could call it “Bodies Over Borders”. Would truly be an “underground” business.
Think of the marketing.
Avoid the cost,
That comes with loss.
We’ll do it for less
For those you love best.
Don’t trust Uncle Sam,
With your John, Jill, or Pam.
Call Bodies Over Borders,
We’ll take all your orders! ;D
-
Wow, talk about yer dying industry
-
Dying outside your home country, no matter where that is, is problematic. But it's not so much a healthcare issue as it is a transportation issue.
I agree totally. It also could be entirely likely the Canadian family wouldn't have faced any unreasonable costs for transporting the body. I just don't blame them for making the decision they did, especially given their state of mind at the time.
I know airlines will transport dead bodies for a stiff fee.
-
Quickbeam, you’ve revealed your poetic side! Good job!
-
If you die outside your home country the cost to transport back has to be less than the value of your airline ticket home, or its 'Weekend at Bernie's 3 - Aisle Seat'. If in a car it is a simple 'National Lampoon's Vacation' situation, Aunt Edna on the roof of the Truckster.
-
Quickbeam, you’ve revealed your poetic side! Good job!
Thanks Spirit. Hope no one was offended.
I used to write a fair bit, but it has been a long time. Pretty rusty now.
-
If you die outside your home country the cost to transport back has to be less than the value of your airline ticket home, or its 'Weekend at Bernie's 3 - Aisle Seat'. If in a car it is a simple 'National Lampoon's Vacation' situation, Aunt Edna on the roof of the Truckster.
I just realized the first body on an airplane is free if accompanied by a living passenger, who'd be allowed one carrion.
-
If you die outside your home country the cost to transport back has to be less than the value of your airline ticket home, or its 'Weekend at Bernie's 3 - Aisle Seat'. If in a car it is a simple 'National Lampoon's Vacation' situation, Aunt Edna on the roof of the Truckster.
I just realized the first body on an airplane is free if accompanied by a living passenger, who'd be allowed one carrion.
Excellent PDX!!! Loved it. :)
-
If you die outside your home country the cost to transport back has to be less than the value of your airline ticket home, or its 'Weekend at Bernie's 3 - Aisle Seat'. If in a car it is a simple 'National Lampoon's Vacation' situation, Aunt Edna on the roof of the Truckster.
I just realized the first body on an airplane is free if accompanied by a living passenger, who'd be allowed one carrion.
👍😄😄
-
i call plane-boarding the carrion scramble--nobody wants to check their carrion!
i wonder why not--isnt it pretty cold in the baggage compartments?
why not arrive fresh?
-
Another approach might be vaccum bagging. Has anyone successfully vaccum bagged their carrion to fit into an approved carry on? Beasho, Magenta...anyone?
-
Here’s a “national emergency” that Trump should actually do something about:
“Data comparing one US and one Dutch hospital found that 77% of patients undergoing hip fracture repair in the US hospital received opioids, whereas none did in the Netherlands hospital, and 82% of US patients received opioids after ankle fracture repair compared with 6% of Dutch patients.
Despite these differences, patients in each of these countries show similar levels of satisfaction with pain management”.
https://news.sky.com/story/opioid-crisis-driven-by-inappropriate-prescription-of-painkillers-to-surgery-patients-11691210
Is this an example of the danger of a market-driven (rather than needs-driven) healthcare system?
-
Yes, that’s been a “huge” issue. And yes, it was caused at least in part by capitalist greed. But recently, there have been successful, landmark lawsuits against the major opioid producers, and prescribers, (something that should have happened years ago.) So there is plenty of blame to go around...
-
On previous surgeries, I enjoyed the opioids a little overmuch, so after my recent one (shoulder scope), I didn't get them. It really wasn't that bad. Yes, I think the drug industry is convincing us that we should never have to deal with anything there if there is a pill to make it more comfortable. And while I take responsibility for my issues with the painkillers, I have had experience with lots of other things over the course of many years and nothing else had that kind of pull. I was able to pull out of the dive but I completely understand why not everyone does. Opioids should be a last resort for severe pain and patients should be closely monitored, IMO. But they were giving them out like candy.
-
For pain management, as you intimated RTG, opioids could be a complete disaster.
But modern opioids still have their place, are very effective in anesthesia where the patient is put out and brought back relatively quickly and the patient is not left with the memory imprint of the intense euphoria. This was made possible in the 60's with a very fast acting synthetic opioid (fentanyl), that is 40-50 times more powerful than Heroin.
The irony is that the current opioid crisis in the US is fueled by the influx of pharmaceutical grade fentanyl, which is smuggled into the US from China through Mexico and and to a much lesser degree, Canada. You can't lab your own fentanyl here in the US for the cost of ready made product, that's how inexpensive it is...
-
i can tell, after a few pain management episodes where i used opioids, that i am wired to be addicted.
i am definitely not one of those folk who say "they dont do anything but make me nauseous"---they make me feel gooooood, and they make me not care a whit about anything unpleasant--bad recipe.
ill stick to the green, thks, with a minimal sprinkling of alcohol
if/when i get my hip replaced, i will use gingerly, if at all
-
Nope, not at all. I don't have a particular bent towards addiction. If I did I'd be sleeping in an alley somewhere or long dead. I did about everything I could think of in the 60's and 70's. But I don't do painkillers after surgery. Advil takes the edge off, the rest is just a matter of pushing it down. I took a Vicodin once after a particularly long and complicated shoulder surgery. I didn't like it, and the pain seemed worse when it wore off. I don't necessarily recommend that course to other people, but I'm better off without pain killers of any serious kind. I've even cut my use of Advil for minor muscle pain way back to almost nothing.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47917900
Hahaha! Little Rocket Man outplays the spray-tan Imperial Kleagle yet again. Now it’s the US’s fault that no denuclearisation has taken place. The US has the “wrong attitude” and is not serious in its intent. But Donnie is lovely anyway...
Well played, you blubbersome despot. Although it must be like playing chess with a blindfolded donkey.
-
An insult to Donkeys everywhere.
-
For pain management, as you intimated RTG, opioids could be a complete disaster.
But modern opioids still have their place, are very effective in anesthesia where the patient is put out and brought back relatively quickly and the patient is not left with the memory imprint of the intense euphoria. This was made possible in the 60's with a very fast acting synthetic opioid (fentanyl), that is 40-50 times more powerful than Heroin.
The irony is that the current opioid crisis in the US is fueled by the influx of pharmaceutical grade fentanyl, which is smuggled into the US from China through Mexico and and to a much lesser degree, Canada. You can't lab your own fentanyl here in the US for the cost of ready made product, that's how inexpensive it is...
"the memory imprint of the intense euphoria" - that's a good technical description of "a fleeting glimpse, out of the corner of my eye". Some people shrug it off and some of us go "Holy shit!" and while I was never the best behaved child in class, I don't think it is purely flawed character that pulled me in (though it likely contributed).
-
If Trump was the leader of my country I’d be abusing fentanyl as well :)
Mind you, we aren’t doing much better right now, so I guess that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones... recently, our Parliament has been like a private school debating society meeting held after a pub crawl.
https://youtu.be/Edt-V4rvIYs
-
Area 10, I think the UK is in the same dire straits that the US is in. I do think this is crisis time, indeed.
-
mainstreaming of opioid addiction in the usa is courtesy of the sackler family and their their huge US pharma corp, manufacturer and aggressive fraudulent marketer of oxycontin, purdue pharma
there have always been illegal opioids like heroin and fentanyl
sackler/purdue, with all their lawyers and lobbyists, and the aggressive lying marketing, and manufacture and distribution of ridiculous quantities of such an obviously addictive dangerous drug as oxycontin, is why we are where we are today
-
+1 Eastie. Massive doses of Oxy for chronic lower back pain. Really?
-
Does anybody believe in personal responsibility anymore?
-
i sure do--and hopefully the courts hold the sackler family personally responsible for the damage theyve done to thousands of Americans---lawsuits are in play now--it's via discovery in those suits thsat we know the sackler family knew very well of what it was doing
-
Let the lawsuits fall where they may, but there is plenty of blame to go around for the US opiod crisis. It all comes down to understanding why individuals feel the need to self-medicate.
Maybe it's time we look at the Swiss model here in the US...get the drugs out of the courtroom and into a clinical setting.
-
or portugal, where theyve had huge success reducing rates of drug abuse---after they decriminalized all forms of drug use
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/opinion/sunday/portugal-drug-decriminalization.html
https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/
or colorado where opioid use has declined markedly, after the legalization of rec cannabis use.....
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/04/02/598787768/opioid-use-lower-in-states-that-eased-marijuana-laws
https://drugabuse.com/legalizing-marijuana-decreases-fatal-opiate-overdoses/
the war on drugs has been a war on our own young people--a total failure by any measure--and certainly a failure for the families who've been damaged by incarceration of non-violent drug abusing family members
but hey we are the most aggressive jailers of our own.........
-
and weve always self-medicated, bean
what's new, and what paved the way for the opioid abuse epidemic, was the legal corporate pushing of oxycontin on ordinary folk who were told the meds were safe---a whole new population of law-abiding citizens who would never abuse drugs, or engage criminal activity, who are now addicts----and who know cousin johnny's got the smack or fentanyl they learned they need after burning thru several oxy scripts--so now they call cousin johnny--and there's no copay and the stuff's cheaper-whole new expanded market!! great corporate business!
grow market share, and grow market!! so what if there're a few junkies in the wake! name a museum after yourself and youre golden!!
how?? in our democracy??
-
I'm all for disgorging ill-gotten gain and a degree of punitive damages.
But, we also have to expect that the law suits, even if completely successful, will have little effect on the underlying issues if the monies are simply recycled into the current US model (arrest, incarceration, shaming and destruction of the individual's credibility.)
Good god, I'm sounding like a liberal...I guess I'm bi-polital ;D
-
BI?? you, bean?? i like to think youre POLY-political!!
hope i am too--tho it's clear i wear progressive lenses!
-
Yes, that's more like it, for sure Eastie
-
I'm reading a lot of science history lately, and though it is getting repetitive, there is an underlying theme that most people who think carefully about such things see benefits in all modes of political thought, and no benefit in adhering absolutely to one. The world in general was on a trajectory to mix liberalism (in the original meaning of a belief in liberty and equal treatment under the law) with a big dash of socialism in the form of efforts to equalize opportunity and provide a safety net, and a splash of Fascism in giving government more control over capitalism's excesses. Liberalism more or less won the war but it was adopting useful DNA from the vanquished. Then this strange nationalism and polarization emerged. How a country with the geopolitical and resource advantages of the USA could fall for whatever this crap is called is beyond me. My increasingly brief forays into the muck of Facebook lead me to believe it will persist.
-
I think this is just populism, plain and simple, but a version that is being amplified hugely by a population trained by reality TV, no-wait consumerism, and socially and politically manipulated by the cruel and paradoxically isolating effects of social media. All you need is one narcissistic and shameless demagogue who somehow lucked into enough money to not be mis-selling life insurance to gullible old ladies (which is what he’d otherwise have been doing), and hey presto you have a perfect recipe for the disintegration of democracy.
I suspect that, in future years, political theorists will regard the rise of populism as one of the many dangers of social media - or at least, unfettered social media. Hence why there is such a move to try to put curbs on the excesses. There needs to be accountability and responsibility in the way that there is with the print and broadcast media. Ironically, to save democracy we may need to set an agenda that looks more like the kind of state control associated with undemocratic regimes. A democracy has to have a free press. But it also has to have a responsible one. It is becoming less clear that our press is actually “free”, and the digital media is certainly less responsible.
And then of course there is the use of the modern phrase for the Nazi term Lügenpresse”: “fake news”.
This is of course 101 for demagogues. It’s the first thing you have to do: convince people that they can’t believe the press. But in our age this is made easy by the sheer amount of false crap in the digital media, and a broadcast media so obsessed with ratings and money that it will happily lander to the lowest common denominator (and the whims of it’s super-rich owners).
It’s extraordinary to read that video has captured two Donald Trump supporters chanting the word “Lügenpresse” at reporters. And there’s this:
https://youtu.be/1o6-bi3jlxk
The problem, of course, is that populism doesn’t provide any answers. It’s a protest, not a philosophy for building something new. So into that philosophical vacuum created by populism steps a philosophy. And we’d better hope it’s not the one that originally started shouting a German version of the “fake news” phrase at everything it disagreed with. But it’s sure looking like it could head that way.
-
I think you are on to something with the protest notion. I think if Bernie had run as the DEM candidate instead of Hillary he would have won. Not because most people are that far left (I am, but recognize that most are not). Not because of Benghazi or the email saga. I think he would have gotten a big chunk of the protest voters who wanted to throw a brick though the window of ineffective government. A lot of Trump voters were voting against business as usual.
On a separate topic, I think some of the authoritarian crap Trump is trying now is because he is backed into a corner. He is fighting too hard to keep his taxes from being scrutinized, to keep security approval records from being subpoenaed and pushing back too hard on any sort of investigation claiming he has been exonerated when he clearly has not. He is in real danger and despite all his bluster I think he knows it.
-
I don’t see he’s in any danger, until the Dems finally find a moderate who is sane, and communicates in a way that ordinary folk can relate too. None of the guys you guys have mentioned seems to be that person, to my mind. If Trump was vulnerable he’d have gone by now, surely? Short of screwing a Mexican child up the butt on the front lawn of the White House, he’s already done most things that would in the past seen a president become an ex-president.
Mind you, I’m beginning to wonder if the problem isn’t so much the lack of a Dem who can run against Trump, as a Republican who could replace him. Who is there, waiting in the wings?
-
If it's popularism it's the same flavor as the nihilism that infected Germany in the 30's--rooted in a powerless feeling. Of course, those people weren't really powerless, whereas ordinary people, or let's just say it straight out, stupid people, are rapidly becoming truly powerless. There are a lot of them.
In 1940's socialist doctrine, the workers realize their power as the unique source of wealth and progress and take charge. In the 2019 version, the workers realize that no one really needs them to do anything worth a working wage, and just get pissed about it. That reality is about to get a LOT worse.
This is an older article, but it's the source that got me thinking about where we are likely to be headed and what can be done about it. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603465/the-relentless-pace-of-automation/ Two years later my conclusion is pretty much the same: Not much.
In the ultra-capitalist USA there is little sympathy or support for the folks that get rolled over. Take a look at the graph in the article related to retraining or other forms of assistance. The open question is "retraining for what". we're currently enjoying very low unemployment rates, though that's a number that is almost as manipulated as the inflation rate. I view current employment rates as being as fluffy as the credit boom. Fragile is too soft a word.
-
It’s useful that you are linking being “ultra-capitalist” with downsides in living conditions for many people. If you are thinking that then many others in the US must be (starting to) too. People like me tend to believe that having a fairer and kinder society should be a goal, rather than only GDP, and that rampant and unstoppable inequality breeds discontent which will lower life satisfaction for all, not just those at the bottom.
But I appreciate that these kind of ideas (which are basically somewhat Christian in nature) are seen by many here on the zone as an affront to the natural order of things, where people should be allowed to sink to the bottom of the heap, because if they were “worthy” then somehow they’d be able to overcome all obstacles and become president. In this version of Liberty, freedom is not about an individual’s opportunity to succeed, but about the freedom of the government to let you live a miserable existence without being held to account.
This subversion of what it means for people to be “free”, and the concept of Liberty in a society that likes to call itself the “free world” reminds me of the subversion of the concept of “free speech” by the alt-right. In their version of free speech, they should be allowed to say things that will lead to the suffering of others, because the concept of free speech trumps the suffering of others in some hierarchy of virtuosity held by those who believe in ultra-capitalism (because it benefits them personally).
What puzzles many of us from outside the US is the “God bless America” slogan, in this respect. The God referred to is presumably principally the Christian notion of a God. That same God whose son was Jesus Christ. Well, JC was a pretty radical guy in terms of his commitment to helping others, and the rejection of “ultra-capitalism”. So why does a country that purports to aspire so much to the teachings of someone who put great value in helping those less fortunate than themselves, and in the value of altruism and treating others as one would be wished to be treated, cleave so closely to a narrow definition of “freedom” and “liberty” that large sections of society are perpetually afraid that they are only one pay check away from misery and ill health, while a gilded few keep getting obscenely rich whilst feeling little apparent compunction to responsibility to those less fortunate. I guess they believe that their privileged life, free of responsibility to others, is God’s work. Hmm... I’d be interested to hear what JC would have said about that.
God bless the United States of America. If Trump is a message from God, what is he trying to tell you (and us outside the US, because we look and learn too)? Holding up a mirror perhaps?
-
politics, crime or not---sadly nothing thoughtful seems to be going on around trump
from the piece posted above:
Written by President Obama’s top economic and science advisors, “Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy” is a clear-eyed look at how fast-developing AI and automation technologies are affecting jobs, and it offers a litany of suggestions for how to deal with the upheaval.
textbook mixed economy intervention is to provide sustenance and retraining to those who find themselves structurally unemployed--chart makes clear we dont care about that anymore--we have a new word for the structurally unemployed---lazy
weve become not so christian, in case you care about that, that's for sure
-
I’m not at all sure that AI will be the jobs apocalypse that some are suggesting. Robots are still extremely expensive and limited in what they can do practically. Many jobs *could* be automated but it just wouldn’t be economical to do so. Plus, our understanding of much of what humans can do in terms of brain function is still in its infancy. Moreover, humans are inherently social creatures. We simply aren’t going to tolerate environments where we are isolated from other humans, which is what would happen if large swathes of the population are removed from workplaces. AI and robots are just the latest step in the ongoing process of industrialisation. They are new tools. And like any new tools, they will replace some older skills, but encourage the development of others. Plus, I think that scientists are over-selling AI a bit. It’s right that they do so, in order to get people thinking about the future. But the chances that in 10 years we will all be driven around in robotic cars, sleeping in the back seat, is just total fantasy. Science fiction nearly always overestimates the speed of scientific progress. And scientists aren’t going to tell you that it is going to take a gazillion years to get to point X, because most people would then prioritise the money for something more immediate, and so point X would never be reached.
A much more immediate threat to the US workforce is surely India? 900 million people. 900. Think about that. With very good education opportunities, and a pretty startling work ethic. With Europe being quickly pulled apart now by Trump-style populism, soon the geographic focus of the biggest economic blocks in the world won’t be in the West, but will lie with China and India. Without Europe, the US will in the future be more culturally and economically isolated; a country of under 400 million vs. two massive trading countries of over a billion each.
The smart thing for the US to do now, therefore, would be to be building bridges (political, cultural, economic) as fast as possible with China and India in particular. But instead, you have installed a narcissistic reality TV president whose focus is looking back, not forward, and who is not mentally or socially deft enough to be building bridges with anyone. Trump’s populism only demolishes; it does not build.
So, you worry about Skynet taking over the US if you like, with every taxi being driven by T-800, and your Starbucks being served to you by a Marilyn Munroe robot. But it seems much more likely to me that the real jobs apocalypse for US (or for that matter, European) citizens will be for the uneducated citizens within those countries who have poor social skills, and therefore are people that other people don’t want to mix with, and cannot compete in a globalised job market run principally by neither the US nor their closest cultural allies (Europe).
But I think that if you are a well-educated novel problem-solver, and/or have good social skills and an altruistic and people-oriented outlook, your position in the job market will be fine. T-800 won’t be able to do the things that you do, for a very very long time.
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/
-
^^^ I think even lot of skilled blue collar jobs that don't require a degree are not going away, or at least not anytime soon. For all the reasons you described about robots, they are not going to take over carpentry, they are not going to weld bridges, or be electricians, or plumbers, etc. If fact there is a huge shortage of people getting into these professions and that's causing serious issues of it's own. There is WAY too much emphasis on the idea that everyone needs to go to college and that's simply not the case.
-
china? we're all chocolate cake at mar a lago!!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/15/china-mike-pompeo-venezuela-maduro
-
^^^ I think even lot of skilled blue collar jobs that don't require a degree are not going away, or at least not anytime soon. For all the reasons you described about robots, they are not going to take over carpentry, they are not going to weld bridges, or be electricians, or plumbers, etc. If fact there is a huge shortage of people getting into these professions and that's causing serious issues of it's own. There is WAY too much emphasis on the idea that everyone needs to go to college and that's simply not the case.
I agree with the latter part of your statement completely. One of my kids is not so sure about college and I would be more than okay with him going into a skilled trade. In 18 months he could be an AC tech instead of working at Dunkin. I learned to program at a tech school and have had a 40 year career (so far) earning as much or more than my college educated peers.
As far as your first statement, I think that assistive tech will reduce the number of workers needed in a lot of cases. It would be quite an undertaking to make robots that could work together to build a house, but what about one that just frames out windows and doors? Or laying shingles in big open areas of a roof with a human inspecting and doing the advanced stuff around chimneys and standpipes?
-
half of kids headed to college shd be headed to work, and some shd be headed to tech school
the game of partying, sexing and chilling, while gaming to good grades---bc then one is owed a good job--is lost on me--a total waste
for those who really want to learn stuff and develop intellectually? i am a true believer, and that includes STEM, humanities and arts
if my thoughts were implemented, we'd lose a ton of academic jobs--but we'd also hope to lose a part of the recently swollen, overpaid admin armies that attach to every school with a budget
while adjunct profs get paid pennies, and get no benefits.....
