Total posts: 2,799
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
It really does sound like we're on the same page about transparency being essential to this, but that's why I'm so confounded by your response. The lack of transparency inherent to this addition is just staggering. That's one thing the Democrats aren't guilty of in this case; at least they listed their pet projects, however ridiculous they might be. I completely agree that the Democrats did wrong here, but recall that it was your statement about how terribly the Democrats were doing that started this discussion. For the record, I think both sides have a lot of reason to pursue legislation that rights the economy at this point, though some may believe that the Democrats want to use this as some kind of leverage for the election. In that regard, I'd trust both sides to at least believe that what they're doing is to bring the economy back in order. I don't think that makes either party good decision-makers in this regard, especially given that this is largely uncharted territory. Maybe Trump would have used that money correctly. Maybe he wouldn't. It's entirely possible that, despite oversight and restrictions, they will still fail to use it correctly. I'm hopeful, but these are dark times, and much as I would have liked something passed as soon as possible, I feel like a better bill is necessary when you're dealing in this much money. We can't afford to make huge mistakes at this point just because we want to rush something through.
I feel like we are mostly in agreement based on this. My point was that Democrat additions made the bill impossible to salvage- many things they added were non-starters and needed to be taken out before negotiations could even start. Republicans offered a bill that likely couldn't be passed, but it was very close to what we needed, as we saw with its passage.
I'm arguing that having more troops on the border is part of the benefit that Israel has over us in this regard due to their draft. I'm also arguing that simply having more troops serves as a deterrence.
I don't think that simply having troops deters illegal immigration if they are not being used for this purpose. If America had 100 million soldiers, it wouldn't deter illegal immigration if we only had 1,000 of them on the border. Now I looked it up, and this says that Israel has roughly 6,000 border guards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Border_Police Even if we assume that they are all on that 150 mile stretch, that is still only 40 troops per mile. I showed that based on reserves and border patrol agents, we can afford to have 154 per mile. So, the fact that they have more troops doesn't have any meaning because they are in no way related to the prevention of immigration.
A year ago, I might have agreed with you that the financial issue is less important. Now, I'm not so sure.We may simply disagree about the importance of maintaining ecosystems. You might think that it's the bleeding heart liberal in me that sees them as important, but it's actually the scientist. I know what disrupting ecosystems does to a region, and the effects can be wide-reaching very easily. If you want, we can get into them, though my impression is that you perceive them as less important than the potential benefits to economic and national security.
I don't think you're being a bleeding heart liberal for the ecosystems. I do believe that if construction would have vast negative effects, that may be something that has to be worked around. I could be talking out of my rear end, but desert ecosystems in particular seem less important than other types like marshlands. I don't think that killing cacti is something that is likely worth risking security for, but it might be.
Agreed that there's a lot involved in how commerce would proceed with a wall in place and that we can't get into specifics without experts on the topic. That being said, I'm not convinced anyone really "knows" how this would go down, and I suspect our efforts to encourage commerce across the border after the wall is built will face a number of problems, especially if we're prioritizing national security in our efforts. To me, that uncertainty is among the biggest problems I have with such a wide-reaching project. It should be one of the first things we consider, yet I haven't seen much evidence that it is being considered.
I am not really certain how much consideration is being given to the commerce aspect on the government-end. I believe Trump likely isn't doing a lot of thinking in that regard simply because this was one of his biggest campaign promises, and it is something that really has to be accomplished, even if it means brushing over some of these considerations. I think that a wall is necessary and that it has potential to be very beneficial. That doesn't necessarily mean that I trust this administration or any other administration to do it faultlessly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
MSM immoral handling of reporting:
The Guardian
Title:
Arizona man dies after attempting to take Trump coronavirus 'cure' https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/24/coronavirus-cure-kills-man-after-trump-touts-chloroquine-phosphate
The article states that he took fish tank cleaner chloroquine phosphate, not the drug that Trump was talking about. Based on the headline, it looks like they are saying he died for doing what Trump actually said.