-
Here is a good exmple of current use of robotics
https://youtu.be/MVWayhNpHr0
-
I’ll bet that bricklaying robot doesn’t turn out to be economical for most construction applications. It rather proves my point, actually. You still need someone to program and supervise it, and no doubt the damn thing will break down all the time, requiring a maintenance crew. It didn’t look faster than a human, either. All the guy could offer was that it saved the bricklayer the physical effort of placing the bricks. Unless you were a big company with a lot of very similar builds, it would probably be more trouble than it is worth.
-
There's been a trend in construction (for a century or two) towards mechanization and standardization, with more components being put together off-site. The brick on many buildings has been built panelized indoors in factories for a few decades. That's where I can see bricklaying robots working, if they don't already.
People are building houses by building entire walls in factories, then shipping them to the site and erecting them in a day or two. You have ideal conditions doing it that way--no more climbing around in the rain hammering (or nail-gunning).
I was in a custom window factory recently. The amount of work a few people can do there is unbelievable, thanks to machines that can say, drill 100 holes in exact locations in the time a guy onsite could drill one.
I'd guess increasing amounts of construction (never all) will be done by increasingly skilled people, with much of it being operating sophisticated machinery assembling components offsite.
-
humans are expensive--reduce the number of humans, increase efficiency
and i believe efficiency is good--and will be so continually--but gotta help honest hard-working folk who become structurally unemployed as a consequence--help with staying afloat--and help re-enfranchising in good parts of the economy
let the market monster operate as unbridled as possible, but take care those who get spit out--works
-
There's been a trend in construction (for a century or two) towards mechanization and standardization, with more components being put together off-site. The brick on many buildings has been built panelized indoors in factories for a few decades. That's where I can see bricklaying robots working, if they don't already.
People are building houses by building entire walls in factories, then shipping them to the site and erecting them in a day or two. You have ideal conditions doing it that way--no more climbing around in the rain hammering (or nail-gunning).
I was in a custom window factory recently. The amount of work a few people can do there is unbelievable, thanks to machines that can say, drill 100 holes in exact locations in the time a guy onsite could drill one.
I'd guess increasing amounts of construction (never all) will be done by increasingly skilled people, with much of it being operating sophisticated machinery assembling components offsite.
Yes, of course. But you’ll still need people to fix and alter existing buildings. And you’ll need a whole raft of new jobs in programming, engineering, maintenance etc to build and look after all these new robots.
-
Hey, in Star Wars robots fix robots. Just sayin’...
But seriously, when we at the dawn of the industrial revolution, no one could have predicted the jobs that would follow. Of course in the same time frame, the “little ice age” was just concluding and so we were also farming like it was going out of style.
-
Yes (to both Area10 and Bean) I don't see construction jobs disappearing, I just see more construction done by increasingly skilled people. It's already true more than most people realize.
And if I'm wrong, and half of construction jobs disappear, that'll be more than offset anyway because by then you'll need at least twice as many people working to get the building permits.
-
I would counter and say that this change is happening relatively quickly and all around us. We have combined AI and automation in these examples and that is fine. A combination of these two has already eliminated the need for humans in most of our manufacturing jobs. In the US we are producing more than ever (2.3 times more) using 1/3 less people. Where the labor was expensive enough (read high paying jobs) to justify the investment in automation that has happened.
(https://snbchf.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/1-Manufacturing-output-vs.-employment-1024x503-1.png)
Why would you assume that drivers would not be the same? It works, its better, its coming. That doesn't mean tomorrow but 15 years from now that chart will look like the one above. Realtors showing houses, the last of the checkout tellers, warehouse workers. Yes, the more routine the task, the lower the fruit lies, but this is the case for so many jobs.
This is in large why we have a high employment rate, relative wage stagnation, and an increase in the number of hours worked per individual during this extended period.
This is all before "real" or more advanced AI has even come to pass.
The social human element is much more situational than you are imagining. We have no problem not chatting with a gas station attendant and filling our own tanks (most states). I know I scan my own groceries (not that the Safeway and Home Depot staff's aren't lovely), that bank teller interaction is not often missed as we deposit checks on our phones, Many forsake the yearly company of their accountant at tax time. Almost everyone skips the entire retail experience (from greeting guy to janitor) to some degree. We do all see a lot more of our delivery guys, though. In fact, there are only a few situations where most would actually look forward to human interaction. Sure, it is nice to say hi to a barrista...if the line is not too long.
-
But durable manufacturing is only 6% of GDP in the US.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-are-the-biggest-industries-in-the-united-states.html
-
Hi Area,
I also mentioned Real Estate, Retail, Transportation, Warehousing, Services. That is, of course, not a complete list as every sector has been impacted. One issue that complicates that matter is wealth inequality. A huge portion of the GDP does very little to create jobs for most people. This means that when high paying jobs (or the majority of whole sectors) that were available to most people dissapear and are not replaced with similar paying jobs, it is a flat out loss.
Here is the US Real Gross Output by Sector:
(https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2018/8/17/10079501-15345200914626236.png)
-
Yes. The reason I mentioned GDP was that if that falters significantly then that probably poses a greater threat than AI, because of the effect on taxation. AI could help you maintain GDP even if employment decreases a bit. (But I think that AI will actually increase productivity without impacting much on employment rates, except amongst a few unlucky souls).
But for this to work, we must relate to the earlier discussions about what kind of country you guys want to live in. It is no doubt nicer to live in the US than in some countries, where your survival and mental well-being is constantly under threat. But is it nicer in the US than being a citizen of somewhere like Denmark, for instance, where you can get superb free healthcare, world-class free education, and if you lose your job you will be looked after quite well by the state? Working conditions are some of the best in the world too. This gives the citizens a strong sense of security and well-being that it is hard to quantity financially, but in order in the US to feel that secure you’d have to be very rich. The price they pay for this peace of mind in Denmark is however high basic rates of taxation. But the citizens tolerate that because they don’t feel that their government is fundamentally at odds with their personal freedom, and think that although it might be inefficient at times, this is better than having some venal corporation in charge, trying to extract as much money from them as they can whilst giving less and less in return, so the shareholders can get ever richer that their customers. In Europe there is just not the same level of belief in the motivating utility of greed, or that private companies are always the best way to deliver value and service to the citizen.
The picture you guys paint of living in the US is pretty off-putting to foreigners like me. You seem to distrust your government, and believe that politics has become fundamentally corrupted by money. You describe a country where some random misfortune like illness can leave you destitute, and there will be little sympathy for you or places to turn. You describe a country where the dollar is king, and belief in the possibility of decent people to rise to the top is almost gone. You have elected a leader who displays some truly abhorrent personal qualities (as even acknowledged by his supporters), but it nevertheless seems likely that he will be elected again. And you cling, cognitive-dissonance-like to beliefs about what is good and reasonable in terms of economics (eg. with your healthcare system) despite openly giving evidence of its punitive effects upon you personally. You also seem afraid of the outside world, despite having armed forces that are so ludicrously larger than any other country that it is almost comical.
All this, and yet you seem unwilling to countenance anything that would amount to real change. You aren’t even willing to dip your toe into fresh ways of thinking. Because, it seems, that doing anything except what you are currently doing is regarded as somehow “unamerican”. What a crock of sh*t. If you were judging another country you’d call this a heady mix of learned helplessness and brainwashing.
I hope I am wrong.
-
Staying focused for a moment, GDP or "the economy" as a whole can move (and often does) out of step with jobs, wages, hours of most people. Wealth changing hands between billionaires (for example) has an impact on the GDP but none on most of us. We live in the world of available jobs, real world wages, etc. That is where automation and early AI (if that is an acceptable term) have had an undeniable impact. I am pleased that Mayor Pete has this as a focus point. Not doing so seems completely out of touch and I believe that will be recognized as a major error in hindsight). I do get that there is no political sexiness to this issue at the moment.
There is a lot of over generalization in the rest of what you have written. America isn't one guy. If it was he would be 5'9, 200 lbs, and a Democrat. But, more accurately it would be a 5'3 170 lb woman, also a Democrat.
We haven't really changed much since we voted Obama or Bush or Clinton into office. We vote based on the options that are presented. The Democrats as a whole aren't screwed, The Republicans aren't forever damaged by Trump. Each time around a new set of candidates will emerge and we will choose from them. Occasionally the stars will align so that we have only crappy choices...and we will choose from them.
-
agree, admin, on you theses, and also your defense of americans from generalization
also, much as i have never had problems with efficiency, so long as society takes care of those who end up disenfranchised thru no fault of their own, ai worries me. many americans resent caring for structurally unemployed already--multiply the ranks and
AI may, in fact, not be tenable, under classical american economic approaches--employment may become way less available than now, where a living wage has become much more scarce already, since the trickle up policies that began with reagan/stockman
we shall see---even 60 yo guys like me--this shit is upon us
-
My point was that AI will only be a problem if you follow the same taxation and social/welfare policies as you do now.
-
Well if AI really does get to the point where a universal basic income becomes a serious possibility, then I fear we will collapse and descend into real chaos. Possibly a genuine civil war or just complete anarchy. I am in favor of it personally. It simply is unfair and immoral to expect people displaced due to no fault of their own to just suck it up and accept their fate while those more fortunate get to go on and happily live their lives. That being said, there is no way there won't be violent resistance if it really gets to that point. As stated before, many of those who are working are not going to be happy with their tax dollars supplementing the disenfranchised. I don't have an answer and I don't think anyone does. We just have to wait and see and hope for the best.
-
Well if AI really does get to the point where a universal basic income becomes a serious possibility, then I fear we will collapse and descend into real chaos. Possibly a genuine civil war or just complete anarchy. I am in favor of it personally. It simply is unfair and immoral to expect people displaced due to no fault of their own to just suck it up and accept their fate while those more fortunate get to go on and happily live their lives. That being said, there is no way there won't be violent resistance if it really gets to that point. As stated before, many of those who are working are not going to be happy with their tax dollars supplementing the disenfranchised. I don't have an answer and I don't think anyone does. We just have to wait and see and hope for the best.
You’ve already stated the answer.
If you are one of the fortunate few who have been born with the right genes and/or have been surrounded by the right people, maybe you might have to accept a more Christian attitude to those less fortunate - as much out of self-preservation as principle. You never know, it might even become fashionable to be kind and generous to others...
But I think robots and AI will create as many jobs as they replace. We’ll just make even more stuff, even faster and cheaper. So I sure hope that the Cobra factory in Thailand start using robots to make SUPs, because boards sure could do with being cheaper and better made :)
-
The picture you guys paint of living in the US is pretty off-putting to foreigners like me. You seem to distrust your government, and believe that politics has become fundamentally corrupted by money. You describe a country where some random misfortune like illness can leave you destitute, and there will be little sympathy for you or places to turn. You describe a country where the dollar is king, and belief in the possibility of decent people to rise to the top is almost gone. You have elected a leader who displays some truly abhorrent personal qualities (as even acknowledged by his supporters), but it nevertheless seems likely that he will be elected again. And you cling, cognitive-dissonance-like to beliefs about what is good and reasonable in terms of economics (eg. with your healthcare system) despite openly giving evidence of its punitive effects upon you personally. You also seem afraid of the outside world, despite having armed forces that are so ludicrously larger than any other country that it is almost comical.
All this, and yet you seem unwilling to countenance anything that would amount to real change. You aren’t even willing to dip your toe into fresh ways of thinking. Because, it seems, that doing anything except what you are currently doing is regarded as somehow “unamerican”. What a crock of sh*t. If you were judging another country you’d call this a heady mix of learned helplessness and brainwashing.
I hope I am wrong.
You are wrong and right. There ARE Americans who would agree with you 100% and many others not at all and any and all variations in between. Also, the U.S. is a very big and diverse country. Also consider it's history of how it came into being (the so called "protestant work ethic) plays a huge role in the mentality of how one should obtain wealth or at least a comfortable living. Not saying it's right or wrong but it is what it is and has shaped our culture. Sadly I encounter a significate # of people who make it very clear they do have a disdain for the less fortunate and are not fans of their tax dollars helping them.
-
My point was that AI will only be a problem if you follow the same taxation and social/welfare policies as you do now.
Yes, social order in general will adapt as it always has. For instnace, in the long run, AI might make healthcare more affordable. But, in the near term, as AI is incorporated (for instance in radiology), it will likely increase the cost.
Anyone remember back in the early 90's when tele-radiology hit the scene?
A radiologist in NYC could confer on a complex issue with a colleague in London, or cover routine cases for remote hospitals. While these advancements were great from a clinical perspective, they did little to reduce the cost. Not only that, but utilization went up from the low 40's in the mid 90's to over 120 per 1000 patients...
-
The picture you guys paint of living in the US is pretty off-putting to foreigners like me. You seem to distrust your government, and believe that politics has become fundamentally corrupted by money. You describe a country where some random misfortune like illness can leave you destitute, and there will be little sympathy for you or places to turn. You describe a country where the dollar is king, and belief in the possibility of decent people to rise to the top is almost gone. You have elected a leader who displays some truly abhorrent personal qualities (as even acknowledged by his supporters), but it nevertheless seems likely that he will be elected again. And you cling, cognitive-dissonance-like to beliefs about what is good and reasonable in terms of economics (eg. with your healthcare system) despite openly giving evidence of its punitive effects upon you personally. You also seem afraid of the outside world, despite having armed forces that are so ludicrously larger than any other country that it is almost comical.
All this, and yet you seem unwilling to countenance anything that would amount to real change. You aren’t even willing to dip your toe into fresh ways of thinking. Because, it seems, that doing anything except what you are currently doing is regarded as somehow “unamerican”. What a crock of sh*t. If you were judging another country you’d call this a heady mix of learned helplessness and brainwashing.
I hope I am wrong.
You are wrong and right. There ARE Americans who would agree with you 100% and many others not at all and any and all variations in between. Also, the U.S. is a very big and diverse country. Also consider it's history of how it came into being (the so called "protestant work ethic) plays a huge role in the mentality of how one should obtain wealth or at least a comfortable living. Not saying it's right or wrong but it is what it is and has shaped our culture. Sadly I encounter a significate # of people who make it very clear they do have a disdain for the less fortunate and are not fans of their tax dollars helping them.
Yes, and beyond that the current president lost the popular vote by several million votes, against a candidate who was unpopular herself. And half the voters didn't vote at all (maybe a problem in itself, or maybe it's best they don't vote). So less than a quarter of voters voted for him. So any generalizations based on the election results need to factor all that in.
-
Admin definitely gets it, the change isn't some robot banging nails and laying bricks. It's wholesale replacement of both physical and cognitive labor. Amazon employs a lot of people, but it has displaced far more than it replaced. All the see-through malls make that very clear. The model they deploy makes automation of most of the transaction chain very easy. their complex pricing models probably already have some machine learning optimization--it's an ideal max-min problem with plenty of data. And as they build more machine learning into their systems the need for high level employees will decline rapidly. In the short term there's lots of low-hanging fruit. In the long term, I can't really think of a living wage job that is invulnerable.
The issue doesn't represent some inevitable Armageddon, it's a problem that requires forethought to solve. And it will likely drive major changes in society that most people will ignore while it rolls over and around them. As it is, the perceptions of most of the people I encounter seem to be locked somewhere between 1970 and 1990 as far as international economics, trends, and technology are concerned. I'm still hearing people say that overpopulation is a threat.
-
“ I can't really think of a living wage job that is invulnerable“.
It took me about 1 second to come up with: Care Workers.
Pretty much anything that involves empathy or strong connections with others, or work with vulnerable groups, will be fine.
People will still want to be around people. You can automatise all your tills if you want to, and have a robot serve the coffee, but everyone will still go to the friendly traditional family coffee shop across the road.
This is just the next stage in the move from a manufacturing economy to a service one.
Who’d have thought, 20 years ago, that people would pay huge sums for bottles of water, and extraordinary prices for cups of coffee pretty much the same as they could make at home for a fraction of the cost. Humans are increasingly paying for “experiences” rather than merely products. Few of those experiences can be generated by AI or robots. Even computer games are only really successful if there is a social component to it. Humans are intensely social creatures, but your vision for the future, where AI and robots have hollowed out the lives of half the population, assumes that that half won’t become an economy in themselves. All that will happen is that we will have swapped bricklayers for beauty therapists, and delivery drivers for personal trainers. In the same way that 20 years ago a high street might have one cafe, but it now has a gazillion Starbucks etc. The rise of coffee shops doesn’t really make any economic sense, and nor will the fact that in 30 years everyone will not only have a dentist and a doctor, but also a personal trainer, beautician, life coach, therapist, etc. The more you try to remove people from a person’s day to day contact list (including in the workplace), and the cheaper you make “stuff”, the more people will find ways of spending money on putting that social contact and social validation back in. And they’ll be jobs in that.
But for sure, if you have kids, try to teach them good social skills, and encourage creative and sporting activities.
And it is right that we think about this stuff. It is encouraging that rich older people like you are doing so, despite the fact that it won’t impact much upon you.
-
“ I can't really think of a living wage job that is invulnerable“.
It took me about 1 second to come up with: Care Workers.
I know that “care workers” covers a broad swath, but I can tell you that it isn’t a living wage job. On the Nursing Assistant, Medical Assistant, etc end of things, we are not paid a living wage. I believe this is because these positions, direct patient that is licensed but not an RN, have traditionally been women’s jobs. They aren’t valued, or, the value is not reflected in the check. I can watch three “maintenance men” come to investigate a malfunctioning electrical socket, knowing they are each making ~$20/hr. A poor use of labor, but traditionally a male-occupied position. Over time, these traditions have dictated pay rates.
Given our skill level (which is much higher than people think), the facts that we are licensed and have multiple yearly recertifications, care workers should be paid much more than we are. I could get paid more at Whole Foods. Why not work there, you ask? Unfortunately there are no open positions where I live.
-
“ I can't really think of a living wage job that is invulnerable“.
It took me about 1 second to come up with: Care Workers.
I know that “care workers” covers a broad swath, but I can tell you that it isn’t a living wage job. On the Nursing Assistant, Medical Assistant, etc end of things, we are not paid a living wage. I believe this is because these positions, direct patient that is licensed but not an RN, have traditionally been women’s jobs. They aren’t valued, or, the value is not reflected in the check. I can watch three “maintenance men” come to investigate a malfunctioning electrical socket, knowing they are each making ~$20/hr. A poor use of labor, but traditionally a male-occupied position. Over time, these traditions have dictated pay rates.
Given our skill level (which is much higher than people think), the facts that we are licensed and have multiple yearly recertifications, care workers should be paid much more than we are. I could get paid more at Whole Foods. Why not work there, you ask? Unfortunately there are no open positions where I live.
Sorry, this is clearly a cross-cultural difference in terms: in the UK the phrase “Living Wage” has status in employment law:
https://www.employmentlaws.co.uk/guide/national_minimum_wage.html
It is different from the Minimum Wage, which is another employment law term. Many nursing staff and other healthcare workers will earn the Living Wage (and some the minimum wage).
And yes, I know all about the wages of care workers. At the start of my career I worked in various care staff roles for several years, earning minimum wage or not much more. It is IMO shameful that people so skilled and who contribute so much to society are paid so little.
-
I like this guy...Andrew Yang. He's articulate, stats based, and solutions focused. He's getting support from left & right, pro/anti Trump, etc.
Did well in his recent Town Hall. There's also a more in-depth conversation with Joe Rogan that's worth a listen.
https://youtu.be/oBwMW0qe7pU
https://youtu.be/cTsEzmFamZ8
-
Yang’s suggestion of giving every US adult 1000 dollars a month is certainly bold, and would be the kind of bomb under the swamp that would really make a difference. But surely that’s a bit too... dare I mention the “S” word - for US voters?
Gotta love the phrase “freedom dividend” though - in a huge attempt to make it sound not at all like the S word, but much more “ultra-capitalist”.
Then also have free healthcare for certain forms of low-paid but highly-valued workers (e.g. healthcare workers, teaching assistants etc) and you might just transform the economy in a very positive way, and reduce crime etc too.
I notice that no-one has any real idea how to get Amazon to pay their fair share of taxes though.
-
The freedom dividend to be funded by the tech companies that are displacing jobs via value added tax, ie. Amazon.
-
I am a believer in basic income.
http://www.marshallbrain.com/basic-income.htm
and of course the recently trending Rutger Bregman:
https://www.businessinsider.com/basic-income-ted-talk-rutger-bregman-2017-5
The linked video from the article is pretty good. If you are against basic income, you don't want to debate him.
-
The turn this thread has taken is actually quite funny: “Robots turned me into a socialist”. :) :)
-
The irony would be that under socialism, the machines would get the profits (the workers own the means of production). ;D
-
the finest, most efficient/effective socialist institution in the world is the US Military
why cant our govt run our student loan programs?---US issues 10 year notes monthly--yield to maturity of 2.50%--kids borrow money, that they will owe til they pay, or die (only form of debt--incl corporate, business, or personal--that doesnt go away in bankruptcy) and our college kids pay 7+%
our banks have paid politicians to allow the "free market" to handle these loans, even tho many are govt guaranteed, so the banks have zero exposure anyway, yet make huge monaey on the backs of college kids hoping to get in on our economy some day----and the banks make loans all the day long at way lower rates than student loans to entities that can and do frequently go bankrupt and walk away
so gross the way weve allowed this--fleece the future earning of our college kids!!!!!!!!!! perfect, and not surprising--not too many $$ being sprayed around DC by college kids---Banks?? ha! $$$$$$$$$$$ benjamins flowing
-
The freedom dividend to be funded by the tech companies that are displacing jobs via value added tax, ie. Amazon.