Furthermore, he didn't say it actually was a cure, nor did he say people should self-medicate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Realistically, we're not going to deploy every member of our military to the US border, but I think you're missing my point. There's a deterrent effect just from having so many members of the military per such a small population that the US simply cannot hope to match. The effect is seen regardless of whether the wall exists, hence my point about proportions. That is not an effect the US can hope to match.
So just to clear up your point, you are arguing that having a large military force per capita is what will deter the illegal immigration, not having troops patrolling the border?
$150,000,000 is a baseline cost. It's the cost for upkeep if and only if the type of wall we build is functionally the same across the board and there are no additional costs. I don't view it as pocket change, but I guess that's just a difference of opinion. It's true that the government spends a lot more in other places, though I don't think that minimizes the importance of those finances.
Finances are incredibly important, but we overspend in a lot of different sectors and that money can be carved out or added through additional taxes quite easily.
The issue is that dealing with terrain like floodplains and riverbanks will inherently be more difficult, time consuming and expensive than it is elsewhere. It's not just a financial cost, though, as this also disrupts ecosystems in the area. Those can't be solved by throwing money at the problem.
I don't necessarily know that an ecosystem simply existing makes it important. If its destruction would have wide-reaching negative effects, then I could see where you are coming from on this. However, that also needs to be weighed against the economic and national security issues related to illegal immigration.
I suppose legal commerce could persist in one form or another. Then come the questions: where will these "ports of entry" be placed? How many will there be? What kind of traffic will be allowed? Who will decide these factors and will the people on these borders to be able to influence those choices? It's possible that all of this will be decided in a way that affords most people access to the same commerce, but I have my doubts.
This would extend beyond the view of the discussion. I could look up specific roads and where most commerce occurs, but that would take hours and would serve little purpose. It would have to be left up to the experts and politicians to weigh those costs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I would argue that at the worst, a $500 billion dollar "slush fund" would have less terrible effects than the dozens of random, unrelated laws included in the bill. Economic effects aren't the only consideration in this bill now. When you completely alter the voting process and push unprecedented collective bargaining laws into place, you are going to reap much more drastic impacts to the overall economy and future of the country.
Now, the reason why I am not entirely pessimistic about the $500 billion is that Trump's main shtick has been bragging about how well the economy is doing. So, they are under a lot of pressure to wisely use that money to actually help the economy get back on track so that he can continue to tout his economic savvy for the election in less than a year. He needs the economy to do well. Would some of it be used corruptly? There is a decent chance, yes, and I oppose that. In fact I support amendments to improve transparency because I strongly support government transparency.
Don't know how much is left to discuss on this matter. Neither of us like what Republicans and Democrats did. There isn't really much to gain by pointing the finger more at one side than the other. I think a ridiculous 1100+ page bill with dozens of insane and unrelated additions is worse compared to one, potentially quite bad amendment that just needs a touch-up to be palatable. That is how I see it: which bill will more quickly bring aid to Americans? I would argue the one that at least semi-coherently attempts to remedy the issues at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
First off, it's not just about staffing the border. Israel has a far greater number of troops per its size, as well as a greater capacity to staff its borders. I agree that there are limits to their effectiveness in the latter capacity (though we probably would not agree on the numbers you're using), though not in the former, so even if we mobilized every person in the military reserves, I don't think it's possible to match or even come close to Israel's deterrence resulting from sheer force of numbers.
We don't disagree that Israel has the ability to have a more strongly staffed border. However, they aren't employing every troop of theirs to that area, obviously, and they have no need to. If we use all army reserves and border patrol agents for the 2,000 mile border, we could have 154 individuals per mile. Let us say you just line these people up to make a human wall..... If you are saying that having one person per 34.29 feet isn't enough, then I don't know what is.
Based on : 288,725 army reserve and 19,437 border patrol agents.
While it may not be very fiscally conservative of me to say so... $150,000,000 per year, when we are throwing trillions into the stock market via repo agreements like it is nothing, is really pocket change for the federal government.
I'll have to agree with GreyParrot regarding the wall falling over. I am not unaccustomed to seeing government incompetence. But I hardly see how giving up and having de facto open borders by not securing the border would be a better option. All in all, the government could stand to do a much better job.
I didn't really get the point of The Monitor article. It just said Trump allocated $1.6 billion to the wall and that CBP is asking opinions and getting rights of entry to the Hidalgo area.
Legal commerce doesn't have to be entirely ended. The administration can add ports of entry in economic hot spots. As for "any harm to the surrounding environment or dramatically increase costs." I'd have to see specific cost estimates related to ecologically-sound wall construction to make a judgement on that.
Fourth, I'd like to see you point out what laws among those in our immigration statutes address the same issues as the legal responses from Israel, though that's really besides the point. If those legal avenues alone have been effective, then why would a wall be more effective? That's what I was getting at here. You're the one saying that it's "an indispensable part" of any effort, so for me, the fundamental question is: why are other measures insufficient, and how would a wall bolster them further? I'm not seeing much in the way of response to that.
But the fact is Israel didn't merely pursue the legal avenues. They built a wall, manned the wall, added sensors/other electronics to it, and they passed new laws to address illegal immigration. That is exactly what I want. We need all of those. A wall is a physical obstruction to entry. It slows down and deters potential entrants. When these individuals are slowed down, it gives agents more time to react and apprehend these illegal immigrants.
According to commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Mark Morgan, El Paso has seen an 80% decrease in apprehensions since the new wall has been erected there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
They are "mostly blameless", though. Not completely blameless, as it was sneaky and it wasn't a good idea. But I don't understand why you don't agree that adding provisions that have absolutely nothing in any way, shape, or form to do with helping alleviate the economic issues Americans are facing, such as ridiculous voter ID law changes, is much worse than a sketchy, yet completely relevant and necessary portion of the bill. That part has nothing to do with bias. That is just an objective fact. My bias makes me care a little less about their $500 billion addition, but if Republicans put oil tax credits in the bill, I would be pissed about that as well. The additions from the Democrats weren't bi-partisan, they showed no intention of having the bill passed, and they were completely politically-driven hogwash.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, my thoughts were that they were trying to make an unpassable bill mainly blame Republicans for being heartless/not responding to the disaster, etc. They got smashed for not passing the bill initially, so they are playing a game of hot potato with bad bills to try to get the American public to demonize the other side. Typical partisan bull$h1t that pisses me off. Bills should really only address like 1-3 issues at a time to prevent this stupid porkbarreling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Obviously my bias will affect my judgement of this a bit. I would have a bigger problem with unaccountable Democrat spending than Republican spending because I know that Republicans have a similar perspective on how to resolve this issue. That being said, I still didn't say that I thought it was a good thing that they were trying to have non-transparent flows of money. That still was an issue. My point was that this was something easy to rectify. It just needed a few provisions to fix it. What Democrats were adding, however, had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis at hand and weren't fixable. That is why, even though the dollar amount was smaller, I still had a much bigger issue with what Democrats did to the bill.
Update: the new bill has provisions for $25 million to the Kennedy center and $75 million for public broadcasting for some strange reason. Also $75,000,000 for National Endowment for the Humanities
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
- They have compulsory military service, ensuring that they can effectively guard much of that wall
They might be able to afford a higher density based on troops to area. However, I don't believe the source prescribes a particular amount of troops per mile of fence. So, while they could technically have (615,000 reserve and active duty/150) 4,100 troops/mile, I know they don't do that and that they have no need to. If, let's say, it is wise to have one troop per 1/16 of a mile, we would need (16*2000) 32,000 troops/border patrol agents, which we could easily afford based on military reserves alone.
- They have a much shorter border to guard, ensuring that they can effectively upkeep the wall. From your source:
While yes, they have a shorter border, our GDP is over 55x the size of Israel's, while our border is only a little over 13x larger, so having the resources to maintain such a wall isn't too worrisome.
- The terrain on which these walls have been/are being built is very different. From your source:
True, it will be harder to construct a wall on our border, but it is by no means impossible.