Currently the US is unable to collect income tax from Amazon and other tech companies; I don't think there's much chance of them paying a freedom dividend.
-
The irony would be that under socialism, the machines would get the profits (the workers own the means of production). ;D
I've read that a century ago machines even took over politics in places like Chicago.
-
A guaranteed monthly income would be great, but guaranteed (and thorough) health care might be more helpful. Safe and up-to-code housing for all, healthcare, and education—-for any and all ages—-would probably be more helpful than just giving us all money. For those of us who are unable to work, then a monthly stipend would be helpful, and yes, cash is always helpful, but a lot of us need the basics: housing and healthcare.
Area10, I like that tiered income plan in the UK! It makes a lot more sense than just having a 7.25/hr minimum wage like we have in the US. Seriously?? 7.25/hr?? We are then getting into indentured servitude. Scraping by while drowning in debt to the “company store”. Having health problems that will never get taken care of, but hey, if the poor folks die off, who cares?
-
And here is how a family of the future might get around all this AI/Robotics mumbo jumbo...
-
The irony would be that under socialism, the machines would get the profits (the workers own the means of production). ;D
Nah, what you’d do is allow people to invest the 1000 dollars a month in a robot, which goes to work for them, and then they get paid for everything their robot does. Robot slaves! Then the workers are indeed the producers, they just don’t physically do the production; they enable it.
And there you have it - the AI future is an idler’s dream, where “your” robot goes to work every day to earn money for you, while you go surfing :)
-
The turn this thread has taken is actually quite funny: “Robots turned me into a socialist”. :) :)
It would be terrific to have a president that would enpanel experts and thouroughly consider how this has progressed to date and how it will likely unfold going forward using the existing data to drive those processes. Barack was certainly involved in doing so.
Jumping straight to Universal Basic Income is 10 steps too far at this point and may ultimately prove not be a valid direction. I don't feel like anyone knows that at this point. Campaigning on this would certainly hand Trump the election. Is it more important that you get to say the word Socialist than it is to have sanity in governance? Shoot your own foot if you must. It's that goofy looking thing on the end of your leg. Rally the 18% of Americans who like the word Socialist into a unified knot, but don't complain when you get another 4 years of the same.
-
Oh, I don’t believe ANY US politician should be using the S word. It’s totally unnecessary, and not an accurate description of what they mean anyway. All everyone here who is left-leaning is talking about is creating a kinder society. That’s all it is. A society where things that matter are valued, and the people that do them are rewarded, and no-one has to die on the streets through no fault of their own. That’s got nothing to do with socialism or capitalism or communism of any other “ism” you care to mention. It’s something else entirely. It’s about seeing a population of people as an ecological system, and devising checks and balances to maintain the health of that system. At the moment we are out of whack: all the foxes have been let into the hen house at once, and they are gonna gorge themselves until the hens that lay the eggs are gone, then feast upon each other until there’s no-one left and they die too. Democracy is a fine balance.
-
I am a believer in basic income.
http://www.marshallbrain.com/basic-income.htm
and of course the recently trending Rutger Bregman:
https://www.businessinsider.com/basic-income-ted-talk-rutger-bregman-2017-5
The linked video from the article is pretty good. If you are against basic income, you don't want to debate him.
That’s an interesting and thought-provoking TED talk for sure. A bit light on detail. But you’d think it would be an experiment worth trying. Hands up those who’d like to live in the town they decided to run that program in?
https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lack_of_character_it_s_a_lack_of_cash/up-next#t-889760
Maybe that should be Elon Musk’s next project.
-
So it was ok to bail out banks and auto industry in the past but it's too far fetched to bail out the people who are getting the shaft once again?
I haven't been in favor of UBI in the past since I lean more towards trickle down economics. But clearly that component seems to be broken at this point since a lot of corporations are just hoarding cash and not putting it back into the economy. It's like a clogged shower. Someone's gotta unclog it. Funding UBI through tech companies that are drivers of worker displacement may not be too far fetched.
-
Note the “free on the NHS” part.
https://surfing-waves.com/surfers-eye.htm
-
Of course we actually have a form of UBI currently. Do a little research on income tax in America. It's not what you think it is. Graduated income taxes are a form of redistribution. If the system were working as it's supposed to it would already be reasonably fair. But as it is about 44 to 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. Couples with three children earning less than about 60K per year can receive an EITC of about 6K. It doesn't do much for single people or couples with no kids, but the framework is there and its relatively easy to manage the return so that earning an additional dollar of income is always better than not. It makes a lot more sense to me to increase the EITC than to raise the minimum wage or create some new UBI system since the transition to earner making enough to not be on the dole is graceful and automatic. .
-
I see a fundamental difference in paying people not to work rather than not taxing, or lightly taxing, some who are working. I don't believe that the UBI proposals that are being discussed are a renaming of the current structure, but rather are discussing additional funds (more money) being given to those who are not working (or possibly the underemployed as well). If that is the case, where are those funds coming from? The big issue that the Democratic Socialists face is explaining the paying. All of the "__ for all" proposals sound nice but there is zero substance given on the payment side.
We have a group of candidates who want to play Santa Clause. It has proven to be a successful tactic. Trump worked it and then did it in office. Small bump to GDP and employment for a few months and then right back to grade level. Trillions wasted.
It is very frustrating to watch.
-
I read all this, and the clamor for three months paid leave - because you elected to have a child. "..and, why shouldn't the father have the same right?!" ..privatizing Social Security because we would all be richer, bla-bla...
Jesus... we are sitting around divvy'ing up unrealized gains when, we in the States, are having our lunch eaten by China. We can't build cars for trains much less lay track to run them on. We can't maintain the roads or bridges already built - forget new highways!
This is called 'Federal Student Aid'...
You must repay your loans even if you don’t complete your education, can’t find a job related to your program of study, or are unhappy with the education you paid for with your loan. You also can’t claim that you have no responsibility for repaying your loan because you were a minor (under the age of 18) when you signed your promissory note or received the loan.
...essentially, what feels like signing for free money for educations that include canoeing (at our local U.) levels of meal tickets and accommodations, plane flights to play Lacrosse with an opposing team, only to discover you are not qualified for one the 7mil job opening that are currently unfilled.
We seem to spend more time deciding how to spend borrowed money between a Wolf or Viking stove for our patio kitchen, while China has figured out how to place a beautifully built, cedar Bluebird house at my doorstep for less than the price of the wood ...if I could find cedar at a local lumberyard?!
We are fuc'd ...there's nobody on the horizon I can see with the strength and integrity to lead us out of this dark tunnel we are in.
Jim
...wanna see our real character: Check into the Jeffery Epstein saga in south FL and NY ...and the stream of luminaries entangled with this person who should have been placed in a trash compactor.
-
China will probably experience the problem in a bigger way, sooner than the USA. Jack Ma has been preaching about it a lot lately. That the current arc of education in China will not lead students to jobs. He doesn't really have an answer either.
The issue isn't that there's not plenty of things that need to be done, it's that a lot of the jobs that traditionally paid a living wage are going away and not coming back. EITC is a means to supplement jobs that don't carry a living wage. At its current level and with its aim at supporting families rather than individuals it can't do what a UBI would, but that can change. We're likely to see something like the Job Corps, or WPA, working on public infrastructure, assuming we have a government capable of solving problems rather than creating them.
Currently, a lot of Americans who leave school and discover that they don't have a useful education join the military services. When/if we decide we are no longer the police force for the world that direction will dry up a bit, but the resources can be redirected to something more useful and less wasteful.
The biggest problem Democrats have is they try to out-lefty each other. They'd gain a lot more ground with something more responsible. Not that I'm really rooting for them, they simply are the only current alternative. I'd rather see responsibility and good governance come out of the Republican party--they have the right DNA, and the wrong people running the show.
-
Wow, that second paragraph lead would have me throwing my blue pencil at a writer who worked for me. Makes my editorial eye twitch. Too late to modify, the shame is indelible.
-
This article popped up on my feed this AM. Interesting in terms of our discussions about Socialism and Democratic Socialism. https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-democratic-socialists-apos-sanders-090009780.html
-
This article popped up on my feed this AM. Interesting in terms of our discussions about Socialism and Democratic Socialism. https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-democratic-socialists-apos-sanders-090009780.html
Interesting to read. But a load of balls. The stuff about Jeremy Corbyn is a set of the usual stuff that our right-wing press trots out in order to protect their financial interests. I am no fan of Corbyn. But those who believe in reaching out to marginalised groups rather than reinforcing divisions between communities will find themselves fodder for this kind of easy attack.
I think Bernie etc are nuts to go anywhere the S word. Why load yourself up with all that unhelpful baggage? Most of the population, surely, just wants a safety net in their lives that means they can stay safe and healthy if the randomness of life throws a spanner in their aspirations? And then they are happy to let private industry do the rest, as long as they don’t interfere with their basic rights, health and welfare. Are Bernie or AOC etc really suggesting anything else? I doubt it.
Plus, as we have discussed before, there might be some things (like healthcare) that might actually be done more efficiently (in terms of overall health of the populations vs dollars spent) by the government. Of course, the “market” only really works for the consumer if there really is a market, and that it isn’t “gamed” or monopolised by a small cadre of people who don’t care about the consumers. You guys describe a healthcare system so Byzantine and opaque that it’s almost impossible to know what you are really buying or what the risks are, and where you are paying for layer upon layer of marketing, legal costs, and administration. If your health system was run by the government you could control it, whereas at the moment it seems that you feel powerless over it. For a population to puts so much store by being in democratic control, it seems odd to me that you’d want such a big part of your lives to be dictated to you by faceless people over whom you have no control.
-
the finest, most efficient/effective socialist institution in the world is the US Military
100% disagree. As Margaret Thatcher said "socialism is great until you run out of other people's money."
US military creates zero wealth. They exist only because they have a outside source for money. Stop that source and they fail. Which is about as it efficient as it gets.
-
OK tacticians, the report is now (mostly?) in. Mueller wrote, “Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office,”. That conclusion, he said, “accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”
So, how would you proceed?
-
disagree as you wish--but it's "other people's (taxpayers') money" that funds our military, and we're not gonna run out--so, yeah, us military is a worthy socialist institution (within our "mixed economy") with staying power.
-
This article popped up on my feed this AM. Interesting in terms of our discussions about Socialism and Democratic Socialism. https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-democratic-socialists-apos-sanders-090009780.html
Interesting to read. But a load of balls. The stuff about Jeremy Corbyn is a set of the usual stuff that our right-wing press trots out in order to protect their financial interests. I am no fan of Corbyn. But those who believe in reaching out to marginalised groups rather than reinforcing divisions between communities will find themselves fodder for this kind of easy attack.
I think Bernie etc are nuts to go anywhere the S word. Why load yourself up with all that unhelpful baggage? Most of the population, surely, just wants a safety net in their lives that means they can stay safe and healthy if the randomness of life throws a spanner in their aspirations? And then they are happy to let private industry do the rest, as long as they don’t interfere with their basic rights, health and welfare. Are Bernie or AOC etc really suggesting anything else? I doubt it.
Plus, as we have discussed before, there might be some things (like healthcare) that might actually be done more efficiently (in terms of overall health of the populations vs dollars spent) by the government. Of course, the “market” only really works for the consumer if there really is a market, and that it isn’t “gamed” or monopolised by a small cadre of people who don’t care about the consumers. You guys describe a healthcare system so Byzantine and opaque that it’s almost impossible to know what you are really buying or what the risks are, and where you are paying for layer upon layer of marketing, legal costs, and administration. If your health system was run by the government you could control it, whereas at the moment it seems that you feel powerless over it. For a population to puts so much store by being in democratic control, it seems odd to me that you’d want such a big part of your lives to be dictated to you by faceless people over whom you have no control.
We might part company on one point if I understand you correctly. I am for a single payer system administered by the government, but not government run healthcare. IOW, the Canadian system not what the UK has. They do end up exercising some control but it's far less direct. Our government is very dysfunctional; we elect representatives and then they ignore the consensus of their constituents. Even though we are a democracy, it isn't voters that get you elected. How crazy is that? Anyway, in anything resembling its current state, I don't want the government running the healthcare system other than by placing some reasonable restrictions on costs.
I think the article was ridiculously over-hyping things and jumping to conclusions to brand anyone slightly left as being against free enterprise. It's right wing propaganda IMO.
-
I'd rather see responsibility and good governance come out of the Republican party--they have the right DNA, and the wrong people running the show.
are you saying "Make Republicans great again"?
If they went back to their older principles, there would be less divisiveness.
-
soooo.....
2020 and all.
I thought about this while I was trying out some new prescription glasses vs my old ones earlier today.....I got new contacts and old ones too.....
Got astigmatism.....(other 'ism's too..)
Need bifocals now (but I can have progressives now, if you can handle them, they're a little different..)
I'm blind as a bat since I was 6. Maybe always?
Who's the first guy who figured out to hold something over their eye to see better......or better yet...put something on your eyeball.
Think a machine would have been able to figure that out?
…..ok....nevermind....
other 2020.....
...back to the 2019 pre primary carcass count...…
-
I firmly believe impeachment is the ONLY choice. I am hoping Pelosi does the deed on Monday. Burnie is my guy. Don’t let the establishment democrats tilt the scale again. Feel the Burn..... MAGA. TRUMP 2020.
-
disagree as you wish--but it's "other people's (taxpayers') money" that funds our military, and we're not gonna run out--so, yeah, us military is a worthy socialist institution (within our "mixed economy") with staying power.
Worthy and effective, absolutely correct. Efficient and socialist, not so much. A social service, and socialism are completely different things.
Maybe we have different definition of socialism.
Socialism means public control over the means of production (capital) and collective management by workers. The military is neither capital nor managed by the workers. The defining feature of socialism is social control of the means of production, Or capital goods, And collective management by workers. The military is not a capitol good, But a collective good. Moreover it is not managed by the workers, But responds to the orders of the civilian leaders. Moreover, The military is intertwined with the privately owner defense contractors who comprise one element of the military-industrial complex. Socialists frequently complain that the military serves the interest of the capitalists, Which hardly supports the argument that the military is a socialist construct"
-
yup Fishman, I have no idea what Eastbound is talking about, and I generally do. You might as well call the EPA a socialist organization, or maybe the IRS.
-
soooo.....
2020 and all.
I thought about this while I was trying out some new prescription glasses vs my old ones earlier today.....I got new contacts and old ones too.....
Got astigmatism.....(other 'ism's too..)
Need bifocals now (but I can have progressives now, if you can handle them, they're a little different..)
I'm blind as a bat since I was 6. Maybe always?
Who's the first guy who figured out to hold something over their eye to see better......or better yet...put something on your eyeball.
Think a machine would have been able to figure that out?
…..ok....nevermind....
other 2020.....
...back to the 2019 pre primary carcass count...…
My eye doctor recommended progressive lenses for me but I told him let's keep politics out of this.
-
As anyone who has been in the US military knows, it provides universal health care, guaranteed affordable housing, free education and affordable food and dry goods, and cheap energy.
This is quite the socialist system and what I think eastbound means.
-
yup Fishman, I have no idea what Eastbound is talking about, and I generally do. You might as well call the EPA a socialist organization, or maybe the IRS.
To some degree, nearly all governments have socialist elements. It's not the same as the sort of social programs we are generally speaking of when we talk about it. Pointing that out is just a nit to muddy the conversation. It's hard to argue against a good safety net without coming across as heartless, so muddying the conversation is a common tactic.
-
Has anyone else noticed that Trump has modeled his persona after Gordon Gecko the antihero from Wall Street. From his MAGA/Drain the swap political platform (nearly pulled directly from the board of directors greed is good speech), to his understanding that “losers” (anyone not in the top 1% wealth bracket) can be easily manipulated, from his Sun Tzu insights (possibly just Wall Street Cliffsnotes), his nihilistic view of democracy, ethics and evolution, his use of overly ambitious subordinates to carry out illegal actions on his behalf, and his enormous ego and vanity displays. A fairly good representation for a reality tv star.
It will be interesting to see if the final act mimics the screenplay. Do the decent working-class voters and his disillusioned subordinates see him for the whore (peron who F*&^!s others for personal financial gains) that he is and turn on him before their way of life is destroyed. Will his ever-increasing greed and lust for power eventually bring him financial ruin, public shame, and incarceration?
2020 could be a grand crescendo.
-
Has anyone else noticed that Trump has modeled his persona after Gordon Gecko the antihero from Wall Street. From his MAGA/Drain the swap political platform (nearly pulled directly from the board of directors greed is good speech), to his understanding that “losers” (anyone not in the top 1% wealth bracket) can be easily manipulated, from his Sun Tzu insights (possibly just Wall Street Cliffsnotes), his nihilistic view of democracy, ethics and evolution, his use of overly ambitious subordinates to carry out illegal actions on his behalf, and his enormous ego and vanity displays. A fairly good representation for a reality tv star.
It will be interesting to see if the final act mimics the screenplay. Do the decent working-class voters and his disillusioned subordinates see him for the whore (peron who F*&^!s others for personal financial gains) that he is and turn on him before their way of life is destroyed. Will his ever-increasing greed and lust for power eventually bring him financial ruin, public shame, and incarceration?
2020 could be a grand crescendo.
I hadn't thought of that one. There certainly are parallels. Lots of people have brought up the comparison with Biff from Back to the Future, and in fact the writers actually based Biff on Trump.
Gordon Gekko and Trump even get their haircuts at the same place:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKZp-V1Uwtk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKZp-V1Uwtk)
-
https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-military-socialist
-
Sheesh, you guys care a lot about labels, don’t you? Why not just judge each policy on its own merits?
-
If the military were a direct part of economic production, there might be an argument to be made. However, in the US the military is simply a consumer.
-
Sheesh, you guys care a lot about labels, don’t you? Why not just judge each policy on its own merits?
+1
-
well, apparently there is an argument to be made by many--google us military/socialist institution and youll find many consider it as i do
blackwater? no, not socialist==i get that, but our military aint blackwater, thk god!
-
From the Wikipedia entry for “Dog-whistle politics”:
“U.S. law professor and author of the 2014 book Dog Whistle Politics Ian Haney-López described Reagan as "blowing a dog whistle" when the candidate told stories about "Cadillac-driving 'welfare queens' and 'strapping young bucks' buying T-bone steaks with food stamps" while he was campaigning for the presidency. He argues that such rhetoric pushes middle-class white Americans to vote against their economic self-interest in order to punish "undeserving minorities" who, they believe, are receiving too much public assistance at their expense. According to López, conservative middle-class whites, convinced by powerful economic interests that minorities are the enemy, supported politicians who promised to curb illegal immigration and crack down on crime but inadvertently also voted for policies that favor the extremely rich, such as slashing taxes for top income brackets, giving corporations more regulatory control over industry and financial markets, union busting, cutting pensions for future public employees, reducing funding for public schools, and retrenching the social welfare state. He argues that these same voters cannot link rising inequality which has impacted their lives to the policy agendas they support, which resulted in a massive transfer of wealth to the top 1% of the population since the 1980s”.
-
Sheesh, you guys care a lot about labels, don’t you? Why not just judge each policy on its own merits?
From a perspective admittedly (proudly, actually) on the left, it's because the labels are often just about the only weapon the right has in trying to win some debates. If you use facts and math (and actually plug in all the variables), universal health care makes sense. There are a lot of sheep (on both sides) that will back or oppose something based purely on how it is labelled.
Take a look at this:
https://www.npr.org/2017/02/11/514732211/obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same-but-americans-still-dont-know-tha
Trump always calls it Obamacare. I think it is largely because Trump hates Obama and wants to dismantle everything he did, but I also don't doubt that Trump's handlers (who he pays attention to on rare occasions) have told him that Obamacare is much less popular with his base than the ACA even though they are the same thing.
-
well, apparently there is an argument to be made by many--google us military/socialist institution and youll find many consider it as i do
blackwater? no, not socialist==i get that, but our military aint blackwater, thk god!
"The military is clearly a socialist institution. Taxes are collected from the population at large and used to pay for the entire defense complex. The soldiers don't own the tanks and planes they use, the tax payers do. Hence they are a social good. Under a capitalist system we would be hiring mercenaries instead of soldiers."
-
R-T-G... I'd bet that Trump is ambivalent about Obama. My sense, like him previously voting Democrat and supporting Planned Parenthood, he has taken the measure of a strain society that he can capture because of their obsessive prejudice ...not dissimilar to evangelicals for whom he plays a hedonist's harp with the promise of more court appointments like Kavanaugh. One mistake, quickly adjusted; he had to bribe farmers to stay quiet, with more of your money, after playing tariff-chicken with China.
You have to admire his 'sense of the room'. All he needs for 2020 is a little spillover from the general population. Look at the results of the poll here; silent support is probably broader than you'd think. Look at the curious vote tally of white women in 2016 ...Bernie fans tipped the scales also.
Jim
-
R-T-G... I'd bet that Trump is ambivalent about Obama. My sense, like him previously voting Democrat and supporting Planned Parenthood, he has taken the measure of a strain society that he can capture because of their obsessive prejudice ...not dissimilar to evangelicals for whom he plays a hedonist's harp with the promise of more court appointments like Kavanaugh. One mistake, quickly adjusted; he had to bribe farmers to stay quiet, with more of your money, after playing tariff-chicken with China.