- The legal response has been different, and it has been much better correlated with Israel's success. From your source:B) Stating that simply having the border wall would be enough is problematic in its own right. The very article you cite talks about what border security measures are actually the most effective, many of which we use right now:
Trump has actually been enforcing laws that have already been on the books regarding immigration enforcement. Further implementation of stricter laws, which could easily occur if Republicans win the next election, could contribute to more legal ramifications/deterrents for illegal immigration. However, I don't believe I have said, or if I did, I had no intention to say, that a border wall is some panacea for illegal immigration. It is merely an indispensable part of what would have to be a multi-faceted approach of adding troops, altering laws, and providing more technology to help detect illegal immigrants, etc.
On a side note, I would say Democrats are adding many obstacles to discouraging illegal immigration, as they have said they will provide "free" healthcare to illegal immigrants, stop deportations (in the case of Biden, supposedly just the first 100 days), and proposing other laws that would be much more lenient on illegal immigrants. But, they can be ignored because the wall wouldn't even be completed if they were elected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Relief to businesses is fine. I don't mind providing that relief in the slightest. That being said, I don't think it validates any attempts to essentially grant the president personal and exclusive access to $500 billion, which, no, was not part of those bipartisan negotiations. I have a lot of problems with the fact that this is taking so long, but it's the result of both parties - not just the Democrats - trying to net some major gains out of a bill that should be functioning exclusively for the benefit of a country that is hurting terribly. I'd say this is equally stupid of the Republicans. Neither side should be putting something into this bill that is flagrantly a ploy for the benefit of their base, yet both sides are doing that. The only reason you're not calling out the Republicans for doing the same is that they haven't clearly labeled it the same way that the Democrats have.
I'm not trying to entirely vindicate Republicans here. I do believe that they are mostly blameless and that Democrats are very much to blame. There is a $500 billion dollar fund that is supposed to be used to help businesses. That is something that, while imperfect, can be worked with to make it tenable. It can require more transparency or make limitations on some business actions once loans are received. What isn't tenable would be adding solar and wind tax credits to the bill, same-day voter registration, no ID for voting, $300 million for refugees, board diversity, minority bank and loan provisions, etc.
So I reject the idea that Republicans are being anywhere near as unreasonable as Democrats and that this stalling will result in a better result than simply passing the original bill.
This might be a bit dated, because I think it just got passed or will soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I don’t think their bill was perfect or even close to that. But this relief to businesses and Americans is needed immediately. The bill was part of a bipartisan negotiation and was sunk at the last second. Now, instead of merely negotiating more in terms of stock buyback regulations and worker protections, which I’d support and I’m sure most Republicans in Congress would, they had to make an 1100+ page bill of unrelated, stupid issues.
So while again the first bill was by no means perfect, when there is a crisis at hand, you don’t really have time to make a perfect bill. I’d have been more in favor of them passing the first bill than just d*cking around as the situation continues to grow worse.
All in all, really stupid political move on the part of the Democrats. If they truly cared about long-term helping people through their policies, they would suck it up and pass it. Now that they get these terrible optics, they are all but guaranteeing a loss in November.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I prefer offering jobs rather than handouts. If the welfare class is eliminated, Democrats lose their base
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Republicans are offering emergency UBI for the poor to help them pay for expenses. Democrats have blocked it twice now to try to push a bill with a $15 minimum wage, solar and wind tax credits, adding $300 million for refugee assistance, no voter ID required, and a bunch of other pork barrel bull $h1t they know won’t get passed just to make Republicans look bad for not passing a bill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Not “supporting” McCarthy. I’m saying that given the situation the US was experiencing at the time, it is understandable why he did what he did. Espionage was a huge issue, and he did was he could to defend his government and country. He was way too overzealous in doing so, and I don’t like a lot of what he did.
Trump instituted a travel ban one day after the WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Pretty timely.
Should he have done more testing a bit quicker? Probably. But I don’t understand why we are freaking out and closing society down because of some weird flu-like virus that really only hurts the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. If you could explain why this is worse than H1N1, for which we didn’t close down our entire economy, perhaps I’m ignorant of a fact or two about its deadliness or something to that effect.