You have to admire his 'sense of the room'. All he needs for 2020 is a little spillover from the general population. Look at the results of the poll here; silent support is probably broader than you'd think. Look at the curious vote tally of white women in 2016 ...Bernie fans tipped the scales also.
Jim
I suspect you would lose that bet. He is a birther and I have concluded based on past and current behavior/statements that he is racist.
I was pro Bernie in 2016 but voted anti Trump. I know of others who did not vote because they didn't like either choice. Then there are the "brick through the window" people who wanted anything but business as usual. Some of them were pro Bernie and voted for Trump because he became the only "not business as usual" candidate. If you are politically astute, that seems crazy; they are near polar opposites. Some people don't want to know platforms and politics; they were just tired of the mess the government had turned into.
-
Sheesh, you guys care a lot about labels, don’t you? Why not just judge each policy on its own merits?
I've been wanting to respond to this, but I'm still trying to figure out how to categorize these questions first.
-
Sheesh, you guys care a lot about labels, don’t you? Why not just judge each policy on its own merits?
I've been wanting to respond to this, but I'm still trying to figure out how to categorize these questions first.
Categorize? You mean label? ;D 8)
-
Sheesh, you guys care a lot about labels, don’t you? Why not just judge each policy on its own merits?
I've been wanting to respond to this, but I'm still trying to figure out how to categorize these questions first.
Categorize? You mean label? ;D 8)
Yes, I'd put both of those in the same box as far as meaning goes.
-
R-T-G... I voted for Kennedy and was on Red Alert at the E. German border after he was killed. "mess the government had turned into" ...candidly, I believe it always was, local and nationally. We were just fortunate then with a young, growing economy we could afford their perfidy. Atop the fact, it was well hidden for the most part. (There were still rural phone companies and switchboard operators)
There were instances in the 70-80s where, for example, 'McDonnell Douglas made a 'round nut' for the Navy at $2,043 each. (in 1980's dollars!) The government continues to increase support payment for farmers ...JD then charges $400-500k for a combine that the farmer is legally constrained from repairing himself. He then asks for higher support payments because the seed companies have him in another lockbox. Major corporations know how the game is played. 'No farms-No food'...
Nothing personal, but Bernie has a big 0 legislative history. He is an orator, in a Ralph Nader suit. ...and, look at that 'Birther' gambit again, when nobody was really watching, Trump dropped it and never spoke of it again ...he's President, he has the power to discover the truth - and redline Obama in every history book ...I also don't see him a confirmed racist, I frankly don't think he gives a rat's azz about anybody. He's an equal opportunity humiliator.
My suspicion - even if we got an 'honest, thoughtful, rationalist' in the top spot, people like Speaker McConnell would hog-tie them for his donors like he's done before ...or the Dems may try to do to Trump yet. I just hope, going forward, the nutcases like Timothy McVeigh are constrained. (who?)
Jim
-
Carter was elected about a month before I could vote, so my history is shorter than yours, but I don't think it was ever anywhere near as bad as it has been the last few years in terms of how well it actually governs.
Example:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/09/ben-cardin/did-senate-republicans-filibuster-obama-court-nomi/
"By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147."
It said "so far" as it was written before the end of Obama's second term. The purposeful gridlock was unprecedented.
-
Now one of the latest announcements - one man elected by conservative voters in one state can derail the legislative process and is choosing to do so. Mitch McConnell announced that he will not allow any progressive bill to go to the Senate floor for a vote. So if the house passes something he doesn't care for, he will just kill it. Most of them probably would not make it through on a full vote, but there is a good chance a few would. The scheduling of bills for floor votes is supposed to be an administrative duty. Our government is so badly broken...
-
judiciary, right to vote, gerrymandering, nuclear option, citizens U---scary---win at all cost---democracy or not
-
Now that Biden is officially in the running, I'm joining the Biden vote. He is a centrist who can win. The 2 most important factors in the 2020 election.
-
Going to be interesting to see how Biden goes through the primaries. It sounds like he is going to run on "Getting America back to Normal" so anti Trump, which is a good thing. I imagine that Trump is going to run on Biden being part of the Obama coalition that started all the problems.
If Biden can re-establish the blue wall, Michigan, Pennsylvania, maybe Ohio? He has it. But I got a bad feeling that the D's really want an inter sectional candidate. I also feel like Biden is coming in pretty late, a lot of good money has been donated.
If I was Biden, I would swipe hard at Bernie ASAP. The Bernie bros were pissed off in 2016 and definitely cost the D's lots of votes. Get them pissed off now, so that they can come back around by 2020.
-
McVeigh?
Is he an IRA guy?
ISIS?
Mexican?
Russian?
-
Timothy was the Oklahoma Mad Bomber..
-
Biden can win? Can he really? I’d like to think so but isn’t he already old enough to be Trump’s great grandfather, and Trump is way past retirement age already? And Biden has as much charisma as a newel post.
But I hope you are right. In fact, probably all the other democratic countries in the world hope you are right.
-
Regardless of your opinion on opinion polls, with a healthy dose of skepticism Biden has a comfortable lead.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
-
Now that Biden is officially in the running, I'm joining the Biden vote. He is a centrist who can win. The 2 most important factors in the 2020 election.
Don't forget he has a German Shepherd also.
-
I am mixed on Biden. If he was going to run, I wish he had decided/announced sooner; I think a lot of the candidates stepped in to fill a void they would not have felt was there. He is older than Trump, but not by much. He can win, but it would have been easier with an earlier announcement. I would prefer someone a bit left of him, but I want Trump beat and will support the candidate most likely to do that.
It still shocks me that there is much of a contest. People paying even a little bit of attention know that Mueller did anything but exonerate Trump; even many GOP loyalists are rebuking him and seeking some separation. Good sound evidence mostly from Trump associates.
He is wading into a constitutional crisis asking his administration officials to ignore congressional subpoenas. I hope the courts act quickly and decisively. There is no wiggle room the way the tax return law is written; that should not even go to trial.
Do people really want a strongman/dictator? If only the executive branch has any real power, that's what it is.
-
Regardless of your opinion on opinion polls, with a healthy dose of skepticism Biden has a comfortable lead.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
You’ve just made my day - thank you very much for that.
Unfortunately, Trump is now going to be given a state visit to the UK, with all the royal regalia and pomp and ceremony. It’s going to cost us an absolute fortune because he is so unpopular that the police presence will have to be so substantial that unsolved crime around the country will skyrocket. The British people are so torn in opinion about this: we want to respect the democratic choice of the US population and so treat the position of president with due respect and honour. However overwhelmingly we loathe Trump and the brand of politics he represents, and are extremely worried about his attitude to climate change. His visit also is timed to coincide with the 75th anniversary of D-Day, and the fear is that the inevitable furore surrounding his visit will overshadow that.
So please elect Biden as fast as possible so that we can line up in the streets to welcome him with open arms and wave US flags in unbridled thanks and appreciation to you.
-
Now that Biden is officially in the running, I'm joining the Biden vote. He is a centrist who can win. The 2 most important factors in the 2020 election.
Don't forget he has a German Shepherd also.
I see. So he’s picked up his sniffing habit from his dog?
-
But can Biden's German Shepherd drive?
-
I hear he’s got a wicked slice... ;D
-
https://youtu.be/Ekz1uTgTVVI
Hmm... thoughts? Has “ultra-capitalism” (as PB called it) led to a situation where the pharma companies have hog-tied you and your family to logs, and are shafting you at will, while their CEOs sip cocktails on a super-yacht, laughing at you? Or maybe I’m misunderstanding the freedom as a consumer in this situation that you want to protect so much? Make pharma companies great again! :)
-
Regardless of your opinion on opinion polls, with a healthy dose of skepticism Biden has a comfortable lead.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
You’ve just made my day - thank you very much for that.
Unfortunately, Trump is now going to be given a state visit to the UK, with all the royal regalia and pomp and ceremony. It’s going to cost us an absolute fortune because he is so unpopular that the police presence will have to be so substantial that unsolved crime around the country will skyrocket. The British people are so torn in opinion about this: we want to respect the democratic choice of the US population and so treat the position of president with due respect and honour. However overwhelmingly we loathe Trump and the brand of politics he represents, and are extremely worried about his attitude to climate change. His visit also is timed to coincide with the 75th anniversary of D-Day, and the fear is that the inevitable furore surrounding his visit will overshadow that.
So please elect Biden as fast as possible so that we can line up in the streets to welcome him with open arms and wave US flags in unbridled thanks and appreciation to you.
No need to fear disrespecting the democratic choice of the US population. Only a small percentage of citizens, overall, voted for trump. Please, have massive protests, and feel free to keep him there.
-
https://youtu.be/Ekz1uTgTVVI
Hmm... thoughts?
well...not quite sure just exactly what to think about her just yet but the more I see of her.....this is getting close.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt6IG1UBPJE
Has “ultra-capitalism” (as PB called it) led to a situation where the pharma companies have hog-tied you and your family to logs, and are shafting you at will, while their CEOs sip cocktails on a super-yacht, laughing at you? Or maybe I’m misunderstanding the freedom as a consumer in this situation that you want to protect so much? Make pharma companies great again! :)
Naw. Lobbies, career politicians, corruption.
That's going on somehow, someway, every day in every form of government, ain't it?
Not sure what she is trying to do there, what point is trying to be made, or where that ties into our "freedom as a consumer".
Tax $ for R&D......product comes to market....it's way expensive.
One entity using their buying power to negotiate a lower price? Walmart vs. Sam's Deli? VA vs. CVS? No, it was VA vs. Medicare. hmmmm.
One doctor says the government should do this......the other one says, no, it should do this....
Did I follow that right?
Lobbyists? Corruption?
The drugs are still jacked up far too much even for the VA......it's far deeper than what that is trying to paint a picture of which I still can't quite see what that picture is supposed to be. wtf is all that about?
This has been an issue for far, far longer than......well hell, this century. It goes back so far and is so convoluted and corrupt that I am not sure there is anyone to blame and it just keeps going. Ritalin/valium/all the good stuff. Actually, a very good argument could be made that the whole issue with it is one of the reasons that dude is in that house making a state visit to your place. Not saying he is fixing it or doing anything about it (no clue) but for anyone to blame that mess on him or even what's going on currently with that mess doesn't help anything. He ran on that kind of stuff being that broken and if it wasn't that broken he wouldn't be there.....and is what most of this thread has been about...….our broken healthcare system which in the end, isn't just a liberal vs conservative vs socialism vs capitalism fault or thing.
Don't matter what system.....someone going to get rich off them drugs while sipping cocktails on a yacht and someone going to be paying through the nose somehow or not getting them.
-
It’s just not true that you can’t do anything, Lucabrasi. You could easily fix this. But your post demonstrates nicely why you are being ripped off, when other countries aren’t (so much). We in the UK pay less for our drugs than you do because we have a National Health Service that is the largest employer in the world. So it has huge bargaining power. And we support them in their fight, at the ballot box. But since you guys seem to think that a solution like that is fundamentally “un-American” you are in the situation you are in. *You* made this mess. And apparently you think that it is inevitable. That’s a shame.
Trump is a populist demagogue. Populism is a protest; it doesn’t offer solutions. It’s all very well shouting “f-you!” at the ballot box - and who could blame you (we in the UK did that recently too). But unless a path forward has been proposed then nothing will change, or, more like, things will actually get even worse. If you are going to attach the word “socialist” to any potential solution that involves your government getting into a fight with the corporations that rip you off, then those corporations are gonna keep ripping you off.
So, how about shaking off that nihilism and learned helplessness, and having the courage to vote for something different? It looks to me that you have some people you could vote for who’d have the balls to say “f-you” to the system in a positive way, by offering new and different ways forward, instead of the wholly negative way that Trump offers. But the question is whether you have the courage to fully support them, rather than carry on doing the same tired old thing.
For something to change, something has to change. Maybe start with your mindset? YOU made this. YOU can fix it.
And the point AOC was making was very clear: that it is fundamentally unfair for the taxpayer to fund drug research and then not get a return on that investment when the drug is taken to market. She is proposing that the pharma companies should have to pay back to the people the investment they made, when the drug starts making money. At the moment you are paying twice for your drugs (the ones invented in the US): you pay for it to be developed, and then you pay when you use it too. Doesn’t that seem unfair to you?
If so, then do something about it.
-
did you watch the video, luca?
no clue what youre talking about
aoc is quite articulate and effective on panel, something conceded even by many who differ with her---your comments are simply unintelligible, and your video is a childish, useless add to the discussion
throw stones, live in a solid house--yours aint
https://youtu.be/Ekz1uTgTVVI
Hmm... thoughts?
well...not quite sure just exactly what to think about her just yet but the more I see of her.....this is getting close.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt6IG1UBPJE
Has “ultra-capitalism” (as PB called it) led to a situation where the pharma companies have hog-tied you and your family to logs, and are shafting you at will, while their CEOs sip cocktails on a super-yacht, laughing at you? Or maybe I’m misunderstanding the freedom as a consumer in this situation that you want to protect so much? Make pharma companies great again! :)
Naw. Lobbies, career politicians, corruption.
That's going on somehow, someway, every day in every form of government, ain't it?
Not sure what she is trying to do there, what point is trying to be made, or where that ties into our "freedom as a consumer".
Tax $ for R&D......product comes to market....it's way expensive.
One entity using their buying power to negotiate a lower price? Walmart vs. Sam's Deli? VA vs. CVS? No, it was VA vs. Medicare. hmmmm.
One doctor says the government should do this......the other one says, no, it should do this....
Did I follow that right?
Lobbyists? Corruption?
The drugs are still jacked up far too much even for the VA......it's far deeper than what that is trying to paint a picture of which I still can't quite see what that picture is supposed to be. wtf is all that about?
This has been an issue for far, far longer than......well hell, this century. It goes back so far and is so convoluted and corrupt that I am not sure there is anyone to blame and it just keeps going. Ritalin/valium/all the good stuff. Actually, a very good argument could be made that the whole issue with it is one of the reasons that dude is in that house making a state visit to your place. Not saying he is fixing it or doing anything about it (no clue) but for anyone to blame that mess on him or even what's going on currently with that mess doesn't help anything. He ran on that kind of stuff being that broken and if it wasn't that broken he wouldn't be there.....and is what most of this thread has been about...….our broken healthcare system which in the end, isn't just a liberal vs conservative vs socialism vs capitalism fault or thing.
Don't matter what system.....someone going to get rich off them drugs while sipping cocktails on a yacht and someone going to be paying through the nose somehow or not getting them.
-
Yes, she certainly is very eloquent. She also appears very dedicated to her job, smart, and displays a firm sense of justice. No doubt this is exactly why the alt-right are targeting her with smears so vociferously. You basically couldn’t get less like Trump than AOC: If you fed Trump into an AI and asked it to generate the exact opposite, then AOC would probably be it’s output.
https://youtu.be/VWx0ESjxO54
-
great example of aoc doing panel, and very well--seen it before
but what about the gray-haired woman in foreground, late in the vid---definitely security--like she is a heavy secret service agent or something--she is scoping that room with hawk-eyes
aoc has been made a serious death-threat target by trump and the alt right
she's part of the "coup"--scary
-
Should the government be funding drug research for the drug companies? Should the government be structuring free loans to Boeing, etc. Should the government be propping up oil companies? Bailing out Banks? Autos?
Students don't get the same treatment. Small business doesn't. Most individuals don't. It is that kind of inequity that frustrates so many. It seems that the biggest abusers are getting the most assistance. All that said, you can promote a level playing field without going to extremes. That seems to be the problem. Isolate the issue correctly but then move to a solution that is so far to one side that it becomes politically impossible.
-
problem is that those who benefit from status quo kleptocracy will fight tooth and nail to retain their advantage
and who defines extreme?--is it not extreme that families pay 20k per year out of wages, so they can then have thousands in deductibles, before they get a dime outta their health "insurer"? that's an extreme fuckjob of what's left of our middle class--why is it extreme to say we shd have the same healthcare afforded by and considered a right of citizens in other developed countries?--framing single payer or socialized medicine as extreme is part of the problem--the US approach to medical care is extreme, unique ripoff--europeans i know are appalled when then learn of details of our "healthcare" system--i am appalled at the differences, and that these countries can afford to provide comparable or better care--i guess we're just poor--weird, with all the private jets flying around these days!
college costs and student debt?--another extreme, unique ripoff
our approach to many contemporary societal issues is the exceptional extreme, by far--and it's all about using our extreme unique approach to these issues to enrich few on the backs of regular folk
for profit prisons? you know their pac is a perennial top donor to anti-marijuana-legalization initiatives? think that's altruism? nope--lock more up, buy more jets!
and i could go on--but, when measured against other western democracies (all of whom mix social programs and regulation with fundamental capitalism), we are the extremists---gotta get our democracy working for the people again--not just the rich and powerful
of course the repubs and rich right wingers (kochs, adelson, blah, blah) frame that as extreme! what they have effected and what is currently in force in the US is the true extreme--
-
did you watch the video, luca?
of course I did, you must not have read what I had to say about it or just couldn't bother to add anything constructive as you seemed to think the video was all I had to say.
It’s just not true that you can’t do anything, Lucabrasi. You could easily fix this. But your post demonstrates nicely why you are being ripped off, when other countries aren’t (so much). We in the UK pay less for our drugs than you do because we have a National Health Service that is the largest employer in the world. So it has huge bargaining power. And we support them in their fight, at the ballot box. But since you guys seem to think that a solution like that is fundamentally “un-American” you are in the situation you are in. *You* made this mess. And apparently you think that it is inevitable. That’s a shame.
Trump is a populist demagogue. Populism is a protest; it doesn’t offer solutions. It’s all very well shouting “f-you!” at the ballot box - and who could blame you (we in the UK did that recently too). But unless a path forward has been proposed then nothing will change, or, more like, things will actually get even worse. If you are going to attach the word “socialist” to any potential solution that involves your government getting into a fight with the corporations that rip you off, then those corporations are gonna keep ripping you off.
So, how about shaking off that nihilism and learned helplessness, and having the courage to vote for something different? It looks to me that you have some people you could vote for who’d have the balls to say “f-you” to the system in a positive way, by offering new and different ways forward, instead of the wholly negative way that Trump offers. But the question is whether you have the courage to fully support them, rather than carry on doing the same tired old thing.
For something to change, something has to change. Maybe start with your mindset? YOU made this. YOU can fix it.
UK health system is the largest employer in the world? No shit? I had no clue nor would have even guessed close.
I don't think the UK has the most buying power for the drugs tho, I think that would be us (or China but I got no clue what their health system is about) but where I go with that is your system might be bigger but we got more people buying the drugs than anyone so we should have the buying power no matter how big the buyer is? Wouldn't it work like that?
but I get where you are going with that...I think...seems I understand more about what you say at times...…..whoops, I didn't say that…..it's more about us and not trusting the government over here and your embrace of the system more so over there. Honest question here. Is everyone getting the drugs/care they need over there and getting it when they need it and want it? Is it really cheaper? Is Pharma company charging UK $5 for the pill and us $10 or are they charging UK $8-$10 and is it just muddled through the system and the consumer at the end doesn't know because it just comes out in the wash?
And the point AOC was making was very clear: that it is fundamentally unfair for the taxpayer to fund drug research and then not get a return on that investment when the drug is taken to market. She is proposing that the pharma companies should have to pay back to the people the investment they made, when the drug starts making money. At the moment you are paying twice for your drugs (the ones invented in the US): you pay for it to be developed, and then you pay when you use it too. Doesn’t that seem unfair to you?
If so, then do something about it.
ok...thanks......I wasn't wrapping that part of it around my head because I guess I was a little shocked to hear the part about the tax $ at the begining. Why is she not pointing out how the tax $ get into the research part of things tho? How is that happening? No one wants the government doing everything for them and no one minds the government helping those who truly need help. Balancing that is the tricky part and the part we haven't figured out how to do yet. Corruption, with lobbies and career politicians feeding the corruption and lobbies. Hell, I don't mind some of my money going to research, I don't think you do and I don't think that guy over there or his buddy mind either. It's about how it really gets used in the end....sipping cocktails on that yacht?
Should the government be funding drug research for the drug companies? Should the government be structuring free loans to Boeing, etc. Should the government be propping up oil companies? Bailing out Banks? Autos?
Students don't get the same treatment. Small business doesn't. Most individuals don't. It is that kind of inequity that frustrates so many. It seems that the biggest abusers are getting the most assistance. All that said, you can promote a level playing field without going to extremes. That seems to be the problem. Isolate the issue correctly but then move to a solution that is so far to one side that it becomes politically impossible.
Ok, maybe that answers some of the question....hell, I don't know.
Yes, she certainly is very eloquent. She also appears very dedicated to her job, smart, and displays a firm sense of justice. No doubt this is exactly why the alt-right are targeting her with smears so vociferously. You basically couldn’t get less like Trump than AOC: If you fed Trump into an AI and asked it to generate the exact opposite, then AOC would probably be it’s output.
https://youtu.be/VWx0ESjxO54
she is really not doing anything there other than pointing out how Trump is manipulating his taxes. It's not some magic (or her staff) she came up with. He's doing the exact same thing we all do except on a scale we can't comprehend. Depreciate this, devalue that, credit this, fudge that. Ok, maybe he fudges more then what many/most/some would but it's really not pointing out anything other than it's on a scale we can't even imagine.
Like I said, I am not quite sure just what to think about her just yet. She is interesting, her story is interesting but I not sure she is as smart as many want to think. I think she is getting more exposed as time goes on and refuses to answer or acknowledge some of her detractors, some of whom are her peers and very much like her. Regardless it will be interesting to follow.
I am not wrapped up in all of this, not trying to defend Trump and honestly don't follow real close, it just bleeds through (my word, how it bleeds through anymore) on some of the things I do and I catch bits and pieces here and there.
It's a mess, has been for a long time and ….. Isolate the issue correctly but then move to a solution that is so far to one side that it becomes politically impossible.
yeah...….it's really an issue and it is just amplified so much now...……….
-
and who defines extreme?
I would define it as so far to one side that it becomes politically impossible. Barack wanted to do much more with healthcare and could not get it done. He barely got the current system through.
-
No need to fear disrespecting the democratic choice of the US population. Only a small percentage of citizens, overall, voted for trump. Please, have massive protests, and feel free to keep him there.
Since when is just under 50% Only a small percentage ??? I don't think the big cities should choose who runs the country. He won the electoral college because he campaigned hard in every state he had a chance of winning.
I got to keep 3% more of my pay this year, and I made more money due to the good economy. Lets get out there and protest !
-
This was the vote tally:
Clinton: 65,844,610 (48.2%)
Trump: 62,979,636 (46.1%)
Others: 7,804,213 (5.7%)
(https://www.dailywire.com/news/11777/how-many-votes-did-trump-and-clinton-get-final-james-barrett)
There are approximately 327 million US citizens. So, technically, only around 19% of US citizens voted for Trump.
Or to put it another way, 81% of US citizens did *not* vote for Trump.
I think that is what spirit4earth meant.
-
More usefully than counting everyone including all those not qualified to vote, the number of people in the USA that registered to vote in the 2016 election was about 200 million, the number that were eligible was about 220 million. About 137 million people voted. Trump got 62,979,636 votes, which is 28.6 percent of the qualified voters, 31 percent of the registered voters.
The USA scores the worst among western democracies in several widely respected and impartial integrity indexes.
-
Mixing apples and oranges, even in these basic statistics is misleading.
Why would anyone assume that not even one of the non-voting registered voters support Trump? Bottom line is, he got 46% of the popular vote, more importantly, he picked up the electoral vote...end of story.
-
Of course. I didn't really have a point, just fixing the math a little.
-
The whole percentages issue started with Area 10's comment about Great Britain wanting to "respect the democratic choice of the US population". That's a totally legitimate phrase to use, but in some sense (any sense beyond viewing it as "the winner of the election) it's not a meaningful concept. Even restricting the results to actual voters who voted, the majority chose someone else. And even if the results were flipped, and Trump had won the popular vote, it still shows a split country. Add to that that millions of people (maybe most voters) who voted for Clinton or Trump may have not particularly liked the person or policies of the person the voted for, they just disliked them less than the other one. The result is that the fact that someone won the the election doesn't say a lot more than that they won the election. That might not be true in the case of a landslide victory, where who won might be viewed as saying a lot about the U.S. as a whole, but even then the landslide might be due to the loser being a weak option versus the winner being actually popular.
It reminds me of "red" and "blue" states. Certainly some are overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic. Most are not. Nearly half the voters in many of them voted for the other party. More Californians voted for Trump than in all but two states (see chart of state-by-state results halfway down):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election)
Coloring states red or blue makes an easy-to-read graphic that has value, but only to a point. Reading much more into it than which party won the presidential election in that state may not be wise.
-
Regardless of your opinion on opinion polls, with a healthy dose of skepticism Biden has a comfortable lead.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
Are the Dems *sure* that this is their guy - or just sure in the way they were about H. Clinton?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/03/joe-biden-policies-are-as-troubling-as-his-inappropriate-touching
Is being “not Trump” enough? What positive features has this slightly weird, very old, thoroughly establishment white guy got going for him?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/26/joe-biden-is-the-hillary-clinton-of-2020-and-it-wont-end-well-this-time-either
How is this guy going to appeal to female voters, or people not like him (old, white, privileged)? Is there really any point going after the older white male vote? Surely if someone voted for Trump last time, they will do so again.
From the perspective of an outsider viewing the US political situation, the elephant in the room is racial tension.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/26/black-women-voters-democrats-presidential-2020-african-american
Here’s Elizabeth Warren showing how you can sell a positive view of the future that speaks to people’s concerns (rather than just saying “I am not Trump” and hoping that will be enough):
https://youtu.be/TouKZX_w16M
-
Are the Dems *sure* that this is their guy - or just sure in the way they were about H. Clinton?
Hillary had unlikables that rivaled Trumps. She had a ton of baggage and forced herself on the party. Biden was polling at the top with voters before he ever entered the race. His baggage is non existent. Anita Hill? Hair sniffing? He beats Trump in all polls including Fox. People fondly look back at the sanity of the Obama years.
Trump has cleverly named him Sleepy Joe (which is actually already taken by decaf, shot of Rum, shot of Rye). I'll go with Barack O'Biden and be done with it.
It bugs me that we Dems keep pounding the popular vote issue. We say it like it means we won. In reality, it means that we picked a candidate that played stupidly. A weakness is not a strength. It worries me that we will make the same mistake again. Nothing is changing with the electoral college. Joe will win all those places that Obama had won but that Hillary lost (forgot to visit many). Barack credits Joe for bringing him those states. He also calls him his single best political decision.
-
No need to fear disrespecting the democratic choice of the US population. Only a small percentage of citizens, overall, voted for trump. Please, have massive protests, and feel free to keep him there.
Since when is just under 50% Only a small percentage ??? I don't think the big cities should choose who runs the country. He won the electoral college because he campaigned hard in every state he had a chance of winning.
I got to keep 3% more of my pay this year, and I made more money due to the good economy. Lets get out there and protest !
I was referring, as I said, to the % that voted for trump. That % was around 26.
I think the voters should get to choose the president, as I’ve said before, one person/one vote, period.
Do you know a big part of how the economy is growing? An increase in minimum wage jobs. More people getting $7.25/hr. Glad you benefited from that.
-
This was the vote tally:
Clinton: 65,844,610 (48.2%)
Trump: 62,979,636 (46.1%)
Others: 7,804,213 (5.7%)
(https://www.dailywire.com/news/11777/how-many-votes-did-trump-and-clinton-get-final-james-barrett)
There are approximately 327 million US citizens. So, technically, only around 19% of US citizens voted for Trump.
Or to put it another way, 81% of US citizens did *not* vote for Trump.
I think that is what spirit4earth meant.
Yes, thank you.
-
In surveys of the worlds democracies, in a measure of those eligible voters who do vote in a given country, the US regularly finishs at the bottom of the 126 or so lands.
In the Trump win more than half the Americans did not use their vote.
If the president is chosen by less than 25% of the voters does the democracy work?
-
Highly recommend Jimmy Dore on Youtube for insight into politics you won't get many other places.
FYI, he spends the majority of time railing against the DNC and msm.
-
In surveys of the worlds democracies, in a measure of those eligible voters who do vote in a given country, the US regularly finishs at the bottom of the 126 or so lands.
In the Trump win more than half the Americans did not use their vote.
If the president is chosen by less than 25% of the voters does the democracy work?
I don’t see how. Why don’t more people vote? I really think if Election Day were a national holiday, and I think it should be, we might get some more participants. As it is, though, some people just cannot squeeze in a trip to their polling station.
-
In surveys of the worlds democracies, in a measure of those eligible voters who do vote in a given country, the US regularly finishs at the bottom of the 126 or so lands.
In the Trump win more than half the Americans did not use their vote.
If the president is chosen by less than 25% of the voters does the democracy work?
I don’t see how. Why don’t more people vote? I really think if Election Day were a national holiday, and I think it should be, we might get some more participants. As it is, though, some people just cannot squeeze in a trip to their polling station.
Yes, well, that’s exactly what the rich gits in charge want - to prevent the plebs from voting. Then they can keep ripping you off. Make it law that employers have to give time off for voting, at no cost to the employee.
-
In surveys of the worlds democracies, in a measure of those eligible voters who do vote in a given country, the US regularly finishs at the bottom of the 126 or so lands.
In the Trump win more than half the Americans did not use their vote.
If the president is chosen by less than 25% of the voters does the democracy work?
Why don’t more people vote?
The electoral college plays into it. In most states the viewpoint is that it really won't matter as the state is for all practical purposes already decided, so many stay home. There are very few swing states. I am not promoting this but it is a fact that plays into low turnout.
-
In surveys of the worlds democracies, in a measure of those eligible voters who do vote in a given country, the US regularly finishs at the bottom of the 126 or so lands.
In the Trump win more than half the Americans did not use their vote.
If the president is chosen by less than 25% of the voters does the democracy work?
Why don’t more people vote?
The electoral college plays into it. In most states the viewpoint is that it really won't matter as the state is for all practical purposes already decided, so many stay home. There are very few swing states. I am not promoting this but it is a fact that plays into low turnout.
I hadn't thought of that--good point. In a state where all the electoral votes go to the winner, and it's assumed 1,000,000 people will vote for the winner, there's no point in voting for the other candidate unless there will be at least 1,000,000 votes for them. A 1,000,000 to 999,999 result is the same as a 1,000,000 to 0 result. 999,999 votes are wasted.
In regard to turnout, Oregon solved the logistical impediments to voting by going to voting by mail. Once you've done that, the idea of going somewhere to vote seems primitive, like going to the video store to rent a video.
-
No need to fear disrespecting the democratic choice of the US population. Only a small percentage of citizens, overall, voted for trump. Please, have massive protests, and feel free to keep him there.
Since when is just under 50% Only a small percentage ??? I don't think the big cities should choose who runs the country. He won the electoral college because he campaigned hard in every state he had a chance of winning.
I got to keep 3% more of my pay this year, and I made more money due to the good economy. Lets get out there and protest !
what biz are you in and what tax bracket? you aint working class, that's for sure
-
i like that--vote by mail--just googled--why not in all states--and it's not data based, so not hackable by the russians or whomever
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon
makes utter sense
fix that and the bogus right to vote laws
-
There are very few swing states. I am not promoting this but it is a fact that plays into low turnout.
That's news to me.
-
i want to win, so who knows who ill end up supporting?
but i really like e warren---and she's legit--self-educated, extremely smart, no silver spoon ever, etc--unless you buy into the trumped up pocahantas crap
-
Vote by mail (email) should be the goal for a modern democracy.
-
In surveys of the worlds democracies, in a measure of those eligible voters who do vote in a given country, the US regularly finishs at the bottom of the 126 or so lands.
In the Trump win more than half the Americans did not use their vote.
If the president is chosen by less than 25% of the voters does the democracy work?
Why don’t more people vote?
The electoral college plays into it. In most states the viewpoint is that it really won't matter as the state is for all practical purposes already decided, so many stay home. There are very few swing states. I am not promoting this but it is a fact that plays into low turnout.
I hadn't thought of that--good point. In a state where all the electoral votes go to the winner, and it's assumed 1,000,000 people will vote for the winner, there's no point in voting for the other candidate unless there will be at least 1,000,000 votes for them. A 1,000,000 to 999,999 result is the same as a 1,000,000 to 0 result. 999,999 votes are wasted.
In regard to turnout, Oregon solved the logistical impediments to voting by going to voting by mail. Once you've done that, the idea of going somewhere to vote seems primitive, like going to the video store to rent a video.
48 states and District of Columbia are winner take all. California for instance has 12% of the US population. 62 % voted for Clinton. The state has voted Dem since 1988. NY is similar as are many other states. It is viewed as a predetermined outcome. It is a strong demotivator. There would be a huge increase in voter turnout if voters felt like their vote actually mattered.
There are a few (very few) more states in play but this gets to the point:
(https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/10/Political%20Cartoon_0.jpg)
-
Yeah but,
If the electoral system were to be eliminated entirely the rural/less populated state vote would be all but silenced. However, as it currently stands, the urban city states are diluted to the point that the coastal states (most populated) have less representation then rural states.
-
great map
system needs repair such that the us population is better represented--i hear and agree we dont want a completely urban-dominated national government--but not sure why big stretches of empty land get priority in deciding our elections??
-
great map
system needs repair such that the us population is better represented--i hear and agree we dont want a completely urban-dominated national government--but not sure why big stretches of empty land get priority in deciding our elections??
I do not live in a big city; I live near a medium sized one. Anyway, we are a democracy; if most people are in metro areas of large cities, then they should have more representation than those that live outside metro areas.
-
Yeah but,
If the electoral system were to be eliminated entirely the rural/less populated state vote would be all but silenced. However, as it currently stands, the urban city states are diluted to the point that the coastal states (most populated) have less representation then rural states.
You could argue that that's what the senate is for. Wyoming gets the same representation as California there. The senate is just half of 1 of branch, but it has plenty of power. Maybe the senate is enough of a nod to making sure that small states' interests aren't overrun by larger ones, while the electoral college goes too far in favoring small states.
-
In surveys of the worlds democracies, in a measure of those eligible voters who do vote in a given country, the US regularly finishs at the bottom of the 126 or so lands.
In the Trump win more than half the Americans did not use their vote.
If the president is chosen by less than 25% of the voters does the democracy work?
The electoral college plays into it. In most states the viewpoint is that it really won't matter as the state is for all practical purposes already decided, so many stay home. There are very few swing states. I am not promoting this but it is a fact that plays into low turnout.
I hadn't thought of that--good point. In a state where all the electoral votes go to the winner, and it's assumed 1,000,000 people will vote for the winner, there's no point in voting for the other candidate unless there will be at least 1,000,000 votes for them. A 1,000,000 to 999,999 result is the same as a 1,000,000 to 0 result. 999,999 votes are wasted.
48 states and District of Columbia are winner take all. California for instance has 12% of the US population. 62 % voted for Clinton. The state has voted Dem since 1988. NY is similar as are many other states. It is viewed as a predetermined outcome. It is a strong demotivator. There would be a huge increase in voter turnout if voters felt like their vote actually mattered.
The thing is.........it does matter.
You could argue that that's what the senate is for. Wyoming gets the same representation as California there. The senate is just half of 1 of branch, but it has plenty of power. Maybe the senate is enough of a nod to making sure that small states' interests aren't overrun by larger ones, while the electoral college goes too far in favoring small states.
Yeah, it's not a bad system the way it is and I think the electoral is good and needed
BUT,
Way more elections are happening on that day than just the president and in the years when the president isn't on the ballot the turnout is even lower. An argument can be made for the reason everyone staying home in Calif or Wyoming (and others) as the presidential winner is already predetermined for the most part but their local and state reps and issues are still at stake.
We're really just a bunch of lazy disinterested oafs is really all it is.
Has voter turnout always been such a small percentage of the population? I don't know but I would imagine it has declined steadily since the 50's or so.....something needs to change there. I think it increased when Obama ran in 08 (still a small percentage) and was down again in 12 and 16?
Mail would be great...I know some who just get an absentee ballot. No clue what percentage of the voting population has email even if it does seem like everyone has it. Would still need to have some sort of public access or other option.
-
Actually, voter turnout has not declined, it's steadily increased since 1995 and the turnout for the 2018 midterms was the highest percentage of voters vs. eligible in 100 years. .
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/U.S._Vote_for_President_as_Population_Share.png/500px-U.S._Vote_for_President_as_Population_Share.png)
This is, of course, as a percentage of total population and is more a graph of who is allowed to vote than it is a measure of how participatory our democracy is. Women, 18 year olds, blacks, etc.
-
Won’t this be an obstacle for Biden with a key demographic for him? Trump could get away with forced sex with a minor, if he wanted to, because the people who vote for him kinda expect that from their president and just don’t care. But it’s different rules if you are a Dem: you are going to be held to a higher moral standard.
https://youtu.be/4oPnd911FcM
-
Won’t this be an obstacle for Biden with a key demographic for him? Trump could get away with forced sex with a minor, if he wanted to, because the people who vote for him kinda expect that from their president and just don’t care. But it’s different rules if you are a Dem: you are going to be held to a higher moral standard.
https://youtu.be/4oPnd911FcM
It is really the opposite. Joe is one of the most well vetted guys in public life. Most feel that he is a known entity. Sexist labels are not going to stick to guys like Bernie or Joe because we have history with them We feel like we know them. Joe is polling exceptionally well with women. Better than any of the female candidates. Same is true with Millennial's.
-
Yeah but,
If the electoral system were to be eliminated entirely the rural/less populated state vote would be all but silenced. However, as it currently stands, the urban city states are diluted to the point that the coastal states (most populated) have less representation then rural states.
You could argue that that's what the senate is for. Wyoming gets the same representation as California there. The senate is just half of 1 of branch, but it has plenty of power. Maybe the senate is enough of a nod to making sure that small states' interests aren't overrun by larger ones, while the electoral college goes too far in favoring small states.
Electoral college is part of our system of government. We don't give the states "a nod". States have power, no need to whittle away at it.
-
Actually, voter turnout has not declined, it's steadily increased since 1995 and the turnout for the 2018 midterms was the highest percentage of voters vs. eligible in 100 years. .
I forgot about the 2018 turnout increase...…
...….We in the UK pay less for our drugs than you do because we have a National Health Service that is the largest employer in the world. So it has huge bargaining power...…...
And the point AOC was making was very clear: that it is fundamentally unfair for the taxpayer to fund drug research and then not get a return on that investment when the drug is taken to market. She is proposing that the pharma companies should have to pay back to the people the investment they made, when the drug starts making money. At the moment you are paying twice for your drugs (the ones invented in the US): you pay for it to be developed, and then you pay when you use it too. Doesn’t that seem unfair to you?
UK health system is the largest employer in the world? No shit? I had no clue nor would have even guessed close.
I don't think the UK has the most buying power for the drugs tho, I think that would be us (or China but I got no clue what their health system is about) but where I go with that is your system might be bigger but we got more people buying the drugs than anyone so we should have the buying power no matter how big the buyer is? Wouldn't it work like that?
I'm going back here, I answered my question.......I think.
We don't have the biggest buying power. Tax $ for research then the buyers are split up. Medicare and VA for tax $ it sounds like. Why wouldn't those be part of the same pool? Sounds like they might not be? But then it's split further........CVS, Walmart, Kroger, and on and on and on. Fractured down so that even if the US public is the biggest customer the buyers for the product are diluted to a much smaller scale. Still, I think the bigger issue is why is so much of our money is used to fund R&D in the first place (as was asked/stated elsewhere but not by her).
Won’t this be an obstacle for Biden with a key demographic for him? Trump could get away with forced sex with a minor, if he wanted to, because the people who vote for him kinda expect that from their president and just don’t care. But it’s different rules if you are a Dem: you are going to be held to a higher moral standard. https://youtu.be/4oPnd911FcM
C'mon dude, you're better than this.
I know you want to inject your superior moral standards on us but I thought I had noticed that tailing off. Maybe I just ignored it before I participated...
Yeah..the bus deal..........it was awful and didn't seem to phase the votes (which I did find a bit surprising) but still......
Has the tone in questioning on such things seemed to have changed or is it just edited that way? It kind of looks like the overall tone has changed.
I can't believe I jumped in here.
Oh, I guess I can......sheesh....
-
I’ll tell you why you spend so much on R&D. It’s because otherwise little of value would be created. Without the innovations that your universities make, the drug companies would never get anywhere. You can’t impose a full market system on medical research without it becoming as corrupt as politics. And you don’t want that when your life depends on it.
Furthermore, big pharma and other medical businesses are a large income generator for the US.
But you can’t rely on them making the initial basic science discoveries that underpin advances in medicine. Hell, you can’t even really rely on them bringing to market the best or most cost-effective products.
-
Yeah but,
If the electoral system were to be eliminated entirely the rural/less populated state vote would be all but silenced. However, as it currently stands, the urban city states are diluted to the point that the coastal states (most populated) have less representation then rural states.
You could argue that that's what the senate is for. Wyoming gets the same representation as California there. The senate is just half of 1 of branch, but it has plenty of power. Maybe the senate is enough of a nod to making sure that small states' interests aren't overrun by larger ones, while the electoral college goes too far in favoring small states.
Electoral college is part of our system of government. We don't give the states "a nod". States have power, no need to whittle away at it.
Systems can be, and often need to be, changed.
-
Yeah but,
If the electoral system were to be eliminated entirely the rural/less populated state vote would be all but silenced. However, as it currently stands, the urban city states are diluted to the point that the coastal states (most populated) have less representation then rural states.
You could argue that that's what the senate is for. Wyoming gets the same representation as California there. The senate is just half of 1 of branch, but it has plenty of power. Maybe the senate is enough of a nod to making sure that small states' interests aren't overrun by larger ones, while the electoral college goes too far in favoring small states.
Electoral college is part of our system of government. We don't give the states "a nod". States have power, no need to whittle away at it.
Systems can be, and often need to be, changed.
Agreed. Most of the reasons for giving states so much power are historical and no longer relevant. Not all, but most. They no longer have militias; the military is federal. They no longer have to send electors to the capitol on horseback to cast the votes for the state. I am not proposing stripping them of all power; there are a number of things that they should be able to legislate within the state. But giving the citizens of small states substantially more voting power in electing the president is ridiculous. California gets 55 electoral votes for 37.3 million people (2010 Census), or one electoral vote for approximately each 680,000 people. Wyoming receives 3 votes for its 568,000 people, or about one per 190,000.
-
I think we could all, (myself included) brush up on our civic studies to better understand the burdens and responsibilities of all the major positions and branches in government, federal, state and local, and how together they are a system of checks and balances.