Anyways, I’m still not convinced Republicans, freer of slaves, are worse than Jim Crowe Democrats :/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
How is Japanese internment and Jim Crowe less horrible than Iran-Contra and Watergate???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It’s cheaper that way. And here I thought you were fiscally conservative..... Smh
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I’m not asking about if it is possible. I’m asking how you would feel if one country sent a large number of people to your country and completely ignored the will of the majority of the people there. Would you or would you not like that and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Can't all the states in America become part of Kentucky?
Lmao. +1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
How would you feel if China shipped over 325 million Chinese people to make the US a territory of China? Would you like that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
”. If you have evidence that physical barriers have worked/will work, I'd like to see it.“
One word: Israel. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/feb/13/ron-johnson/border-fence-israel-cut-illegal-immigration-99-per/
They cut terrorism and illegal immigration enormously.
I am packing up to head home tomorrow, so I will get to the others when I get the time. That was just a quick one for me to answer
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
They were caught crossing the border, yes, but to insinuate that they were the only ones who attempted would be quite optimistic, but I don’t believe you think that is the case. Better physical barriers make it easier to block illegal immigrants from entering the country. If you cannot control who comes into your country, it is very difficult to have a successful quarantine. These immigrants know that our hospitals won’t refuse them care, so that creates a huge incentive for individuals, especially sick ones, to attempt to enter the country to receive treatment.
These illegal immigrants don’t know our quarantine procedures, so they pose a large health risk for either spreading it themselves or contracting it from citizens. So, I would argue that they could have an appreciable effect on spreading the virus. I think we certainly should have set up travel restrictions much sooner, as well. If you can prevent sick people from entering the country, you can pretty effectively combat a pandemic. We probably should have begun disease testing much sooner as well.
That all being said, this virus doesn’t appear to be very serious to me. The death rate, except for the very old with preexisting health conditions, is incredibly low. Really, only those individuals and those working in close proximity with them should be quarantined. Unless something is being hidden from us, this is just media-induced, irrational panic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I ask the question because I would like to know how you reached that conclusion.
Joe McCarthy jailed communists. Communist espionage was a very big threat back then, so his efforts weren’t misguided. Yes, unfortunately, some innocent people were jailed.
Goldwater was decent.
Watergate really wasn’t that big of a thing. Some rogue agents wire tapped the Democrat building, even though Nixon was set to win in a landslide regardless. Didn’t really change history or much at all for that matter. I would say the JFK wiretapping MLK’s phones was just as bad if not a worse offense.
Iran–Contra was selling guns and supporting anti-socialist rebels. Not too bad.
I’d say Trump treats women better than Billy boy Clinton. ;)
I’d also say that we treat unborn, defenseless children, especially unborn children of color, a lot better than you guys.
I am very young to answer your list of why I believe Republicans are better. I could also come up with a list of bad things Democrats have done. How far can I go back? Genocidal Andrew Jackson? Jim-Crowe? Japanese internment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
And why do you believe that, on average, Republicans are morally inferior to Democrats?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
So is that a ‘yes’ to Democrat immorality or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Off to the gulag with you, foul fiend!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
#ParrotForPrison2020
We have had enough of your thought crimes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
How has the handling been immoral? Do you think it is immoral that Democrats are refusing to provide more funding for a wall, which would help curtail entrance of sick people at the southern border? Because as of early March, 328 Chinese illegal immigrants have been caught at the southern borderhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/4/dhs-links-coronavirus-border-328-chinese-illegals-/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Do you see us going to war less often because terrorists have guns? Do you see us leaving gangs alone because they have guns? Nope and nope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, when you make exceptions for rape and preventing maternal death, at the least you are preventing 96% of abortions. Most are for financial reasons, “not being ready to be a parent”, or other reasons that don’t merit killing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Ok, I’m glad that we could (at least based on personal political beliefs) come to an understanding. I believe that potential inconsistencies are important to talk about and get to the root of.
Really interesting topic. I look forward to reading this thread :)
More on the topic of reform, I personally wouldn’t support drastic abortion-limiting laws until we resolve issues with foster care. If those options became viable options to give children good lives, then I would begin supporting big pro-life laws. As it currently stands, I would probably only be on board with 3rd trimester bans outside of life-or-death situations
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
1. We don’t want illegal immigrants committing crime. They are responsible for homicides, rapes, etc. and they shouldn’t even be here. I have also never seen, personally, a private citizen offer to house illegal immigrants. It is almost always the case that they want the general tax payer footing this bill. They take far more than they give according to FAIRUS estimates of welfare expenditures vs tax collection. This limits the resources available to remedy needs of people already here and who are suffering. Finally, people provide for their children by working. By letting in illegal immigrants that decrease industry wages and working conditions, you are making life more dangerous for American workers and making it harder to provide for their children’s needs.
2. Everyone except lobbyists have issues with our current healthcare system. Everyone wants more people covered in terms of health insurance. Believing that improving the system through free market reforms would be better than the government providing health insurance doesn’t make us anti-life.
3. I would question the legitimacy of that estimate, but most people are in favor of universal background checks. The reason why people stonewall it is because it is because then you know exactly who has guns(the first step before any gun confiscation). Being pro-gun is pro-self-preservation, so I find it consistent
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Sounds good on paper. But not every 78 year-old is equal. Some have dementia or are terminally ill. Others have tons of energy and are still sharp.
This is really something that should be determined on a person-by-person basis. I don't know how much good can come from limiting our pool of candidates. There has to be SOME reason we gravitate towards these older candidates. Likely that they have more life experience and name-recognition.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Don’t forget about gun grabbing, baby murdering(part of the not wanting you born, but even if you are, they’ll keep you “comfortable” until they decide what to do with you), destroying hundreds of thousands of fossil fuel jobs and replacing them with a few thousand government jobs in renewables, and bending over to whatever European elitist leader wants us to, thus destroying all American pride and patriotism
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Honestly, someone should just ask him his opinion of Hitler and it would be game over.
"I think it is unfair to say everything Hitler did was wrong. The Autobahn was great!"
Created:
-->
@oromagi
How do you interpret otherwise? Schumer specifically couched the sow/reap metaphor in political terms:sow:Republican legislatures take away rights.If Gorsuch and Kavanaugh go forward with these decisionsreap:Trump and Senate Republicans will gone in November
"you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."
Judges are not associated with a political party, so the connection between unaffiliated judges and the Republican party is a bit of a stretch. He said specifically that they would pay the price. They won't know what him them
A year and a half later, Schumer is parroting Kavanaugh's statement back at him.When Kavanaugh used the phrase, nobody insisted that the statement necessarily implied violence or anything but political consequence.Reaping the whirlwind is 2500 year old figure of speech that normal people use all the time. If Republicans generally have suddenly turned ignorant of the phrase's ordinary usages, that ignorance is only by choice.
Ok, so they both use an odd, ancient Hebrew phrase. The difference would be in the context. Schumer specifically pointed out two judges and said they would suffer harsh consequences.
Kavanaugh would have had to have been saying that an armed revolt would be happening against the whole country for decades, which makes no sense. It also wasn't in relation to a sensitive topic, merely referencing his defamation.
Not much substance to debate here. Schumer was either careless in his word choice, or he is trying to cover his ass.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Normal people don’t use that word. I’d figure he may be referring to unilaterally attempting to impeach them both or something. Bernie wants to “rotate courts”. Some scummy partisan whirlwind
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I think that “armed revolt” might be a bit of a stretch. But he is 100% lying in saying that he meant SCOTUS judges would suffer “political consequences”. And considering how militant people can be about this issue, calling it a “right” and “healthcare” it is very likely that someone could construe this as requesting violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
I'm sure they love their hand grenade attacks, don't they?
Created:
-->
@Imabench
After all of those sexist comments, I doubt she would endorse Bernie. He called her a liar on national tv ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
What are you going on about? How does taking in refugees help us? I'm sure Sweden would disagree with your assessment.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Biden will lose to trump.