-
I’ll tell you why you spend so much on R&D. It’s because otherwise little of value would be created. Without the innovations that your universities make, the drug companies would never get anywhere. You can’t impose a full market system on medical research without it becoming as corrupt as politics. And you don’t want that when your life depends on it.
Furthermore, big pharma and other medical businesses are a large income generator for the US.
But you can’t rely on them making the initial basic science discoveries that underpin advances in medicine. Hell, you can’t even really rely on them bringing to market the best or most cost-effective products.
The drug companies fund most of university drug research now. If the taxpayer is going to fund research that is fine, but why would we give the return to the drug companies/universities? These are incredibly profitable groups? Why add to that with no return? We assist in research and they charge us grossly inflated rates. I see no equity in that.
-
Yeah but,
If the electoral system were to be eliminated entirely the rural/less populated state vote would be all but silenced. However, as it currently stands, the urban city states are diluted to the point that the coastal states (most populated) have less representation then rural states.
You could argue that that's what the senate is for. Wyoming gets the same representation as California there. The senate is just half of 1 of branch, but it has plenty of power. Maybe the senate is enough of a nod to making sure that small states' interests aren't overrun by larger ones, while the electoral college goes too far in favoring small states.
Electoral college is part of our system of government. We don't give the states "a nod". States have power, no need to whittle away at it.
"Nod"is accurate. I don't know what you think it means.
The electoral college doesn't increase or decrease states' rights or power overall, so there's no "whittling away" involved. It just changes the balance of power in favor of small-population states at the expense of large population states. Or maybe more accurately, it makes a vote by a voter in a small state count more than one from a voter in a large state. That's certainly something worth questioning.
Slavery, no voting for women, no income tax...those were part of government as well. Things can change. I'm just mentioning some reasons why it makes sense. Saying it should remain because it's there now isn't a convincing reason to me.
-
I’ll tell you why you spend so much on R&D. It’s because otherwise little of value would be created. Without the innovations that your universities make, the drug companies would never get anywhere. You can’t impose a full market system on medical research without it becoming as corrupt as politics. And you don’t want that when your life depends on it.
Furthermore, big pharma and other medical businesses are a large income generator for the US.
But you can’t rely on them making the initial basic science discoveries that underpin advances in medicine. Hell, you can’t even really rely on them bringing to market the best or most cost-effective products.
The drug companies fund most of university drug research now. If the taxpayer is going to fund research that is fine, but why would we give the return to the drug companies/universities? These are incredibly profitable groups? Why add to that with no return? We assist in research and they charge us grossly inflated rates. I see no equity in that.
I agree entirely with the view the taxpayer should be getting a return on their investment - which is why I posted that video of AOC making that point.
How a new drug ends up on the market is a complex process, and there are interactions between academia and industry at various stages.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/13/376801357/u-s-funding-of-health-research-stalls-as-other-nations-rev-up?t=1556476381668
However I think one has to make a distinction between basic and translational science, and this is where I think your answer doesn't fully represent the situation. I was referring to the basic science: the knowledge base upon which new drug discoveries are made, not about how new drugs come to market. Big pharma doesn't play so much of a role in the *basic science*. That comes out of the universities, by and large, and will be funded by you the taxpayer though grants given directly to the Principal Investigators (e.g. from NIH). Companies will not often invest at that level because the work is too high-risk, financially. But if a discovery is made that might lead to a new drug (or any other form of) treatment, the medical companies typically get involved then, to run trials (sometimes with further contributions in part from the taxpayer too). Running trials etc is part of the translational science phase. The basic science phase is more usually some egghead in a university dreaming up a new theory and then sitting in his or her lab with their small team and trying their theory out. Now, of course, there are many institutes and departments where there is substantial blurring of the boundaries between education and industry. But if you ask the scientists who they work for, they will typically either say the university or the drug company, and be quite clear about that in their own mind.
The point that AOC was leading to - and with which I agree entirely - is that where the taxpayer has paid for the basic science that has led to the discovery that leads to the drug, the taxpayer should get a return on their investment, which was in effect analogous to putting money into a startup. The scientists who made the discovery should also perhaps also be more recognized: Under the current system, a university researcher could make a huge discovery that might end up saving the lives of millions of people, but actually not benefit from it financially at all (nor the university that paid their salary). That doesn't seem right, or desirable in terms of encouraging future discoveries: Scientists, overwhelmingly, do not do what they do for money. It's a passion. But it would help greatly expand the science base - to the good of us all- if being a top medical scientist was as aspirational a job as being on the board of a drug company. Instead, you've probably got salesmen that work for the drug companies earning far more than the scientists who make the discoveries, and going into science is a very uncertain and long-fought career choice. That's another consequence of living in an "ultra-capitalist" society, where people are not rewarded according to the societal value of what they do (in fact, it often almost seems the exact opposite).
This has unintended consequences that are far-reaching. For instance, if you come from a minority which is typically economically disadvantaged, it will be much harder for you to embark on a career as a scientist than someone who can rely upon the "bank of mom and dad" to see them through the inevitable many years of training, poorly-paid post-doc jobs and periods between post-doctoral posts etc. It is currently a huge financial risk to embark on a career as a university-based scientist. If you come from a poor background, you are likely to be much less tolerant of taking that risk. And so, you end up with relatively few minorities in the upper echelons of science, and so the scientific agendas risk reflecting that lack of diversity.
-
A little 1787 history
The disagreement over representation threatened to derail the ratification of the U.S. Constitution since delegates from both sides of the dispute vowed to reject the document if they didn’t get their way. The solution came in the form of a compromise proposed by statesmen Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut.
The Great Compromise created two legislative bodies in Congress.
Also known as the Sherman Compromise or the Connecticut Compromise, the deal combined proposals from the Virginia (large state) plan and the New Jersey (small state) plan.
The Great Compromise also skewed the electoral college.
The principle of protecting small states through equal representation in the Senate carries over into the electoral college, which elects the president, since the number of electoral votes designated to each state is based on a state’s combined number of representatives in the House and Senate.
That means, for example, even though Wyoming only has three votes in the electoral college, with the smallest population of all the states, each elector represents a far smaller group of people than each of the 55 electoral votes in the most populous state of California.
Two points I'd like to make.
1) I don't think the framers , in 1787, thought that there would be the huge differences in state population as there are today. They were looking at the difference between Virginia and New Jersey, not California and Wyoming.
2) It makes sense in the legislative branch to protect the smaller populous states because we need laws for all states regardless of population, BUT that is the legislative branch, not the executive branch. The President needs to answer to ALL citizens equally, not just those from smaller states.
-
The USA is a republic of states. Each state has representation in congress base on both population and the fact that it is a state. The votes for president match this representation.
I'm not saying this can not be changed. My state of CT, a small state, passed a law to make my vote not count at all unless it matches the popular vote. So our democrat party wanted us to give up our states rights. Makes no sense for a small state to do.
I do think that the Electoral collage is a part of the definition of what makes us a republic.
If you want Trump out of office, then vote him out. No need to change the rules if your side is so popular. It is politically incorrect to support Trump. So everyone in the D party thinks that he has no support.
Notice that here, in the enlightened Standupzone, TRUMP is at 46 percent after being in office for 2 years.
JP
-
The USA is a republic of states. Each state has representation in congress base on both population and the fact that it is a state. The votes for president match this representation.
I'm not saying this can not be changed. My state of CT, a small state, passed a law to make my vote not count at all unless it matches the popular vote. So our democrat party wanted us to give up our states rights. Makes no sense for a small state to do.
I do think that the Electoral collage is a part of the definition of what makes us a republic.
If you want Trump out of office, then vote him out. No need to change the rules if your side is so popular. It is politically incorrect to support Trump. So everyone in the D party thinks that he has no support.
Notice that here, in the enlightened Standupzone, TRUMP is at 46 percent after being in office for 2 years.
JP
The electoral college has nothing to do with being a republic. You don't even have to have states. It just means that the people have representatives that pass the laws and govern. A democratic republic, with elected representatives, is a practical way to run a democracy, rather than have every proposed law voted on by everyone. The colonies did not all eagerly "gel" into a country; states rights were a way to still offer some independence and get everyone to agree on the establishment of a central government.
-
The USA is a republic of states. Each state has representation in congress base on both population and the fact that it is a state. The votes for president match this representation.
I'm not saying this can not be changed. My state of CT, a small state, passed a law to make my vote not count at all unless it matches the popular vote. So our democrat party wanted us to give up our states rights. Makes no sense for a small state to do.
I do think that the Electoral collage is a part of the definition of what makes us a republic.
If you want Trump out of office, then vote him out. No need to change the rules if your side is so popular. It is politically incorrect to support Trump. So everyone in the D party thinks that he has no support.
Notice that here, in the enlightened Standupzone, TRUMP is at 46 percent after being in office for 2 years.
JP
If there were no electoral college, your state wouldn't have made a decision that creates a situation where even if every voter in your state voted for one candidate, every one of your electoral votes could go to his or her opponent. Instead of that fiasco, I'd rather have no electoral college, with my vote counting the same as everyone else's.
Not sure why you're talking about Trump, "your side", etc.
-
I’m told that there are good reasons why the US system needs some people’s votes to count more than others in presidential elections, and that it is a useful workaround.
But for sure, there must be a risk to such a workaround. A similar situation here in the UK (“United Kingdom”) might be about to break up the UK. The UK is comprised of 4 “states”: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are governments for each one of these, except England. England is only represented by the overall U.K. government that sits in London, and includes representatives from each of the individual “states” (we call them countries but they are more like your states I think, in fact). So this means that a Scottish person for instance has representation both in Scotland, and also the UK government. But if you are English, you only have representation in the overall UK government.
This causes constant friction, because England is by far the biggest one of the four countries. But we have less representation, just like your bigger states do. Political theorists have suggested that this is a substantial factor behind the Brexit vote: the economically catastrophic vote for the UK to leave the European Union. Brexit threatens to break up the United Kingdom entirely, since Scotland for instance voted strongly to remain in the EU, and now there is a movement for Scotland to leave the UK in order to remain in the EU. There is a similar issue with Northern Ireland, where many would rather join with Ireland and stay in the EU than remain part of the UK and leave the EU.
So, from our perspective right now, there are risks to having a “each vote counts differently ” and a “first past the post” system rather than eg. proportional representation. Just as there are risks to having a proportional representation system, and each vote counting equally. These problems will exacerbate when you have a country where there are large cultural and economic differences between different regions. And I suspect that is what has happened both in the UK and the US: rising inequality over the last few decades has led to big economic differences between states, leading to cultural differences that have created fracture lines which are manifesting themselves as populism and accelerating division and acrimony amongst different groups within the union.
The solution? Tackle rising inequality. How much longer can we carry on with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Inevitably, there are going to be consequences. Moreover, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, although US household income is higher than it used to be, the increase in wages for a family has come mostly from the second paycheck earned by a working mother rather than real-terms increase in wages. So now you have two parents going to work rather than raising the kids (or one parent struggling alone). Which has consequences too.
According to Wikipedia:
“During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928. According to PolitiFact and others, the top 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."’
There are going to be consequences for that. Trump is it, IMO. So, removing Trump won’t remove the problem: he is the symptom not the cause. Which is why I’m sceptical that Biden is radical enough to give hope to those who have lost theirs; elect Biden and then next year it will be something even more extreme than Trump that pops up. IMO the answer is to lance the boil, and the boil is rising inequality. But will those who have benefitted from rising inequality be willing to give up some of their gains in order to maintain political stability? AI and robotics is just going to accelerate rising inequality even further.
-
I’m told that there are good reasons why the US system needs some people’s votes to count more than others in presidential elections, and that it is a useful workaround.
But for sure, there must be a risk to such a workaround. A similar situation here in the UK (“United Kingdom”) might be about to break up the UK. The UK is comprised of 4 “states”: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are governments for each one of these, except England. England is only represented by the overall U.K. government that sits in London, and includes representatives from each of the individual “states” (we call them countries but they are more like your states I think, in fact). So this means that a Scottish person for instance has representation both in Scotland, and also the UK government. But if you are English, you only have representation in the overall UK government.
This causes constant friction, because England is by far the biggest one of the four countries. But we have less representation, just like your bigger states do. Political theorists have suggested that this is a substantial factor behind the Brexit vote: the economically catastrophic vote for the UK to leave the European Union. Brexit threatens to break up the United Kingdom entirely, since Scotland for instance voted strongly to remain in the EU, and now there is a movement for Scotland to leave the UK in order to remain in the EU. There is a similar issue with Northern Ireland, where many would rather join with Ireland and stay in the EU than remain part of the UK and leave the EU.
So, from our perspective right now, there are risks to having a “each vote counts differently ” and a “first past the post” system rather than eg. proportional representation. Just as there are risks to having a proportional representation system, and each vote counting equally. These problems will exacerbate when you have a country where there are large cultural and economic differences between different regions. And I suspect that is what has happened both in the UK and the US: rising inequality over the last few decades has led to big economic differences between states, leading to cultural differences that have created fracture lines which are manifesting themselves as populism and accelerating division and acrimony amongst different groups within the union.
The solution? Tackle rising inequality. How much longer can we carry on with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Inevitably, there are going to be consequences. Moreover, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, although US household income is higher than it used to be, the increase in wages for a family has come mostly from the second paycheck earned by a working mother rather than real-terms increase in wages. So now you have two parents going to work rather than raising the kids (or one parent struggling alone). Which has consequences too.
According to Wikipedia:
“During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928. According to PolitiFact and others, the top 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."’
There are going to be consequences for that. Trump is it, IMO. So, removing Trump won’t remove the problem: he is the symptom not the cause. Which is why I’m sceptical that Biden is radical enough to give hope to those who have lost theirs; elect Biden and then next year it will be something even more extreme than Trump that pops up. IMO the answer is to lance the boil, and the boil is rising inequality. But will those who have benefitted from rising inequality be willing to give up some of their gains in order to maintain political stability? AI and robotics is just going to accelerate rising inequality even further.
I agree with much of what you say, though IMO there were better reasons why the US system needs some people’s votes to count more than others in presidential elections in the past than there are today. Useful workaround? The bloodiest war in US history probably never would have happened without such a strong sentiment for states rights.
These days our democratic republic is largely a facade for a corrupt oligarchy.
I like Warren; she has a lot of concrete policy proposals. It's unfortunate that substance doesn't win elections in the US. She has too much attack surface, doesn't scrap well and speaks over the heads of too many people. She would likely lose. Biden's biggest positive is that he can win. I don't think enough people are convinced that economic inequality is a huge problem for a politician to win with that as the centerpiece. It's like climate change; even though the theory about where it is headed has been a near certainty for some time, the conclusion that it is correct has only been a majority opinion in the US for a short while. It didn't happen until we started seeing real catastrophic effects.
IMO, one of our biggest problems is our two party system. There are a lot of single issue voters out there who turn a blind eye to the moral bankruptcy of candidates or to policy positions they don't agree with if the party or candidate is aligned on their important issue.
It's a problem that a vote for president in Wyoming carries three times the weight of a vote in California. That should be addressed, but I do think we have more pressing problems.
-
"Notice that here, in the enlightened Standupzone, TRUMP is at 46 percent after being in office for 2 years."
But notice that the Trump voters wont engage any reasonable dialogue here--it's telling that they wont say why they voted for Trump, with a willingness to dialogue about their reasoning.
Trump voters are not interested in being challenged by the facts. And they dont want to have to acknowledge and say they are aok with the innumerable disgraceful things Trump has said and done.
His ramble ons in green bay and at the nra convention were total embarrassments full of the usual lying insult and divisiveness.
-
"Notice that here, in the enlightened Standupzone, TRUMP is at 46 percent after being in office for 2 years."
But notice that the Trump voters wont engage any reasonable dialogue here--it's telling that they wont say why they voted for Trump, with a willingness to dialogue about their reasoning.
Trump voters are not interested in being challenged by the facts. And they dont want to have to acknowledge and say they are aok with the innumerable disgraceful things Trump has said and done.
His ramble ons in green bay and at the nra convention were total embarrassments full of the usual lying insult and divisiveness.
I notice this even more in "water cooler" conversations. Lots of closet bigotry where I am, or at least closeted in most public situations. Lots of fear of liberal ideas because of the way they are portrayed by conservative media. A few people do seem to buy into the economic fairy tale of favoring corporate and interests of the ultra rich in hopes that they will get less greedy and share some wealth; hasn't happened in the ~40 years it's been tried and won't happen now. Anyway, he won this state and might again yet it's hard to get anyone to engage in a meaningful conversation about why anyone should vote for him.
-
If there were no electoral college, your state wouldn't have made a decision that creates a situation where even if every voter in your state voted for one candidate, every one of your electoral votes could go to his or her opponent. Instead of that fiasco, I'd rather have no electoral college, with my vote counting the same as everyone else's.
Not sure why you're talking about Trump, "your side", etc.
The "fiasco" in my state is exactly that, no electoral college. I would rather that my vote count toward my states share in the presidential decision.
As fas as Trump, your side, etc .. All the discussion that I hear about electoral college being outdated or a bad thing seems to be coming from those who feel that Hillary Clintons popular vote win should have had her as president.
JP
-
The USA is a republic of states. Each state has representation in congress base on both population and the fact that it is a state. The votes for president match this representation.
I'm not saying this can not be changed. My state of CT, a small state, passed a law to make my vote not count at all unless it matches the popular vote. So our democrat party wanted us to give up our states rights. Makes no sense for a small state to do.
I do think that the Electoral collage is a part of the definition of what makes us a republic.
If you want Trump out of office, then vote him out. No need to change the rules if your side is so popular. It is politically incorrect to support Trump. So everyone in the D party thinks that he has no support.
Notice that here, in the enlightened Standupzone, TRUMP is at 46 percent after being in office for 2 years.
JP
The electoral college has nothing to do with being a republic. You don't even have to have states. It just means that the people have representatives that pass the laws and govern. A democratic republic, with elected representatives, is a practical way to run a democracy, rather than have every proposed law voted on by everyone. The colonies did not all eagerly "gel" into a country; states rights were a way to still offer some independence and get everyone to agree on the establishment of a central government.
Proper vocabulary would have been "federal republic"
-
If there were no electoral college, your state wouldn't have made a decision that creates a situation where even if every voter in your state voted for one candidate, every one of your electoral votes could go to his or her opponent. Instead of that fiasco, I'd rather have no electoral college, with my vote counting the same as everyone else's.
Not sure why you're talking about Trump, "your side", etc.
The "fiasco" in my state is exactly that, no electoral college. I would rather that my vote count toward my states share in the presidential decision.
As fas as Trump, your side, etc .. All the discussion that I hear about electoral college being outdated or a bad thing seems to be coming from those who feel that Hillary Clintons popular vote win should have had her as president.
JP
Well yes, exactly. The person who won the popular vote should have been elected. This can work both ways, of course. If a republican wins the popular vote, then so be it. That person wins.
-
The USA is a republic of states. Each state has representation in congress base on both population and the fact that it is a state. The votes for president match this representation.
I'm not saying this can not be changed. My state of CT, a small state, passed a law to make my vote not count at all unless it matches the popular vote. So our democrat party wanted us to give up our states rights. Makes no sense for a small state to do.
I do think that the Electoral collage is a part of the definition of what makes us a republic.
If you want Trump out of office, then vote him out. No need to change the rules if your side is so popular. It is politically incorrect to support Trump. So everyone in the D party thinks that he has no support.
Notice that here, in the enlightened Standupzone, TRUMP is at 46 percent after being in office for 2 years.
JP
The electoral college has nothing to do with being a republic. You don't even have to have states. It just means that the people have representatives that pass the laws and govern. A democratic republic, with elected representatives, is a practical way to run a democracy, rather than have every proposed law voted on by everyone. The colonies did not all eagerly "gel" into a country; states rights were a way to still offer some independence and get everyone to agree on the establishment of a central government.
Proper vocabulary would have been "federal republic"
That verbiage does bring states' rights into the conversation but it muddies the debate rather than clarifying anything. It's about division of political power; what can be legislated at the state level and what can be legislated at the federal level. the electoral college is a federal law that can be changed at the federal level. A state government can choose what to do with the votes it is given, but we would not cease to be a republic, democratic republic or federal republic if that system were changed. The framers provided ways for the laws to change for a reason. You can respect history without getting stuck in the past.
-
But you have to understand what is already in place before you make meaningful changes...
-
help me out, bean---what is there to understand that about the electoral college that makes retention of it in current form sensible??
-
To understand why it was implemented by the framers of the constitution and whether the same or similar conditions exist today to warrant retaining it.
-
But you have to understand what is already in place before you make meaningful changes...
AS your post came right after mine, is there something you think I don't understand? I answered a prior question about electoral college as a requirement of being a republic - it's not. the someone said I should have referenced a federal republic instead of democratic republic. I pointed out that still doesn't change the answer - the electoral college is not required to be a federal republic. It is something that was specified when this federal republic was created, but it is in no way required and changing it would not change the form of government to something different from a republic, democratic republic or federal republic (all of which describe the US).
Eliminating the electoral college just changes how the winner of the presidential election is determined so that all votes count and none count more than others. Either you want all votes counted and none counting more than others or you don't. The only reason to go down another rabbit hole is to confuse the issue.
You replied while I was replying...
To understand why it was implemented by the framers of the constitution and whether the same or similar conditions exist today to warrant retaining it.
That's a debate that can't really be settled - what the intent was at the time. But when they documented in great detail how to change things as situations warrant it, I think it is pretty clear what their intent was.
-
The electoral college is not required for a federal republic to exist. However it is how the founding fathers set up our government.
-
Yeah, how'd that work out (https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html) this time?
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
(See All of the Federalist 68)
Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They thought that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as a check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.
Yep, no need in second guessing our forefathers' ability to see into the future, or even consider the possibility of making changes more in line with the current times, population, and technology. ::)
-
The electoral college is not required for a federal republic to exist. However it is how the founding fathers set up our government.
And they deserve our respect for the most part, but not our reverence. Changes were expected to be needed as we discovered how things played out. The 12th amendment changed the way the presidential election works substantially. Without that amendment, Hillary would be Trump's VP.
-
If there were no electoral college, your state wouldn't have made a decision that creates a situation where even if every voter in your state voted for one candidate, every one of your electoral votes could go to his or her opponent. Instead of that fiasco, I'd rather have no electoral college, with my vote counting the same as everyone else's.
Not sure why you're talking about Trump, "your side", etc.
The "fiasco" in my state is exactly that, no electoral college. I would rather that my vote count toward my states share in the presidential decision.
As fas as Trump, your side, etc .. All the discussion that I hear about electoral college being outdated or a bad thing seems to be coming from those who feel that Hillary Clintons popular vote win should have had her as president.
JP
Well, what you've got now seems like the worst of both worlds. You DO still have the electoral system in your state, but how it votes is based on how other individuals in other states vote, even if their choice differs from people in your state. Everyone in your state could vote for one candidate, and your state's electoral votes could go to the opponent.
-
With the electoral college in place, presidential candidates naturally need to get electoral votes from multiple regions and therefore have to build campaign platforms with a widespread national focus. Without the college, many regions in the US would be ignored to the benefit of more highly populated metropolitan areas. Rural regions would be marginalized for sure. In this case we are not trying to be equal, at best we might be somewhat equitable...
I'm not saying that there can't be reform, but it's not as simple as switching off a light bulb.
-
With the electoral college in place, presidential candidates naturally need to get electoral votes from multiple regions and therefore have to build campaign platforms with a widespread national focus. Without the college, many regions in the US would be ignored to the benefit of more highly populated metropolitan areas. Rural regions would be marginalized for sure. In this case we are not trying to be equal, at best we might be somewhat equitable...
I'm not saying that there can't be reform, but it's not as simple as switching off a light bulb.
The flip side is that we have a case where the minority rules instead. I am pretty sure that was not the intent.
-
With the electoral college in place, presidential candidates naturally need to get electoral votes from multiple regions and therefore have to build campaign platforms with a widespread national focus. Without the college, many regions in the US would be ignored to the benefit of more highly populated metropolitan areas. Rural regions would be marginalized for sure. In this case we are not trying to be equal, at best we might be somewhat equitable...
I'm not saying that there can't be reform, but it's not as simple as switching off a light bulb.
I agree. There was a good discussion a year or two ago here with some good arguments in favor, or at least against a straight popular vote. The arguments I don't buy are the ones (not from you) about keeping it because it's there, keeping it because people that question it are sore-loser Democrats, etc. Those kind of arguments don't counter the good arguments people are making against the electoral system, they just--ironically--make it sound like there are no good arguments for it.
-
To understand why it was implemented by the framers of the constitution and whether the same or similar conditions exist today to warrant retaining it.
I think we can see with our own, present-day perspective that the time is past for an electoral college.
-
With the electoral college in place, presidential candidates naturally need to get electoral votes from multiple regions and therefore have to build campaign platforms with a widespread national focus. Without the college, many regions in the US would be ignored to the benefit of more highly populated metropolitan areas. Rural regions would be marginalized for sure. In this case we are not trying to be equal, at best we might be somewhat equitable...
I'm not saying that there can't be reform, but it's not as simple as switching off a light bulb.
I agree. There was a good discussion a year or two ago here with some good arguments in favor, or at least against a straight popular vote. The arguments I don't buy are the ones (not from you) about keeping it because it's there, keeping it because people that question it are sore-loser Democrats, etc. Those kind of arguments don't counter the good arguments people are making against the electoral system, they just--ironically--make it sound like there are no good arguments for it.
We should always be looking to improve the process, especially as technology allows and I'm in favor of a more direct democracy. But there has to be a balance.
It's ironic that in Federalist Paper #68 Hamilton wrote, "a successful candidate for the office of president would have to have the distinguished qualities to appeal to electors from many states, not just one or a few states:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."
Yet, we end up with the Donald ;D You can't make this stuff up...
-
Notice that here, in the enlightened Standupzone, TRUMP is at 46 percent after being in office for 2 years.
JP
Is that relevant to whether there should be an electoral system?
What I see is plenty of people here would vote for Trump, given those choices, which isn't surprising. I also see that slightly more people would vote Democratic than Republican, which isn't surprising. I assume not all of those would vote for a Democrat that wasn't the one they want. I'd guess actual polls during past presidencies would have the incumbent doing better after two years, but I don't know. But again, all irrelevant to the electoral issue.
-
I got to keep 3% more of my pay this year, and I made more money due to the good economy. Lets get out there and protest !
Here is an interesting poll about the economy https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_042919/
Only 12% of Americans say that their family has benefited a great deal from recent growth in the U.S. economy and another 31% say they have received some benefit from the economic upturn. A majority, though, say they have been helped either not much (27%) or not at all (27%) from the nation’s macroeconomic growth. These results are nearly identical to Monmouth polls taken in 2018 as well as just before Trump took office in January 2017. Only 34% of those earning less than $50,000 a year and 42% of those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 say they have benefited at least somewhat from the growing economy. This contrasts with those earning more the $100,000, where a majority (58%) say they have benefited.
-
I’m interested to hear what you guys think will happen politically in the USA if income inequality carries on growing. Nothing? Something? If something, then what?
-
I’m interested to hear what you guys think will happen politically in the USA if income inequality carries on growing. Nothing? Something? If something, then what?
I think progressive tax rates that get into high percentages for stratospheric income will come back to support a greatly increased safety net. The wild card in this would be a populist on the left "dog whistling" rioting in the streets. By "dog whistling" I mean similar to what Trump has said about his supporters possibly rioting if certain things happened (like losing the election). Directly inciting a riot is illegal and can be prosecuted; guessing that your supporters might do something like that is not. Capitalism polls badly with the under 30 crowd; there may (hopefully) be a peaceful gradual transition to social democracy as defined here (https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/social-capitalism/):
Social democracy is an ideology that supports interventions to promote social justice within a political democracy and capitalist economy. It involves measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy for the interest of everyone in society.
-
I’m interested to hear what you guys think will happen politically in the USA if income inequality carries on growing. Nothing? Something? If something, then what?
If it continues to grow (which I think it will), eventually there will be a boiling point and we'll see an all out citizen revolt. I think we are already at the beginning stages of that in a few scattered areas here in California. Vandalism, threats and physical violence against new residents with more spending power has actually taken place.
-
With the electoral college in place, presidential candidates naturally need to get electoral votes from multiple regions and therefore have to build campaign platforms with a widespread national focus. Without the college, many regions in the US would be ignored to the benefit of more highly populated metropolitan areas. Rural regions would be marginalized for sure. In this case we are not trying to be equal, at best we might be somewhat equitable...
I'm not saying that there can't be reform, but it's not as simple as switching off a light bulb.
yes, like pdx said, and I am sure you remember, there were some good dscussions pertaining to this before...damn if I remember the specifics any better either.
Looking at this
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/
9 states make up roughly half the population.
Roughly 50-60 million make up the bottom 25, 275 million or so make up the top 25.
I don't think that without the electoral (or some sort of correction/help/adjustment for lack of some better description) that a real representation would occur.
Very diverse cultures all through us...everywhere you go. You got city, country, ranch, farm, ghetto, trailer trash, hill billy, cowboy, indian, hippie, hipster, boomer, yuppie, surf bums, ski bums, mountain dude, flower child, jesus freak, muslim, jew, hari krishna, cops, robbers, white collar, blue collar, slacker, geek, nerd, and even more than that.
Myself, I don't want someone running and who is just trying to get a couple of them kinds of peoples votes......I want someone that's trying to get all them peoples votes or at least the ones around me.
With that said......in many ways, they're only after the swing state votes right now....at least after the turn and down the stretch. We got's lots of all them kinds of people in all those places but not a true representation of all them peoples and it appears even out of the gate candidates are only after some specific dynamic or need of the population.
With that said........ and as was said earlier.......the amount of electoral votes Calif has compared to Wyoming may be a bit skewed anymore so some correction to the current electoral votes may need adjusted but I still would want candidates trying to get the votes of the entire country and not specific dynamics or areas.
anyways.........
-
I’m interested to hear what you guys think will happen politically in the USA if income inequality carries on growing. Nothing? Something? If something, then what?
First things first. Voters will need to have a change of heart for anything to change. Trump won with the huge voter group of families earning 50 to 100K a year and did surprisingly well with families earning under 50K. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016 It was a tie over 100K. This is how it breaks down Republican and Dem without specific candidates https://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-detailed-tables/
Right now a substantial portion of the population sees immigration as a/the primary driver of their income issues. The Dems are just starting to talk about automation but it is always secondary to Globalization. Until the electorate buys into the actuality of what is causing income inequality, making corrections will be a slow/non existent process. We need to put sane leadership in place. We can then begin to slowly change that dialogue.
-
Notice that here, in the enlightened Standupzone, TRUMP is at 46 percent after being in office for 2 years.
JP
Is that relevant to whether there should be an electoral system?
What I see is plenty of people here would vote for Trump, given those choices, which isn't surprising. I also see that slightly more people would vote Democratic than Republican, which isn't surprising. I assume not all of those would vote for a Democrat that wasn't the one they want. I'd guess actual polls during past presidencies would have the incumbent doing better after two years, but I don't know. But again, all irrelevant to the electoral issue.
It's relevant based on the idea that Hillary supporters and other dems are the ones clamoring for the EC to be gotten rid of.
-
I got to keep 3% more of my pay this year, and I made more money due to the good economy. Lets get out there and protest !
Here is an interesting poll about the economy https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_042919/
Only 12% of Americans say that their family has benefited a great deal from recent growth in the U.S. economy and another 31% say they have received some benefit from the economic upturn. A majority, though, say they have been helped either not much (27%) or not at all (27%) from the nation’s macroeconomic growth. These results are nearly identical to Monmouth polls taken in 2018 as well as just before Trump took office in January 2017. Only 34% of those earning less than $50,000 a year and 42% of those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 say they have benefited at least somewhat from the growing economy. This contrasts with those earning more the $100,000, where a majority (58%) say they have benefited.
Keep in mind that 50% of americans do not pay any federal income tax. It's kind of hard to give those folks a tax break. They are benefiting from the low unemployment though.
-
"Keep in mind that 50% of americans do not pay any federal income tax. It's kind of hard to give those folks a tax break. They are benefiting from the low unemployment though."
Why tax people not making a living wage?
What doesn't get talked about is people making more off their money than most working people earn (often way more) from their labor. That in itself is bad enough, that they have lower tax rates than working people is absurd.
-
I got to keep 3% more of my pay this year, and I made more money due to the good economy. Lets get out there and protest !
Here is an interesting poll about the economy https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_042919/
Only 12% of Americans say that their family has benefited a great deal from recent growth in the U.S. economy and another 31% say they have received some benefit from the economic upturn. A majority, though, say they have been helped either not much (27%) or not at all (27%) from the nation’s macroeconomic growth. These results are nearly identical to Monmouth polls taken in 2018 as well as just before Trump took office in January 2017. Only 34% of those earning less than $50,000 a year and 42% of those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 say they have benefited at least somewhat from the growing economy. This contrasts with those earning more the $100,000, where a majority (58%) say they have benefited.
Keep in mind that 50% of americans do not pay any federal income tax. It's kind of hard to give those folks a tax break. They are benefiting from the low unemployment though.
The poll above was about whether or not people were benefiting from what is being touted (falsely, in many respects) as a great economy. This did not have to be a direct result tax changes. It was basically the old are you better off today question. The majority say the have been helped not much or not at all. an additional group say they have been helped some. That is very underwhelming considering the massive debt penalty that we are now paying for what was a very short lived bump.
I hope that Biden continues to bring this issue home and begins to challenge anyone who boasts about this economy. If it remains as it is into the election season the economy should be a strong issue for the Dems.
-
""Keep in mind that 50% of americans do not pay any federal income tax. It's kind of hard to give those folks a tax break. They are benefiting from the low unemployment though.""
but zero wage gains for 40 years--how benefitting??
and we have the lowest labor participation rate among industrial countries--and those are just the broken disaffected workers we're willing to count
zero wage gains during 40 years of great gdp growth, corp profits and stock mkt gains, efficiecy improvement etc---but all that fruit is in the holds of all the private jets flying around these days
and, poor or rich, we all pay plenty of federal taxes---ss and medicare, gas taxes, excise taxes, highway taxes
and for our many who qualify as hardworking poor, these taxes consume a big chunk of their disposable income
income tax matters most to those with high incomes---and theyve bought huge tax cuts over the last 40 years such that the rich have gotten much much richer
and the working poor have seen zero nominal wage gains, and actual declines in real wages
the working poor typically pay 20% of their gross income in taxes---if you count sales tax, gas tax, ss and medicare---which you have to--1000$ for ss and medicare puts a bite on a working poor person--ss/medicare for a rich guy caps at like 4g these days--not really an issue if youve a 7 figure income, no?
so the fox crap about the poor dont pay any taxes is just that---fox crap
below is an admittedly long piece, but it humanizes the reality for the hardworking poor experience--disgraceful that this happens--while the private jets keep a flyin'
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-much-poor-actually-pay-taxes-probably-think
dont forget walmart, our nations largest employer pays minimum wageto the bulk of their employees, and takes as much as 40 percent of pay if an employee needs walmart, crappy family health insurance, where some half are on food stamps---
60% of minimum wage workers work for large corporations--not small businesses at all
amazon too--thousands of their workers are on food stamps
hello working poor?!? like why are we taxpayers feeding the poor hardworking employees of the biggest most successful investor-enriching corps in USA? wtf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/24/thousands-amazon-workers-receive-food-stamps-now-bernie-sanders-wants-amazon-pay-up/?utm_term=.77750a9ee55c
-
Wow, it sounds like you guys have got it even worse than we have: in the UK, we ordinary folk are being totally shafted by the super-rich, and the corporations, just like you. But at least we KNOW we are being shafted. It seems like nearly half of the US population are getting it hard up the back passage from some rich white guy but they are just bending over and letting him do it while not taking their eyes off the poor undocumented migrant working for a pittance, while somehow blaming the pain in their ass on that poor soul.
-
Wow, it sounds like you guys have got it even worse than we have: in the UK, we ordinary folk are being totally shafted by the super-rich, and the corporations, just like you. But at least we KNOW we are being shafted. It seems like nearly half of the US population are getting it hard up the back passage from some rich white guy but they are just bending over and letting him do it while not taking their eyes off the poor undocumented migrant working for a pittance, while somehow blaming the pain in their ass on that poor soul.
I like this explanation.
https://i.imgur.com/O2KHoLl.gifv
-
Wow, it sounds like you guys have got it even worse than we have: in the UK, we ordinary folk are being totally shafted by the super-rich, and the corporations, just like you. But at least we KNOW we are being shafted. It seems like nearly half of the US population are getting it hard up the back passage from some rich white guy but they are just bending over and letting him do it while not taking their eyes off the poor undocumented migrant working for a pittance, while somehow blaming the pain in their ass on that poor soul.
I like this explanation.
https://i.imgur.com/O2KHoLl.gifv
Exactly right.
-
Notice that here, in the enlightened Standupzone, TRUMP is at 46 percent after being in office for 2 years.
JP
Is that relevant to whether there should be an electoral system?
What I see is plenty of people here would vote for Trump, given those choices, which isn't surprising. I also see that slightly more people would vote Democratic than Republican, which isn't surprising. I assume not all of those would vote for a Democrat that wasn't the one they want. I'd guess actual polls during past presidencies would have the incumbent doing better after two years, but I don't know. But again, all irrelevant to the electoral issue.
It's relevant based on the idea that Hillary supporters and other dems are the ones clamoring for the EC to be gotten rid of.
I'm not either one. Trump himself was clamoring to get rid of it before he was elected. I'd guess if he'd won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote he'd be clamoring to end it again.
If Democrats supported something you liked, would you reject it because they supported it? I base what I prefer on the merits of the arguments, not who's doing the arguing.
-
Notice that here, in the enlightened Standupzone, TRUMP is at 46 percent after being in office for 2 years.
JP
Is that relevant to whether there should be an electoral system?
What I see is plenty of people here would vote for Trump, given those choices, which isn't surprising. I also see that slightly more people would vote Democratic than Republican, which isn't surprising. I assume not all of those would vote for a Democrat that wasn't the one they want. I'd guess actual polls during past presidencies would have the incumbent doing better after two years, but I don't know. But again, all irrelevant to the electoral issue.
It's relevant based on the idea that Hillary supporters and other dems are the ones clamoring for the EC to be gotten rid of.
I'm not either one. Trump himself was clamoring to get rid of it before he was elected. I'd guess if he'd won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote he'd be clamoring to end it again.
If Democrats supported something you liked, would you reject it because they supported it? I base what I prefer on the merits of the arguments, not who's doing the arguing.
My politics support most common sense environmental issues, so that would be a democrat area I agree on. (I don't happen to believe in the way global warming is being addressed.)
I believe in states rights being maintained.
At heart I am a libertarian and a conservative.
I view Trump as an a-hole, along with 95% of congress. What I like about Trump is: he believes in capitalism and he is bucking the system (both parties). I don't believe he is doing anything for personal financial gain. I also believe he acts to fulfil his ego which is not good.
It downright scares me how the democrats, FBI, news media, and part of his own party have spent the last 2 years trying to get rid of him. So much could have been accomplished if they had decided to work with him.
fwiw, I couldn't bring myself to vote in the Trump Hillary election, but all the BS investigation motivated me to hold my nose and pull the R handle on every candidate in my state election last year.
JP
-
Thanks for explaining your position JP. But what does it mean to “believe in capitalism”? I’m a foreigner so you’ll have to help me out: we don’t treat economic systems as having similar status as religions, like you do in the US: we prefer to pick and choose according to the issue we are trying to solve. So “capitalism” isn’t something we’d “believe in”, but a tool to try to achieve a particular outcome. So, do you mean that you believe that money will sort everything out, and that an unfettered free market, totally free of government regulations, will deliver the best for the population? Or is your belief something else?
-
[
fwiw, I couldn't bring myself to vote in the Trump Hillary election, but all the BS investigation motivated me to hold my nose and pull the R handle on every candidate in my state election last year.
JP
If you mean the Mueller report, that was an entirely Republican inspired affair carried out under Republican leadership (Mueller, Rosenstein, Trump).
-
Thanks for explaining your position JP. But what does it mean to “believe in capitalism”? I’m a foreigner so you’ll have to help me out: we don’t treat economic systems as having similar status as religions, like you do in the US: we prefer to pick and choose according to the issue we are trying to solve. So “capitalism” isn’t something we’d “believe in”, but a tool to try to achieve a particular outcome. So, do you mean that you believe that money will sort everything out, and that an unfettered free market, totally free of government regulations, will deliver the best for the population? Or is your belief something else?
20 years ago one wouldn't have to state that they believe in capitalism if they were in the USA. Right now I see the Dems being taken over by socialist ideas.
I believe that markets will figure things out but the government needs rules to keep things fair and to regulate pollution, safety, etc...
Our government over-regulates in many areas. At the same time we have been allowing banks and other corporations to grow too large so there monopoly problems.
Not a fan of corporate welfare either, that's due to our congress being influenced by $$$.
-
[
fwiw, I couldn't bring myself to vote in the Trump Hillary election, but all the BS investigation motivated me to hold my nose and pull the R handle on every candidate in my state election last year.
JP
If you mean the Mueller report, that was an entirely Republican inspired affair carried out under Republican leadership (Mueller, Rosenstein, Trump).
I'm not sure anyone from msnbc would even say that.
-
Thanks for explaining your position JP. But what does it mean to “believe in capitalism”? I’m a foreigner so you’ll have to help me out: we don’t treat economic systems as having similar status as religions, like you do in the US: we prefer to pick and choose according to the issue we are trying to solve. So “capitalism” isn’t something we’d “believe in”, but a tool to try to achieve a particular outcome. So, do you mean that you believe that money will sort everything out, and that an unfettered free market, totally free of government regulations, will deliver the best for the population? Or is your belief something else?
20 years ago one wouldn't have to state that they believe in capitalism if they were in the USA. Right now I see the Dems being taken over by socialist ideas.
I believe that markets will figure things out but the government needs rules to keep things fair and to regulate pollution, safety, etc...
Our government over-regulates in many areas. At the same time we have been allowing banks and other corporations to grow too large so there monopoly problems.
Not a fan of corporate welfare either, that's due to our congress being influenced by $$$.
USA (capitalist) GDP growth in 2018= 2.9%
China (socialist republic) GDP growth in 2018 = 6.6%
:) :) :) :) :) :)
-
[
fwiw, I couldn't bring myself to vote in the Trump Hillary election, but all the BS investigation motivated me to hold my nose and pull the R handle on every candidate in my state election last year.
JP
If you mean the Mueller report, that was an entirely Republican inspired affair carried out under Republican leadership (Mueller, Rosenstein, Trump).
I'm not sure anyone from msnbc would even say that.
It is a fact. Who hired Rosenstein? Who appointed Mueller? All Republicans beginning with the president.
-
Yes, all three are registered Republicans...Admin for the win! ;D ;D ;D
-
....a nd do was Comey
-
if trumps says it, fact check it immediately--before you even consider the meaning, let alone share the message with anyone (lest you make a fool of yourself for believing/disseminating fallacy)----because so much of what Trump says is mischaracterization, or bald lying
-
if trumps says it, fact check it immediately--before you even consider the meaning, let alone share the message with anyone (lest you make a fool of yourself for believing/disseminating
Not just Trump. In journalism, they say “If your mother says she loves you, check it out”. If you’ve ever been present at an event that was reported in the media and compared their version with what you saw, you’ve seen huge differences.
-
trump lies and mischaracterizes continually and recklessly--
media??--some is crap--fox breitbart etc--but national review, wash post, ny times wsj, npr--these are credible entities that consider good fact checking critical to their reporting, and their brand--and they lean both ways politically, but they value facts and accurate reporting
trump tries to stir up hate for the media because his lying act is so often reported by those who deal in fact, like the media properties i mention above
fake news and fakery in general is the wheelhouse of trump and his people--that the trumpians claim "fake news" any time any entity calls them on the constant lying has become a bit of a bore to any who actually consume decent media--dont get sucked into that..........
woe be unto any who quote trump--they will likely look dumb when confronted with fact--quote the wsj, natioanl review, ny times? youll generally be just fine with your facts
-
....a nd do was Comey
...and Jeff Sessions. The whole group has been Republican. If you didn't like these investigations the logical choice would be vote Democrat.
-
....a nd do was Comey
...and Jeff Sessions. The whole group has been Republican. If you didn't like these investigations the logical choice would be vote Democrat.
Sometimes I forget that Trump just woke up one morning and decided to investigate himself.
I'm done with beating my head against the wall.
-
He didn't decide to investigate himself. He tried everything he could to prevent it. He just couldn't find anyone to appoint that was corrupt enough not to initiate the investigation.
-
....a nd do was Comey
...and Jeff Sessions. The whole group has been Republican. If you didn't like these investigations the logical choice would be vote Democrat.
Sometimes I forget that Trump just woke up one morning and decided to investigate himself.
I'm done with beating my head against the wall.
Try reading Fear: Trump in the White House by Bob Woodward. Trump is regarded as too corrupt, erratic and ill-informed to be entrusted with the safety of the US, by even his own people.
https://www.amazon.com/Fear-Trump-White-Bob-Woodward/dp/1501175513
There was a case to answer: That’s why he was investigated. It was an example of your democratic system working very properly, as part of the necessary checks and balances to try to ensure that you don’t end up with some mad dictator as POTUS. You should be celebrating that you live in a country where that can happen. If Trump was given free rein, you wouldn’t be.
-
media??--some is crap--fox breitbart etc--but national review, wash post, ny times wsj, npr--these are credible entities that consider good fact checking critical to their reporting, and their brand--and they lean both ways politically, but they value facts and accurate reporting
Don't be so sure, media slant is automatic, even from sources that do attempt to be factual. But as far as the nature of the Mueller investigation goes, the facts are readily available--it certainly was a Republican investigation. Trump had to fire a raft of republicans he appointed, and get the the bottom of the barrel (Barr) to finally force it to a close.
As a lifelong Republican (50+ years) I consider it a little glimmer of responsibility and integrity from a party that has otherwise disappointed me greatly.
-
Here's one of several similar charts about media bias:
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Media-Bias-Chart_4.0_8_28_2018-min.jpg (https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Media-Bias-Chart_4.0_8_28_2018-min.jpg)
This one has left-to-right bias left to right, and false-to-factual bottom to top. Always the possibility it's biased itself.
-
cool chart, tho, as you say, the chartmakers themselves risk being biased
placements are consistent with what id expect, tho with some interesting surprises
a good add to the chart would be the nielson ratings or some measure of extent of consumption---like FOX is likely the most heavily consumed by far, among all the fact=challenged--whereas the mainstream, more centrist media, that is also heavily consumed is way less fact-challenged---kinda validates what ive been saying
-
Were I compiling an infographic there would be two factors.
1. Do you know the political leanings of the anchors/writers? If so, to what degree does that color the content?
2. How well are the opposing views represented?
I watch CNN (among others) and there is no way that they can be viewed as Neutral or in any part Neutral. It is very us vs them. I am part of the us but I still dislike that fact.
-
whatever the case, cnn is way less fact-challenged than fox
-
whatever the case, cnn is way less fact-challenged than fox
I agree with that. But they are in no part neutral.
-
There will always be bias - even if it is only in what events are covered, rather than how. That is an error of omission. But the real worry are the errors of commission made by some (mostly newer) outlets, especially digital media, where there seems to be little or no penalty for spreading falsehoods. I imagine that in time, each democracy will have to develop codes of conduct for *all* media outlets that are backed by serious financial, and perhaps criminal, penalties for knowingly passing on information that is untrue. If the members in a democracy do not have a common fact base to refer to, or can’t believe anything they hear or read, it will fundamentally undermine that democracy.
This recognition is probably what is behind Russia’s recent mooted changes to their internet system, as they anticipate a retaliation from the West for their interferences in the democratic process. In this way, this is going to be more a matter of defence and security rather than politics.
-
Remember the fairness doctrine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
-
whatever the case, cnn is way less fact-challenged than fox
I agree with that. But they are in no part neutral.
agree cnn and all news sources lean, but they dont lie and stretch the truth to anywhere near the extent of FOX, in support of their leanings
and breitbart?? these sources feed their garbage to millions of americans
daily kos? might have a couple thousand daily readers
whatever the case, excellent chart
-
"I watch CNN (among others) and there is no way that they can be viewed as Neutral or in any part Neutral. It is very us vs them. I am part of the us but I still dislike that fact."
They've got you--and millions of others--duped, Admin.
CNN is "us vs them, but the "us" is the establishment/ruling elite and "them" is the rest of the population.
And until the majority of people start viewing candidates, policies and elections in terms of the establishment vs the people,
as opposed of Dem vs Repub, power will remain in the hands of corporations and the 1% instead of the people, where it belongs.
Just one example of how CNN (and all msm) is on the side of the ruling class: why do you think Biden is promoted so heavily over Bernie?
And why was Bernie so ignored in 2016?
-
Just one example of how CNN (and all msm) is on the side of the ruling class: why do you think Biden is promoted so heavily over Bernie?
And why was Bernie so ignored in 2016?
Biden was polling well ahead of Bernie before he ever announced. There was surprisingly little positive coverage (or coverage at all) of Biden before he announced. More hair sniffing stuff than anything else. It would be a huge stretch to say that Biden's support is Media based. Biden's support is very simply Trump based.
-
and biden over bernie? so be it--but cnn makes legit effort to make its case with checked facts, not lies---therein lies the difference
-
Media has always been biased, but by the measure of 30 years ago (which wasn't perfect by any means, look at any analysis of media coverage of the Vietnam war), CNN and a host of the "factual but biased" sources are lying liars.
News isn't news. It's news stories (or maybe now it's news narratives to make it sound important) which means it's tailored to appeal to an audience. The reason Eastbound considers CNN to be different from Brietbart is that he is their audience. I don't believe he digests everything they spew without reservation, but neither do the whacks that consume Brietbart or spend time on Infowars.
There is no audience for straight news other than as fodder for media outlets. The job of media is to sell an audience to advertisers, and these days, at the extreme, to confirm the biases of an audience and motivate them politically. All the rest of the measures are fluff designed to separate one audience from another. The infographic is useful to see where the media is positioned, but anyone listening to NPR expecting to get straight news is delusional.
-
Media has always been biased, but by the measure of 30 years ago (which wasn't perfect by any means, look at any analysis of media coverage of the Vietnam war), CNN and a host of the "factual but biased" sources are lying liars.
News isn't news. It's news stories (or maybe now it's news narratives to make it sound important) which means it's tailored to appeal to an audience. The reason Eastbound considers CNN to be different from Brietbart is that he is their audience. I don't believe he digests everything they spew without reservation, but neither do the whacks that consume Brietbart or spend time on Infowars.
There is no audience for straight news other than as fodder for media outlets. The job of media is to sell an audience to advertisers, and these days, at the extreme, to confirm the biases of an audience and motivate them politically. All the rest of the measures are fluff designed to separate one audience from another. The infographic is useful to see where the media is positioned, but anyone listening to NPR expecting to get straight news is delusional.
I think most of the mainstream news is fairly accurate about who was where, what they did and what they said. It's the twists on it to assign intent; the choice of verbiage, especially in the headline; whether they fact check; how they choose to cherry pick the quotes; etc, etc, etc. With hard news like shootings, where it happened, how many people were killed and/or injured, whether the suspect is in custody, killed or at large are generally accurate everywhere, except maybe during the incident. But the motivations,implications of what might have been done, who was a hero, whether hateful rhetoric stoked it, etc, is going to vary. There are some outright fabrications, but most of the bias I say is drawing conclusions and presenting it like it is one more fact.
-
and biden over bernie?
Are you seeing this from the media? I am not. I am seeing a greater coverage of even the candidates with much lower polling #'s. Pete, Harris, Warren, Klobuchar. The problem is that the salacious stories or anything with a hint of conflict gets undue airtime. It is ratings first and that allows a huge opening for the Trumps of the world who are more than happy to provide.
-
poor phrasing by me admin--i meant that, whatever the case bernie vs biden, cnn attempts to traffic in fact, where fox breitbart clearly dont hew to fact comparably--at least acc to the chart----and ive been behind on news of recent
i do worry about hunter's overseas "work"---the hair sniffing seems to have faded, but this may get legs
honestly, warren is the cleanest candidate out there---but for the Pocahontas routine, which i think is much ado about nothing--but it's stuck to her
-
MSM is owned and operated by the ruling class, so the narrative we are fed is one that protects their power.
Of course they are going to portray Biden more favorably than Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard.
"Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive". J Dore
Try looking at things from that perspective for a bit, see if it doesn't shed light on the msm narrative.
-
Wow, I thought we were in a bad state politically, in the UK. But I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that you guys are totally screwed. You all want change, and you apparently want it badly. But at the same time you are unwilling to consider anything that represents actual change.
I wonder if this represents some kind of political dependency, like a drug dependency: you know that unless you change course, the place you are ultimately headed is disaster. But you are so hooked into your beliefs about ultra-capitalism, and doing what you’ve always done, that you just can’t see a different life for yourselves, or find a way to break your habitual ways of thinking. This is occurring even when on an almost daily basis some very erudite observations are appearing here - on a Standup paddle forum (!!!) - which suggest that there may be many better ways forward.
As a total outsider, and with no dog in this fight, it seems to me that Warren is a hugely impressive individual, and she appears to be a mature adult rather than the kidult you currently have. She also has the key leadership quality of not being afraid to say what she wants to do, and how. Warren may be not so warm and fuzzy as some. But then neither is the orange narcissist. I could imagine Warren really leading on the world stage, and promoting US interests globally (and therefore at home) in a way that Trump is incapable of doing.
https://youtu.be/vs5y9YbPjJE
-
MSM is owned and operated by the ruling class, so the narrative we are fed is one that protects their power.
Of course they are going to portray Biden more favorably than Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard.
"Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive". J Dore
Try looking at things from that perspective for a bit, see if it doesn't shed light on the msm narrative.
Most Democrats do not think they would win with a progressive (assuming that you mean those holding the Dem socialist branding or those leaning towards that). Moreover most genuinely do not want that. There was a recent poll that showed that 87 percent of the left considered themselves centrist left.
-
As a total outsider, and with no dog in this fight, it seems to me that Warren is a hugely impressive individual, and she appears to be a mature adult rather than the kidult you currently have. She also has the key leadership quality of not being afraid to say what she wants to do, and how. Warren may be not so warm and fuzzy as some. But then neither is the orange narcissist. I could imagine Warren really leading on the world stage, and promoting US interests globally (and therefore at home) in a way that Trump is incapable of doing.
I like Warren. She is like Bernie only with less anger and better explanations. Unfortunately those explanations make a lot of people's eyes glaze over, especially when she resorts to using liberal tools like facts and math. I don't see her swaying blue collar voters in large numbers or doing well debating Trump. It's an unfortunate reality in the US that it takes more than just better ideas to win elections.
BTW, I think the rest of the world does have a dog in the fight.
EDIT - I wish we had more parties that were truly in the mix like most of the world. IMO, the reason Bernie, Warren and Kamala are DEMs is because if they were Green Party, which is more closely aligned with their platforms, they would never get elected.
-
I like Warren. She is like Bernie only with less anger and better explanations.
Warren is basically for free everything. Plus a wealth tax (not just a high income tax but also grabbing existing wealth). That is way too far for me. I would like to see single payer get done. We can do that with a centrist.
-
This has been a fascinating topic! At first I didn’t pay attention I thought the topic was eye sight but I caught up and I’ve learned a lot and have gained a lot of respect for the amount of information/knowledge several of you have to contribute. I do follow news and have my views but have refrained from participating cause I feel I just don’t have enough info to keep up with you guys/gals(if there are any). Alls I’ll say is I do NOT vote republican and leave it at that. Thanks all!
-
Wow, I thought we were in a bad state politically, in the UK. But I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that you guys are totally screwed. You all want change, and you apparently want it badly. But at the same time you are unwilling to consider anything that represents actual change.
From what you've been writing, seems to me that you had already came to that conclusion a couple of years ago.
Also we definitely got political change in 2016, however we probably won't get any change in 2020.
-
I heard Liz is offering free boards and foils and as of today a windfoil as well. My only question is do we get to pick colors?
-
I like Warren. She is like Bernie only with less anger and better explanations.
Warren is basically for free everything. Plus a wealth tax (not just a high income tax but also grabbing existing wealth). That is way too far for me. I would like to see single payer get done. We can do that with a centrist.
Finally something we an agree on ;D Liz is sounding desperate with all the giveaway's.
As someone who is 10x more native American than her, and still not enough to check the box, I consider her to be lacking character. (not that that matters anymore)
JP
-
I like Warren. She is like Bernie only with less anger and better explanations.
Warren is basically for free everything. Plus a wealth tax (not just a high income tax but also grabbing existing wealth). That is way too far for me. I would like to see single payer get done. We can do that with a centrist.
Finally something we an agree on ;D Liz is sounding desperate with all the giveaway's.
As someone who is 10x more native American than her, and still not enough to check the box, I consider her to be lacking character. (not that that matters anymore)
JP
I think the Native American ancestry thing is a bit overblown. There was never a substantial benefit proffered to her for checking that box. She grew up hearing that she had NA ancestry and she checked the box filling out forms. She should have looked into it further and done an "oops - my bad" when it first came up.
I also think the "free everything" is more than a little bit overblown. Education and health care costs are two of the biggest barriers to intergenerational mobility; countries that have policies to give equal access to education and health care have much higher rates of mobility. A very strong case exists for removing the barriers. Our failure to address barriers to intergenerational mobility in the past is the basis for considering reparations this far into the future. No, we haven't made it impossible for anyone to rise up, but we have made it a hell of a lot harder for some groups than others.
The wealth tax is a non starter. Taxing money when it changes hands is the only politically palatable option.
Having said all that, I don't think she is electable. Too much attack surface and too far into details that most voters don't want to hear even if they understand them. I don't think she will fare well in debates when you have to speak in sound bites with no long explanations. I don't see her winning back much of the blue collar vote that HRC lost to Trump. Biden is more centrist than I want and is literally "old guard" but I think he can win back those blue collar voters and beat Trump.
-
I like Warren. She is like Bernie only with less anger and better explanations.
Warren is basically for free everything. Plus a wealth tax (not just a high income tax but also grabbing existing wealth). That is way too far for me. I would like to see single payer get done. We can do that with a centrist.
Finally something we an agree on ;D Liz is sounding desperate with all the giveaway's.
:). I bet there is a quite a bit.
I am not for debt forgiveness, free day care, reparations, free higher ed in its current form (although I would be for zero interest college loans and I do think there could be some amazing things done that with higher that could be free), etc.
But...I would still vote for any Dem to get rid of Trump.
-
Yup. I don't "believe" in capitalism and the free market, I THINK it's the best system we've come up with to suit the self interest of humanity, but it has a lot of flaws and needs careful management to avoid destruction of the society and infrastructure that supports and enables it to thrive. One way or another a lot of that management has to come under the control of government--local, state or federal--and that always means waste, inefficiency and corruption on a rapidly increasing scale as control moves towards the feds. It's inevitable, the opportunities are always present, just like market opportunities and evolutionary niches. And the opportunities will be seized.
It's a delicate balance, and bomb-throwers like Trump cause immense harm along with the small amount of good they might do. People counting the current administration as effective because of some blips in economic measure that no rational human would attribute to a single individual or a government policy simply astonish me.
I too will vote for any carbon-based lifeform that removes that creature from office. And then we'll have to deal with the fact that some idiot thinks they have a mandate when really any electable idiot would do.
-
Trump tweet from this morning:
"For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA of 25% on 50 Billion Dollars of High Tech, and 10% on 200 Billion Dollars of other goods. These payments are partially responsible for our great economic results. The 10% will go up to 25% on Friday. 325 Billions Dollars of additional goods sent to us by China remain untaxed, but will be shortly, at a rate of 25%. The Tariffs paid to the USA have had little impact on product cost, mostly borne by China. The Trade Deal with China continues, but too slowly, as they attempt to renegotiate. No!"
China pays nothing, of course. Just another trump lie. This is a straight tax on US business.
-
Wow, I thought we were in a bad state politically, in the UK. But I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that you guys are totally screwed. You all want change, and you apparently want it badly. But at the same time you are unwilling to consider anything that represents actual change.
From what you've been writing, seems to me that you had already came to that conclusion a couple of years ago.
Also we definitely got political change in 2016, however we probably won't get any change in 2020.
You got change? What changed? You just got a version of the same, but with bells on. If Trump has done anything, it is just to try to undo what Obama did, and take you back, not forward. A vote for Trump is a vote for the status quo. His genius has been in convincing his supporters that he is something other than another money-grabbing corrupt super-rich white guy who couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the average Joe. I mean, why should he?
-
Trump tweet from this morning:
"For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA of 25% on 50 Billion Dollars of High Tech, and 10% on 200 Billion Dollars of other goods. These payments are partially responsible for our great economic results. The 10% will go up to 25% on Friday. 325 Billions Dollars of additional goods sent to us by China remain untaxed, but will be shortly, at a rate of 25%. The Tariffs paid to the USA have had little impact on product cost, mostly borne by China. The Trade Deal with China continues, but too slowly, as they attempt to renegotiate. No!"
China pays nothing, of course. Just another trump lie. This is a straight tax on US business.
Price disparity is so bad that even with the tariff and shipping, goods from China are still usually cheaper than domestic suppliers, so the businesses really don't have a choice. I don't expect them to just eat that cost; it's going to be passed on to US consumers.
Another aspect of the tariff is the push back on US agricultural goods. With the market drying up with China going elsewhere, we are having to subsidize the farmers, adding the deficit, which increases the debt. The largest foreign holder of US debt is China. So in essence we are borrowing money from China to help pay for what it is costing to implement a tariff on imports from China.
So much winning...
-
Wow, I thought we were in a bad state politically, in the UK. But I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that you guys are totally screwed. You all want change, and you apparently want it badly. But at the same time you are unwilling to consider anything that represents actual change.
From what you've been writing, seems to me that you had already came to that conclusion a couple of years ago.
Also we definitely got political change in 2016, however we probably won't get any change in 2020.
You got change? What changed? You just got a version of the same, but with bells on. If Trump has done anything, it is just to try to undo what Obama did, and take you back, not forward. A vote for Trump is a vote for the status quo. His genius has been in convincing his supporters that he is something other than another money-grabbing corrupt super-rich white guy who couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the average Joe. I mean, why should he?
Alrightythen, it appears that you were no more impressed with the Obama administration than you are with the Trump administration.
Aren't you glad that you don't live here.
This website is probably as close to the U.S. as you are willing to go.
-
Weasel - on the contrary, I work very closely with US colleagues, and visit quite regularly. Indeed, at one time I considered working and living in the US. My view is that the US is a really magnificent country, and I am extremely pleased that it is the US that has been the world’s predominant superpower for decades. But that is also why now I mourn you not having a leader who can reach out beyond his own narrow supporter-base.
My own view was that Obama was a well-intentioned, honest and decent man who was substantially hobbled at home, by his opponents, in terms of what he could achieve for the common man. Like many politicians, I’m sure things didn’t necessarily turn out the way he wanted, but I think his motives were largely decent and honest, unlike Trump. Obama was a very well-respected figure on the world stage, and increased the international power and influence of the US significantly because of that.
Whereas Trump must be the most widely derided president that the US has ever had, unfortunately. He is isolating the US on the world stage, and thus decreasing US international influence. Indeed, he is encouraging other countries to form their own alliances independent from the US. This will in fact now be necessary to tackle such big issues as climate change, where Trump has taken a position so far from any kind of common sense that no-one outside the US is listening to him. That’s a great shame IMO, both for the US and the rest of the world.