I meant that if Bernie loses legitimately, does that kill the progressive movement in your party off? Because getting robbed just pissed you guys off and probably strengthened that movement. Seems like this would take off momentum.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
What do you think will happen if:
a) Sanders gets robbed again
b) Sanders loses legitimately
(in terms of the future of the party)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
C'mon, he won't live long enough for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
He will probably try to expand SCOTUS to 15 seats like FDR.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
does it though? it would have a tiny impact on you at worst. And the massive benefits that would come from M4A (the hundreds of billions saved, the millions of prevented bankruptcies, the 10's of thousands of lives saved) would counter act those costs anyway. So no, it wouldn't really affect you, you would still be much better off.
And there are plenty of different ways to solve these issues without government taking over everything. The insurance industry is currently monopolistic, so of course it isn't going to work well. All Democrats do is provide handouts to lower classes, screw over the middle class, and then blame the upper class. You will notice that health insurance became much more expensive and rising well above inflation. https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
To elaborate, poor people get on your plans because they qualify. Middle class people don't. Medicare/Medicaid underpay hospitals, which forces larger costs onto private insurers, and now middle class families get screwed because now they can barely afford private insurance. https://www.inquirer.com/health/consumer/hospital-bills-employer-health-plans-medicare-20190509.html
I can't personally name one thing the government has done in the past that was more cost-effective and efficient than the private sector. Whether it be utilities, roads, or any other function, and going off of that precedent, I don't buy that this will be the case.
this is a pretty constant trope the right makes. The idea that poor people are just lazy. The idea is dumb. There are a small number of people who choose not to work. But the vast majority of people on unemployment and food stamps don't want to be. They simply can't break out of a cycle of poverty that republican policies helped to create.
I don't think all or even most poor people are lazy. People on food stamps don't necessarily want to be off it, either. The thing is, if I would qualify for any welfare program, I would take it. You are offering free sh*t, so I would be stupid NOT to.
This is precisely why more welfare money goes towards "middle class" individuals than lower class ones. You wonder why people save less or get rid of money right before retirement. It is to qualify for Medicare. When you create these perverse incentives, you destroy the efficient private sector's ability to offer better services, especially when you increase their taxes to pay for the inefficient government ones. These individuals had the ability to save money, but they choose not to because of social security. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/america-middle-class-more-welfare-than-poor
All welfare does is make it profitable to act stupidly and make acting intelligently seem like a waste of time. The private sector would charge obese smokers more for health insurance. That is a good incentive to be healthier. Making people pay more just because they are more successful has no productive incentives whatsoever. You create dependence, plain and simple. When pension plans, such as social security, are cut, savings rates increase. So, the more you increase your program's benefits, the more dependent people become on your programs. https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/how-much-would-people-save-if-there-were-no-social-security
this is really short term thinking that is self defeating. It's like saying that you don't have children, so why should you have to pay taxes for schools. Or, you don't drive on interstates, so why should you have to pay taxes to maintain roads. In an extremely limited sense you would have a point. But without those things our society is much, much worse off. Even if you don't personally benefit from some of those programs, society as a whole very much does. So you do as well. Trying to cut them or prevent them is short sighted and counter productive.
In a hypothetical world, that would be fine. However, I highly doubt that you would never use roads or purchase a product that used a road. Also, unless the government sterilized you and made certain you could never adopt anyone, they could have no insurance that you wouldn't use public schools. So, you should have to pay for those. Education and roads are necessary for any civilization. Those are pretty direct investments. Paying for everyone's bad ideas, like student debt for people who knew they would never pay it back, is not an investment. They agreed to the terms of that contract, not me, and I shouldn't be forced to foot the bill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It affects other people when you make us pay for the student loans of people with stupid degrees that they would never be able to get a job with. Their stupidity affects me when I have to pay for the healthcare costs of obese drug addicts under M4A. When I have to pay unemployment benefits and food stamps towards people who refuse to work, I am paying for their stupidity. 9 out of 10 plans Democrats propose involve me paying for someone else’s misfortune or stupidity.When you massively screw yourself over with stupidity, society and the people around you suffer too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You might have mentioned this, I haven’t read it all, but didn’t the Democrats use the nuclear option to make appointments only require a simple majority instead of 60 just to get Obama court picks in?
Created: