Which Party?

[nytigerfan]

To level set, while I'm a Republican, I certainly don't think Trump is without fault. I did not vote for him in the primary, but he was the best option in November of 2016 and he's the best option again in November of 2020.

Some of this comes down to what you believe about the Ukraine situation and the left's accusations. I didn't follow the saga that closely because I thought it was a bit of a joke, but here's what we know:

• Hunter Biden has very limited qualifications, got in the Navy via a waiver for his father and was promptly expelled for cocaine.
• A year later, he was on the board of Burisma, a large natural gas / energy company run by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch, making a ton of money.
• Joe Biden bragged - on camera - about getting a prosecutor fired that was investigating Bruisma.

I have no idea if there was corruption, scandal, money laundering or whatever going on. But it sure looks odd. So it's not exactly out of the ordinary for a request to look further into this. And withholding aide to get what you want - whether it was tied to this or a broader effort to combat corruption - isn't a novel or unique tactic. Plenty of president's have done that.

The only reason there is a flag of any sort is because Biden was running for the democratic nomination. And at this point - in retrospect - the idea of him being a major threat to Trump is kind of silly. It's elder abuse to keep that guy out on the trail.

So yea, I don't really care about anything Trump did in this situation. Not because of blind loyalty to Trump, but because I think the whole thing is a giant nothing-burger.

As far as retaliating against witnesses, here's another perspective. A guy like Vindman is clearly anti-Trump and if you have someone in your employ that you can't trust and is possibly working to subvert you with other employees, it's completely reasonable to remove them. If one of my employees was toxic to my staff and my team's culture due to their feelings toward me, I would absolutely fire them.

I also think that the current political climate is forcing the executive branch to attempt to wield more power. Trump has been taking punches since he was elected. Investigations, Never Trumpers, Democrats, law suits, etc. What is he supposed to do to get things done? Rely on Nancy to pass something in the house? Coming from the private sector, I imagine he is used to getting things done and is frustrated with how incompetent and slow Washington is.

I don't follow all of the other legal sagas to know whether or not what Trump is doing is good, bad, dangerous, etc. I can't control them and they have little impact on my life. I don't watch the news that often and usually only pay attention to relevant things like policy, economy, market, etc.

Is Trump perfect? Absolutely not. But the guy is passing new, bipartisan trade deals. He's passing new, bipartisan criminal justice reform. The economy is roaring. The market is soaring. My taxes are down. Unemployment is at record lows - including minorities and females. Millions of people are coming off the government dole instead of going on it. Two major terror leaders are dead.

Things are good in Trump's America my man. I'm not sure why you would risk that by supporting hyper-liberal ideas that threaten to rock the structure of the greatest country and economy in the world.

I also think that the current political climate is forcing the executive branch to attempt to wield more power. Trump has been taking punches since he was elected. Investigations, Never Trumpers, Democrats, law suits, etc. What is he supposed to do to get things done? Rely on Nancy to pass something in the house? Coming from the private sector, I imagine he is used to getting things done and is frustrated with how incompetent and slow Washington is.

You act like presidential harassment is a new thing. The other party always investigates the sitting president on everything they can. It has happened to every president, Trump is just more of a b*tch about it.

And LOL about waiting on Nancy to pass something in the house. The republican controlled senate is currently sitting on 395 bills passed by the congress that Moscow Mitch refuses to vote on. I am always amazed at how much propaganda conservatives will blindly believe. Like your belief that our economy was in shambles before Trump took office. It's amazing and sad at the same time.

 

[Jwilliamsiii]

"Had"? He starve to death?

(Serious question - hope he's alright).



Buttigeg will wind up near zero in the southern states. Bloomberg is the probable winner there before the tapes came out. No idea now.



Sanders is an independent.
Bloomberg is a Republican turned independent
Trump was a NY Democrat who ran as a Republican

Not really sure. He was in a line for bread and cheese a few months ago....don't know if he made it through or not.

 

[nytigerfan]

Not really sure. He was in a line for bread and cheese a few months ago....don't know if he made it through or not.

I am not a fan of socialism, but I do find it funny that Venezuela is the go to comparison for republicans. You never hear any of the scandinavian countries being thrown around as examples of socialism run amok. Why? Because those places are pretty damn awesome and their citizens are generally happier than Americans.

 

[Jwilliamsiii]

I am not a fan of socialism, but I do find it funny that Venezuela is the go to comparison for republicans. You never hear any of the scandinavian countries being thrown around as examples of socialism run amok. Why? Because those places are pretty damn awesome and their citizens are generally happier than Americans.

If they are happier than me, then I am happy for em. I would imagine they are bouncing up and down walking the streets whistling and giving high fives in that case. How do they measure that?

This was a happy meter survey done in the late 1800's
Oh, he's laughing. I didn't think you ever laughed.
Yeah, I laugh sometimes.
Yes, but how often?
Are you happy?
Am I happy? Well, I don't know. I'm happy as the next man, I guess.
I don't laugh all day long like an idiot, if that's what you mean.
Touchy about it, aren't you?
No, I'm not touchy. I'm just... It's a silly question, is all.
Am I happy? Are you happy? Are you happy?

 

[scotchtiger]

I also think that the current political climate is forcing the executive branch to attempt to wield more power. Trump has been taking punches since he was elected. Investigations, Never Trumpers, Democrats, law suits, etc. What is he supposed to do to get things done? Rely on Nancy to pass something in the house? Coming from the private sector, I imagine he is used to getting things done and is frustrated with how incompetent and slow Washington is.

You act like presidential harassment is a new thing. The other party always investigates the sitting president on everything they can. It has happened to every president, Trump is just more of a b*tch about it.

And LOL about waiting on Nancy to pass something in the house. The republican controlled senate is currently sitting on 395 bills passed by the congress that Moscow Mitch refuses to vote on. I am always amazed at how much propaganda conservatives will blindly believe. Like your belief that our economy was in shambles before Trump took office. It's amazing and sad at the same time.

When did I say the economy was in shambles? You’re making things up.

I also said Washington in general was incompetent and slow. That includes all of congress. Of course that didn’t fit your narrative either.

 

[scotchtiger]

I am not a fan of socialism, but I do find it funny that Venezuela is the go to comparison for republicans. You never hear any of the scandinavian countries being thrown around as examples of socialism run amok. Why? Because those places are pretty damn awesome and their citizens are generally happier than Americans.

Pretty sure you said Bernie was too left for you to support last time. Believe you even categorized him as extreme or scary. You going to vote dem socialist in November if he wins?

 

[nytigerfan]

Pretty sure you said Bernie was too left for you to support last time. Believe you even categorized him as extreme or scary. You going to vote dem socialist in November if he wins?

hopefully Bernie wont be the candidate. Its not that I think that he is scary, its that his tax plan will negatively affect my income in an extreme way since most of my income is through qualified dividends. I will not vote for Trump though, who I believe is the most corrupt, self serving and dangerous president we have ever had. the way he has neutered the republican party is terrifying.

 

[Jwilliamsiii]

hopefully Bernie wont be the candidate. Its not that I think that he is scary, its that his tax plan will negatively affect my income in an extreme way since most of my income is through qualified dividends. I will not vote for Trump though, who I believe is the most corrupt, self serving and dangerous president we have ever had. the way he has neutered the republican party is terrifying.

a 10-12% pay cut wouldn't be all that bad, when you consider that you would be providing great benefits to many Americans that choose not to work. Look at like a charitable contribution, without the benefit of a tax deduction.

 

[orangelvis]

I am not a fan of socialism, but I do find it funny that Venezuela is the go to comparison for republicans. You never hear any of the scandinavian countries being thrown around as examples of socialism run amok. Why? Because those places are pretty damn awesome and their citizens are generally happier than Americans.

...and they don't have enough money left over for things like, you know an army, navy, airforce, etc. Couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[scotchtiger]

hopefully Bernie wont be the candidate. Its not that I think that he is scary, its that his tax plan will negatively affect my income in an extreme way since most of my income is through qualified dividends. I will not vote for Trump though, who I believe is the most corrupt, self serving and dangerous president we have ever had. the way he has neutered the republican party is terrifying.

I respect voting with your wallet. For me, I see these wallet challenges with Bernie/dems:

• My regular tax rates will go way up (I do not have your dividend income situation. Most of our income is regular with some pass thru as well).
• We will expand entitlements, which will result in future tax increases to cover the ballooning costs of such programs (see 60% of federal spending related to entitlements).
• SS treatment: Dems would be more likely to raise/eliminate the contribution cap, costing me thousands/tens of thousands. They are also more likely to means test benefits in the future, also costing me tens of thousands annually in SS benefits.
• They will continue to looks for new ways to tax/penalize families like mine in exchange for expanded government programs.

How can I support that?

 

[Jwilliamsiii]

I respect voting with your wallet. For me, I see these wallet challenges with Bernie/dems:

• My regular tax rates will go way up (I do not have your dividend income situation. Most of our income is regular with some pass thru as well).
• We will expand entitlements, which will result in future tax increases to cover the ballooning costs of such programs (see 60% of federal spending related to entitlements).
• SS treatment: Dems would be more likely to raise/eliminate the contribution cap, costing me thousands/tens of thousands. They are also more likely to means test benefits in the future, also costing me tens of thousands annually in SS benefits.
• They will continue to looks for new ways to tax/penalize families like mine in exchange for expanded government programs.

How can I support that?

an increase in EMployer SS contribution cap would definitely give the government more customers on their entitlement rolls.

 

[FLaw47]

I respect voting with your wallet. For me, I see these wallet challenges with Bernie/dems:

• My regular tax rates will go way up (I do not have your dividend income situation. Most of our income is regular with some pass thru as well).
• We will expand entitlements, which will result in future tax increases to cover the ballooning costs of such programs (see 60% of federal spending related to entitlements).
• SS treatment: Dems would be more likely to raise/eliminate the contribution cap, costing me thousands/tens of thousands. They are also more likely to means test benefits in the future, also costing me tens of thousands annually in SS benefits.
• They will continue to looks for new ways to tax/penalize families like mine in exchange for expanded government programs.

How can I support that?

You could care about someone other than yourself.

 

[Jwilliamsiii]

You could care about someone other than yourself.

For sure. It’s not really giving when you “have” to give (taxes). I am involved with numerous organizations where they stretch a dollar into 10 and do a tremendous job loving people. Let me know if you need some recommendations. And I can assure you, these people need it, not just prefer a handout instead of a job.

 

[scotchtiger]

You could care about someone other than yourself.

Oh I do, for sure. I just don’t think I should be forced to pay for someone other than myself and my family unless they are mentally or physically incapable of providing for themself.

 

[FLaw47]

Oh I do, for sure. I just don’t think I should be forced to pay for someone other than myself and my family unless they are mentally or physically incapable of providing for themself.

Feel however you want. I'm just explaining how you could vote for a Democrat. I don't vote D because it's going to put more money in my bank account. I do it because it more closely aligns to the world I want me and my future son to live in.

 

[nytigerfan]

Feel however you want. I'm just explaining how you could vote for a Democrat. I don't vote D because it's going to put more money in my bank account. I do it because it more closely aligns to the world I want me and my future son to live in.

You are not wrong, but when you have kids there is a more immediate concern is not losing a sizable part of your income next year. You will soon see how much kids cost.

If Sanders is the candidate I will probably vote for him, because to your point I think the long-term repercussions of giving trump a second term are worse than the short term repercussions to my income. Also, if the republicans still have control of the senate, then Sanders aint getting his tax plan through, at least not as it is.

 

[FLaw47]

You are not wrong, but when you have kids there is a more immediate concern is not losing a sizable part of your income next year. You will soon see how much kids cost.

If Sanders is the candidate I will probably vote for him, because to your point I think the long-term repercussions of giving trump a second term are worse than the short term repercussions to my income. Also, if the republicans still have control of the senate, then Sanders aint getting his tax plan through, at least not as it is.

Couple of things.
1) Sanders isn't my first choice but I would not hesitate at all to vote for him in the general.
2) I don't thinking everyone should have to pay more taxes. I think that up until this point I absolutely should have been. When kiddo gets here I suspect we'll still be very comfortable. I am fine paying more for things that I think are valuable - paid parental leave, universal health care, subsidizing green energy. It's a bonus that all of that should pay back more than it costs (over time).

 

[scotchtiger]

Feel however you want. I'm just explaining how you could vote for a Democrat. I don't vote D because it's going to put more money in my bank account. I do it because it more closely aligns to the world I want me and my future son to live in.

Fair enough. I want my sons to live in a world full of personal responsibility and free of government dependence, where they have the ability to give freely and generously to the causes they choose to support.

 

[scotchtiger]

Couple of things.
1) Sanders isn't my first choice but I would not hesitate at all to vote for him in the general.
2) I don't thinking everyone should have to pay more taxes. I think that up until this point I absolutely should have been. When kiddo gets here I suspect we'll still be very comfortable. I am fine paying more for things that I think are valuable - paid parental leave, universal health care, subsidizing green energy. It's a bonus that all of that should pay back more than it costs (over time).

BTW, congrats on the kiddo. My second boy is due in April. Boys are crazy but the absolute best.

I think the market will evolve some of the things you mention on its own. We don’t need the government. For example, my company recently expanded paid parental leave to keep up with the market, recruiting and retention. Also, I would consider buying a Rivian SUV because it appears they may deliver a worthwhile electric vehicle to market.

We don’t necessarily disagree in how we want the world to be for our kids, but we do disagree with the federal government’s role in getting us there.

 

[Jwilliamsiii]

If Bernie doesn’t scare you he should. Whacko. Maybe move to the old Soviet Union to practice his trade.

 

[FLaw47]

Fair enough. I want my sons to live in a world full of personal responsibility and free of government dependence, where they have the ability to give freely and generously to the causes they choose to support.

BTW, congrats on the kiddo. My second boy is due in April. Boys are crazy but the absolute best.

I think the market will evolve some of the things you mention on its own. We don’t need the government. For example, my company recently expanded paid parental leave to keep up with the market, recruiting and retention. Also, I would consider buying a Rivian SUV because it appears they may deliver a worthwhile electric vehicle to market.

We don’t necessarily disagree in how we want the world to be for our kids, but we do disagree with the federal government’s role in getting us there.

I appreciate the kind words, thank you.

I hear this "personal responsibility" line from conservative leaning people a lot. I don't think it's an outright lie but I do this it's significantly overstated. You can check my math here but the overall federal budget in 2019 was $4.165 Trillion. Of that, $672 Billion was stuff that I would call "government dependence" (SNAP, Supplemental Income, etc). That's 16.1% of federal expenditures. So, while it's not nothing, I don't think it's enough to argue that we're a nation of government dependence. (To be clear, I don't consider Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid to be government dependence. To earn Social Security, you must have paid in to it. I also think every shred of evidence suggests that providing healthcare for people is an overall good. I don't think we're the only developed country to have healthcare figured out.)

I also don't hear any Democrats spending much time talking about expanding that 16.1% of our budget. Furthermore, I certainly don't think that Democrats would say they're encouraging government dependence (obviously). Personally, I'd say that we clearly do have certain programs that are poorly set up (benefit cliffs and the like) that do provide some incentive to not better you situation. I'd be interested if you had any data that show these programs are causing a significant portion of people to choose to not better their situation, though.

I tend to think of Democratic fiscal policy more as an acknowledgement of the fact that the most important factor in your life's success story (or lack thereof) is who your parents are and the economic situation you were born in to. It's absolutely possible to be exceptional and dire circumstance; I just don't it's reasonable to point to those extraordinary people and say "everyone else is just too lazy." Frankly, I'm too lazy to have made it out of poverty. Maybe I'm intelligent enough to have backed my way into a good situation but if I was a person of average intelligence (to go along with my middling drive), I know I'd have just stayed poor. That factors into my feelings on everything.

Finally, tax policy isn't the only reason I vote the way I do. I think it makes sense to let people marry whoever they feel like and to generally live life as they choose (provided it doesn't harm anyone else). I think it makes a lot of sense to tell industry they can't just destroy the planet so long as it helps their bottom line (and this is clearly not a problem the market has solved on it's own). I think it's great that the government developed workplace safety standards and labor laws. I think it's awesome a liberal Supreme Court said that "separate but equal" was a crock of shit. Racism isn't something that people or the market have done a very good job of solving; sometimes people need to be protected.

All of this is to say that there's a lot more a person's political leaning than how much taxes they want (but if it's the only thing that's important to someone, that's their right). I don't expect this to change your world view but I do bristle when people suggest that democrats are "pro government dependence" and "anti personal responsibility". That's as much an unfair simplification as me saying "I want to live in a word free of theocracy, bigotry, and plutocrats."

 

[Rychek4]

hopefully Bernie wont be the candidate. Its not that I think that he is scary, its that his tax plan will negatively affect my income in an extreme way since most of my income is through qualified dividends.

Are we just all assuming that Bernie will have congressional backing? Even Obama couldn't get congress to give him carte blanche

This goes for like the next 5 comments under yours.

 

[Rychek4]

...and they don't have enough money left over for things like, you know an army, navy, airforce, etc. Couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

The over simplification of this issue base on ethics and resources and global police work is juvenile.

 

[scotchtiger]

I appreciate the kind words, thank you.

I hear this "personal responsibility" line from conservative leaning people a lot. I don't think it's an outright lie but I do this it's significantly overstated. You can check my math here but the overall federal budget in 2019 was $4.165 Trillion. Of that, $672 Billion was stuff that I would call "government dependence" (SNAP, Supplemental Income, etc). That's 16.1% of federal expenditures. So, while it's not nothing, I don't think it's enough to argue that we're a nation of government dependence. (To be clear, I don't consider Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid to be government dependence. To earn Social Security, you must have paid in to it. I also think every shred of evidence suggests that providing healthcare for people is an overall good. I don't think we're the only developed country to have healthcare figured out.)

I also don't hear any Democrats spending much time talking about expanding that 16.1% of our budget. Furthermore, I certainly don't think that Democrats would say they're encouraging government dependence (obviously). Personally, I'd say that we clearly do have certain programs that are poorly set up (benefit cliffs and the like) that do provide some incentive to not better you situation. I'd be interested if you had any data that show these programs are causing a significant portion of people to choose to not better their situation, though.

I tend to think of Democratic fiscal policy more as an acknowledgement of the fact that the most important factor in your life's success story (or lack thereof) is who your parents are and the economic situation you were born in to. It's absolutely possible to be exceptional and dire circumstance; I just don't it's reasonable to point to those extraordinary people and say "everyone else is just too lazy." Frankly, I'm too lazy to have made it out of poverty. Maybe I'm intelligent enough to have backed my way into a good situation but if I was a person of average intelligence (to go along with my middling drive), I know I'd have just stayed poor. That factors into my feelings on everything.

Finally, tax policy isn't the only reason I vote the way I do. I think it makes sense to let people marry whoever they feel like and to generally live life as they choose (provided it doesn't harm anyone else). I think it makes a lot of sense to tell industry they can't just destroy the planet so long as it helps their bottom line (and this is clearly not a problem the market has solved on it's own). I think it's great that the government developed workplace safety standards and labor laws. I think it's awesome a liberal Supreme Court said that "separate but equal" was a crock of shit. Racism isn't something that people or the market have done a very good job of solving; sometimes people need to be protected.

All of this is to say that there's a lot more a person's political leaning than how much taxes they want (but if it's the only thing that's important to someone, that's their right). I don't expect this to change your world view but I do bristle when people suggest that democrats are "pro government dependence" and "anti personal responsibility". That's as much an unfair simplification as me saying "I want to live in a word free of theocracy, bigotry, and plutocrats."

I'll agree that the personal responsibility vs. government dependence debate is an over-simplification. But here's where I see government "dependence:"

• Financial dependence for those unable or unwilling to make it on their own
• Dependence on the government to fund retirement (SS)
• Proposed dependence on the government for healthcare
• Proposed dependence on the government for higher education

Our main disagreement is on the government's role in all of this.

Take point 1. Trump signed orders that limit the benefits for able-bodied individuals of working age without dependents. Democrats oppose this policy. Why?

The new rule makes it more difficult for states to waive a requirement that able-bodied adults without children work at least 20 hours a week or else lose their benefits.

Trump also signed an EO pushing advances in work for welfare. Even Bill Clinton supported such a policy. Current democrats oppose this. Why?

Point 2. SS is what it is right now, but it's a wonderful example of government inefficiency. I posted this in another thread, but here's a hyper-conservative example of what a low wage, low skill worker could do with their lifetime SS contributions without the government getting in the way. Imagine if we shifted from SS to a mandatory savings account with investment protections to ensure adequate, but safe returns:

• 18 year old starts his career at $25K per year.
• CPI salary increase only for his entire career - no new jobs, promotions, etc. (i.e. an extremely conservative example)
• 12.4% of his income goes into a protected personal account, not to the government SS fund.
• He earns a 6% ROR during his working years.
• He retires after 50 years, at age 68, in line with full SS benefit age.

Value in his personal account?

• $1,450,412 account balance
• $58,016 annual income on 4% draw down
• Gets to pass the principle to his kids, changing his family tree in one generation

Which would be a better use of his $350K lifetime contribution? That scenario or a government run entitlement program?

Point 3. Government run healthcare sounds like an absolute disaster. I agree everyone should have access to quality healthcare, but just like the example above, relying on the government to efficiently deliver it is a horrible idea.

We need to start by cutting costs and yes, add in some personal responsibility. Unpreventable pre-existing conditions should be protected, but preventable risk factors like smoking, obesity and generally not taking care of yourself should not. Add in tort reform, cost controls, drug reform, etc. Get the cost down and insurance becomes more manageable.

I'm not opposed to individual subsidies, etc. But let's aggressively address costs and ensure people are taking responsibility for their health in order to keep costs down. If they aren't, they get to bear the higher premiums.

I also think that people should be able to live the life they choose. I'm very much pro gay marriage and gay rights. On the other hand, the government paying for gender reassignment surgery? Nope. File that under elective surgery that is paid by the individual. There's a pretty logical line in this category that should be easy to identify.

I also think we should have sensible environmental protections in place. No time to get into detail, but there should be some middle ground between complete deregulation and the completely looney tunes Green New Deal.

Bottom line - most people have a relatively similar view of how they want the world to be. The difference is that you and those on the left want to depend on the government to get us there. Consider that the revised version of government dependence.

 

[FLaw47]

Take point 1. Trump signed orders that limit the benefits for able-bodied individuals of working age without dependents. Democrats oppose this policy. Why?

The new rule makes it more difficult for states to waive a requirement that able-bodied adults without children work at least 20 hours a week or else lose their benefits.

Trump also signed an EO pushing advances in work for welfare. Even Bill Clinton supported such a policy. Current democrats oppose this. Why?

People on the lower end of the income scale have a relatively difficult time meeting work requirements (as written) even if they're making a good faith effort to stay employed. That sort of work isn't particularly stable and my understanding is that a relatively short period of unemployment can disqualify you from benefits. Coupled with the fact that it adds an administrative burden on the government and on people who (by and large) aren't particularly good at administration, it's easy to be skeptical. Brookings goes into more detail.

Point 2. SS is what it is right now, but it's a wonderful example of government inefficiency. I posted this in another thread, but here's a hyper-conservative example of what a low wage, low skill worker could do with their lifetime SS contributions without the government getting in the way. Imagine if we shifted from SS to a mandatory savings account with investment protections to ensure adequate, but safe returns:

• 18 year old starts his career at $25K per year.
• CPI salary increase only for his entire career - no new jobs, promotions, etc. (i.e. an extremely conservative example)
• 12.4% of his income goes into a protected personal account, not to the government SS fund.
• He earns a 6% ROR during his working years.
• He retires after 50 years, at age 68, in line with full SS benefit age.

Value in his personal account?

• $1,450,412 account balance
• $58,016 annual income on 4% draw down
• Gets to pass the principle to his kids, changing his family tree in one generation

Which would be a better use of his $350K lifetime contribution? That scenario or a government run entitlement program?

I'll actually agree the way Social Security is invested is insufficient. I'd be open to changing that. I like that it has some redistribution characteristics though, and would not be eager to let that go. Also "Mandatory Government Retirement" vs "Mandatory personal retirement into specially regulated accounts with limited investment options" is approaching distinction without a difference territory.

Point 3. Government run healthcare sounds like an absolute disaster. I agree everyone should have access to quality healthcare, but just like the example above, relying on the government to efficiently deliver it is a horrible idea.

We need to start by cutting costs and yes, add in some personal responsibility. Unpreventable pre-existing conditions should be protected, but preventable risk factors like smoking, obesity and generally not taking care of yourself should not. Add in tort reform, cost controls, drug reform, etc. Get the cost down and insurance becomes more manageable.

I'm not opposed to individual subsidies, etc. But let's aggressively address costs and ensure people are taking responsibility for their health in order to keep costs down. If they aren't, they get to bear the higher premiums.

I also think that people should be able to live the life they choose. I'm very much pro gay marriage and gay rights. On the other hand, the government paying for gender reassignment surgery? Nope. File that under elective surgery that is paid by the individual. There's a pretty logical line in this category that should be easy to identify.

I'm curious as to how conservative leaning people seem to think the US is the only country that does healthcare right. Every other developed country has universal coverage and they're all fine. Our government does a better job administrating Medicare and Medicaid than private insurance does; I'm not sure where this conviction that it would be a "disaster" comes from. I'm not even married to M4A, though. Some European countries attain universal coverage through highly regulated private markets. Is that something you would be open to?

With regards to gender reassignment surgery, it's very effective at treating gender dysphoria and lowers suicidal ideation in recipients. It's a much more effective treatment than plenty on non-controversial treatments (like for pancreatic cancer).

I also think we should have sensible environmental protections in place. No time to get into detail, but there should be some middle ground between complete deregulation and the completely looney tunes Green New Deal.

So where are the Republicans who are proposing "middle ground" measures? I actually understand the right's concern that (on lots of issues) the left wants to go too far. I don't agree but I don't think the concern is insane. But why is the solution always to do nothing? For the record, the Green New Deal isn't actual policy and is significantly (and deliberately) mischaracterized. I'm guessing you haven't read it (maybe I'm wrong) because it's not quite as insane as banning cows and airplanes.

Bottom line - most people have a relatively similar view of how they want the world to be. The difference is that you and those on the left want to depend on the government to get us there. Consider that the revised version of government dependence.

I'd say our view is that society has shown time and time again that it won't progress on its own on plenty of key issues (climate change, healthcare, labor protections, systemic racism, environmental protection, trust busting, etc etc). We don't advocate government dependence but we do think that government can be used to ensure a better quality of life for everyone.

 

[scotchtiger]

People on the lower end of the income scale have a relatively difficult time meeting work requirements (as written) even if they're making a good faith effort to stay employed. That sort of work isn't particularly stable and my understanding is that a relatively short period of unemployment can disqualify you from benefits. Coupled with the fact that it adds an administrative burden on the government and on people who (by and large) aren't particularly good at administration, it's easy to be skeptical. Brookings goes into more detail.



I'll actually agree the way Social Security is invested is insufficient. I'd be open to changing that. I like that it has some redistribution characteristics though, and would not be eager to let that go. Also "Mandatory Government Retirement" vs "Mandatory personal retirement into specially regulated accounts with limited investment options" is approaching distinction without a difference territory.



I'm curious as to how conservative leaning people seem to think the US is the only country that does healthcare right. Every other developed country has universal coverage and they're all fine. Our government does a better job administrating Medicare and Medicaid than private insurance does; I'm not sure where this conviction that it would be a "disaster" comes from. I'm not even married to M4A, though. Some European countries attain universal coverage through highly regulated private markets. Is that something you would be open to?

With regards to gender reassignment surgery, it's very effective at treating gender dysphoria and lowers suicidal ideation in recipients. It's a much more effective treatment than plenty on non-controversial treatments (like for pancreatic cancer).



So where are the Republicans who are proposing "middle ground" measures? I actually understand the right's concern that (on lots of issues) the left wants to go too far. I don't agree but I don't think the concern is insane. But why is the solution always to do nothing? For the record, the Green New Deal isn't actual policy and is significantly (and deliberately) mischaracterized. I'm guessing you haven't read it (maybe I'm wrong) because it's not quite as insane as banning cows and airplanes.



I'd say our view is that society has shown time and time again that it won't progress on its own on plenty of key issues (climate change, healthcare, labor protections, systemic racism, environmental protection, trust busting, etc etc). We don't advocate government dependence but we do think that government can be used to ensure a better quality of life for everyone.

Volunteering counts toward work requirements. Are you suggesting that it’s difficult to fill 20 hours per week with a combination of work and volunteering in order to get free benefits? Keep in mind this group does not have dependents, so child care and other similar obligations are not a factor.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements

No job? That’s cool. Just go help at the soup kitchen for 20 hours. Or swing a hammer at a habitat house. Or just do something productive.

My SS comparison is hardly a distinction without a difference. For the same contribution, the person in the example gets a higher retirement income and gets to leave a 7 figure inheritance. And that’s without any redistribution factored in, which would only help a person starting at $25K/yr. Instead of this family tree changing benefit, the government suffocates his contribution and its growth.

I think Republicans should put forth a better plan and communication strategy to address the environment. Their public position is insufficient IMO.

 

[scotchtiger]

BTW @FLaw47 - here are some quotes from Joe Biden when he adamantly supported work for welfare in the ‘90s:

During his time as a senator, however, Biden was a major backer of work requirements for welfare. In particular, he supported the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, the Clinton-era overhaul of the federal welfare system widely seen as ushering in "workfare" in the United States. Speaking in defense of the bill, he heralded it as a victory for the idea that "work should be the premise of our welfare system" and noted that he had pushed for such a reform before his first presidential run in 1988.

"The culture of welfare must be replaced with the culture of work," Biden said on the Senate floor. "The culture of dependence must be replaced with the culture of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. And, the culture of permanence must no longer be a way of life."

So, some questions:

Was Joe Biden correct in his support of work for welfare?

Why has his position changed? To keep up with the hard shift left in the Democratic Party?

Do you find it unreasonable to ask a person with no dependents to work, volunteer or train for 20 hours per week in exchange for benefits provided by hard-working American taxpayers?

 

[scotchtiger]

You are not wrong, but when you have kids there is a more immediate concern is not losing a sizable part of your income next year. You will soon see how much kids cost.

If Sanders is the candidate I will probably vote for him, because to your point I think the long-term repercussions of giving trump a second term are worse than the short term repercussions to my income. Also, if the republicans still have control of the senate, then Sanders aint getting his tax plan through, at least not as it is.

Democratic socialist 3, democrats 0 in primary popular votes. Feel the Bern - in your wallet.

 

[Rychek4]

Democratic socialist 3, democrats 0 in primary popular votes. Feel the Bern - in your wallet.

If you want me to respond to some of your posts, you are going to have to not throw all the sh!t at the wall and see what sticks, but actually give people some time to respond and keep the conversation going.

 

[scotchtiger]

If you want me to respond to some of your posts, you are going to have to not throw all the sh!t at the wall and see what sticks, but actually give people some time to respond and keep the conversation going.

Ha, yea that was a joke. The two posts above it were more substantive.

 

[FLaw47]

Volunteering counts toward work requirements. Are you suggesting that it’s difficult to fill 20 hours per week with a combination of work and volunteering in order to get free benefits? Keep in mind this group does not have dependents, so child care and other similar obligations are not a factor.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements

No job? That’s cool. Just go help at the soup kitchen for 20 hours. Or swing a hammer at a habitat house. Or just do something productive.

I maintain that it creates an administrative burden for the government and for the individuals who are seeking benefits for rather questionable gains. How much do you think your tax burden drops because of work for welfare? Do you think the program even pays for itself?

My SS comparison is hardly a distinction without a difference. For the same contribution, the person in the example gets a higher retirement income and gets to leave a 7 figure inheritance. And that’s without any redistribution factored in, which would only help a person starting at $25K/yr. Instead of this family tree changing benefit, the government suffocates his contribution and its growth.

I apologize if I wasn't clear. I agreed that the way SS is invested is less than ideal. If Social Security was invested the exact same way you prescribed, would you then support it? I doubt it but I could be wrong. What I was saying is Social Security with in sort of investments you talked about would be a distinction without a difference from your private mandatory savings with limited investment options.[/quote]

I think Republicans should put forth a better plan and communication strategy to address the environment. Their public position is insufficient IMO.

Real talk, the Republican party is really only interested in saying no. It's no to the environment, no to healthcare improvements, no to any sort of reform. It gets hard to take them as good faith actors in moving the country forward.

Also, no comment on the healthcare stuff I talked about?

BTW @FLaw47 - here are some quotes from Joe Biden when he adamantly supported work for welfare in the ‘90s:

During his time as a senator, however, Biden was a major backer of work requirements for welfare. In particular, he supported the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, the Clinton-era overhaul of the federal welfare system widely seen as ushering in "workfare" in the United States. Speaking in defense of the bill, he heralded it as a victory for the idea that "work should be the premise of our welfare system" and noted that he had pushed for such a reform before his first presidential run in 1988.

"The culture of welfare must be replaced with the culture of work," Biden said on the Senate floor. "The culture of dependence must be replaced with the culture of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. And, the culture of permanence must no longer be a way of life."

So, some questions:

Was Joe Biden correct in his support of work for welfare?

Why has his position changed? To keep up with the hard shift left in the Democratic Party?

Do you find it unreasonable to ask a person with no dependents to work, volunteer or train for 20 hours per week in exchange for benefits provided by hard-working American taxpayers?

Haha, I don't feel the need to defend Joe Biden's previous positions. He's been on the wrong side of enough things and I don't have to reconcile his past with my personal beliefs.

I don't think that work requirements are, necessarily a bad thing but I have real misgivings about trusting the Republican party to implement them in good faith (similar to Voter IDs). More fundamentally though, I don't think anyone in our country should starve. If the result of that is feeding a few deadbeats, I'm ok with it.

 

[scotchtiger]

I maintain that it creates an administrative burden for the government and for the individuals who are seeking benefits for rather questionable gains. How much do you think your tax burden drops because of work for welfare? Do you think the program even pays for itself?



I apologize if I wasn't clear. I agreed that the way SS is invested is less than ideal. If Social Security was invested the exact same way you prescribed, would you then support it? I doubt it but I could be wrong. What I was saying is Social Security with in sort of investments you talked about would be a distinction without a difference from your private mandatory savings with limited investment options.

Real talk, the Republican party is really only interested in saying no. It's no to the environment, no to healthcare improvements, no to any sort of reform. It gets hard to take them as good faith actors in moving the country forward.

Also, no comment on the healthcare stuff I talked about?



Haha, I don't feel the need to defend Joe Biden's previous positions. He's been on the wrong side of enough things and I don't have to reconcile his past with my personal beliefs.

I don't think that work requirements are, necessarily a bad thing but I have real misgivings about trusting the Republican party to implement them in good faith (similar to Voter IDs). More fundamentally though, I don't think anyone in our country should starve. If the result of that is feeding a few deadbeats, I'm ok with it.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think we will solve it all here, but I’ll share this example from today. I grabbed an Uber at 5am for my trip to Las Ventanas in Cabo this morning. Wife and I had a good chat with the guy. He Ubers from 3am to 6am and from 6pm to 10pm each day. He does handyman and small renovation work during the day. Sleeps in 3-4 hour spurts twice daily, which works for his schedule because of sever sleep apnea.

Very nice guy. He actually used to be a builder for a company my wife worked for.

Very, very, very hard for me to rationalize that with people not being able to cobble together 20 hours or work, volunteering or training in order to have their fellow Americans provide them free benefits.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

The bolded part is your problem. Too many people are ignoring the whole history of Shokin's ouster and looking at the issue as if it was born yesterday, when Trump's phone call to Zelensky was revealed. In fact, there was an international and Ukrainian coalition of anti-corruption crusaders who wanted Shokin gone because he wasn't hard enough on corruption. Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma when Biden pressured Ukraine to sack him. Biden probably shouldn't have headed up the US's part of that coalition because of his apparent conflict of interest, but that doesn't make the attempt to oust Shokin any less righteous. But, because Trump bought into some sort of conspiracy theory about Ukraine meddling in American elections and then being used to prompt the investigation into Trump's campaign, he viewed Shokin as a martyr because of his anti-corruption efforts. Trump then used Congressionally mandated aid to Ukraine to try to get Ukraine to investigate this conspiracy theory, including having them investigate a political rival of his. The most plausible part of all of what Trump was doing has to do with an apparent conflict of interest between Joe Biden's work as the VP and Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma. But given the above about where Trump's interest in Ukraine came from, it's hard to believe Trump wasn't motivated mostly be personal factors. There were also much better ways of going about investigating this stuff if Trump thought it was fully legitimate, but instead he used a shadow foreign policy involving his personal lawyer.

This is why many Republicans stopped denying that Trump was offering a quid pro quo for an investigation into Biden, and instead argued that what Trump did was bad and inappropriate, but not worth impeaching or removing over. This is a much better argument, given the facts.

There's also no evidence at all that Vindman, Sondland (LOL), or Yovanovitch (who Trump also criticized on the phone call to Zelensky) were somehow "anti-Trump" partisans. But there is evidence that they didn't think our policy towards Ukraine should be driven by conspiracy theories about why Trump's campaign was investigated.

I do appreciate your very fine articulation as you have done a wonderful job of selling your point.

However I am a very informed buyer.

what you are selling despite the gorgeous paint job has nothing under the hood.

There are many people colluding with foreign powers but it is NOT Trump or most conservatives

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

I do appreciate your very fine articulation as you have done a wonderful job of selling your point.

However I am a very informed buyer.

what you are selling despite the gorgeous paint job has nothing under the hood.

There are many people colluding with foreign powers but it is NOT Trump or most conservatives

This wasn’t about “collusion” or most conservatives. It’s about Trump’s bumbling around investigating conspiracy theories in Ukraine.

 

[Rychek4]

However I am a very informed buyer.

Who, I guess, knows a bunch but can't be bothered to tell us when he gets it wrong in a debate.

 

[FLaw47]

Real talk, the Republican party is really only interested in saying no. It's no to the environment, no to healthcare improvements, no to any sort of reform. It gets hard to take them as good faith actors in moving the country forward.

Also, no comment on the healthcare stuff I talked about?



Haha, I don't feel the need to defend Joe Biden's previous positions. He's been on the wrong side of enough things and I don't have to reconcile his past with my personal beliefs.

I don't think that work requirements are, necessarily a bad thing but I have real misgivings about trusting the Republican party to implement them in good faith (similar to Voter IDs). More fundamentally though, I don't think anyone in our country should starve. If the result of that is feeding a few deadbeats, I'm ok with it.

I don’t think we will solve it all here, but I’ll share this example from today. I grabbed an Uber at 5am for my trip to Las Ventanas in Cabo this morning. Wife and I had a good chat with the guy. He Ubers from 3am to 6am and from 6pm to 10pm each day. He does handyman and small renovation work during the day. Sleeps in 3-4 hour spurts twice daily, which works for his schedule because of sever sleep apnea.

Very nice guy. He actually used to be a builder for a company my wife worked for.

Very, very, very hard for me to rationalize that with people not being able to cobble together 20 hours or work, volunteering or training in order to have their fellow Americans provide them free benefits.[/QUOTE]

I think this is what happened last time when we tried this; you responded to fewer and fewer of my arguments and then said we weren't going to solve anything here. Why engage in the conversation?

I think your example illustrates something I've observed. Right leaning people tend to weigh specific examples of success quite a lot and specific examples of fraud quite a lot. I'm a lot more interested in the big picture on this so I won't find individual examples very often.

 

[scotchtiger]

I think this is what happened last time when we tried this; you responded to fewer and fewer of my arguments and then said we weren't going to solve anything here. Why engage in the conversation?

I think your example illustrates something I've observed. Right leaning people tend to weigh specific examples of success quite a lot and specific examples of fraud quite a lot. I'm a lot more interested in the big picture on this so I won't find individual examples very often.

I mean, I’ve responded to pretty much all of your points.

Regarding work for entitlements, I laid out that the 20 hour per week requirement could be met with work, volunteering or training. At that point, you shifted your argument to the administrative burden or lack of trust in Republicans after your initial position of difficulty maintaining steady work at that level was eliminated.

As far as the cost/benefit ratio, the burden should be on the benefit recipient to prove they meet the requirements in order to receive benefits. I have to work to earn money, they can provide documentation to earn benefits. This could be collected very efficiently with the burden of documentation and submission on the benefit recipient.

For SS, we apparently agree that our wonderful federal government is squandering Americans’ contributions with poor returns. I laid out an alternative plan that has a significantly better ROI and creates wealth for all Americans. We obviously can’t cut to that plan overnight, but reform should include raising the eligibility age for benefits to reduce costs in the near term and a slow shift in funding from the pension option to the savings option.

I readily acknowledged that the Republican Party needs a better public position on the climate. There is a logical middle ground for pollution controls and renewable energy investment that doesn’t put a governor on the economy and oil and natural gas independence. The Republicans would be smart to find that balance and carry the banner of logic rather than extremism and doomsday predictions in that debate.

For healthcare, I agree that everyone should be covered in theory and disagree on a shift to a government system. Your primary point is how can other nations do it and we cannot. Generally, these countries are smaller, more homogeneous and have significantly higher taxes.

Take Denmark. Average tax rate is 45%. I think Americans pay an average federal tax rate under 15%. Half the country doesn’t pay taxes. Knowing that the people championing government health care aren’t going to make those folks pay, the burden is going to fall on a relatively small percent of us who meaningfully contribute. And no, “Wall Street speculation” won’t be enough to fund the tens of trillions of dollars needed.

Additionally, I have no interest in potential government rationing or waiting periods or whatever may come from being a number in a public pool that has to balance supply and demand. I’m good paying a premium for me and my family to have immediate access to the best healthcare in the world.

Government run healthcare may also stifle innovation. The US is the world leader in medicine, drug development, medical device development, new techniques, and all sorts of things that drive better, more efficient healthcare delivery and outcomes for patients. The government doesn’t do that, private, for-profit businesses largely do. Even the public healthcare systems in Europe often depend on the medical innovation coming from the US’s private structure.

And that’s without even getting into government inefficiency. Look no further than the SS math above. It is undisputed that the private example given is better for any individual than processing that money through government waste. I have no interest in doing that with our healthcare dollars.

Don’t get me wrong, the current system could certainly use improvement and there are plenty of ways to do that without turning it over to the government. I believe I mentioned some cost reduction measures earlier and that’s a good place to start.

Ultimately you just believe in the government more than I do. I don’t need the government to run my life, my healthcare, my retirement, etc. Just look at what’s going on in Washington. It’s a circus up there. Why do I want them more involved in my life? Why do I want to give more money to them to waste? I think the government’s role is to provide a framework within which individuals and businesses can thrive with a safety net to help those who cannot help themselves or to provide a temporary hand up to those who need it.

The idea of a $10T+ government budget for all of these programs is insane and dangerous and sets us up for major financial problems in the future with no benefit for the majority of Americans.

 

[FLaw47]

I mean, I’ve responded to pretty much all of your points.

Thanks for taking the time to respond again!

Regarding work for entitlements, I laid out that the 20 hour per week requirement could be met with work, volunteering or training. At that point, you shifted your argument to the administrative burden or lack of trust in Republicans after your initial position of difficulty maintaining steady work at that level was eliminated.

I believe I talked about administrative burden in my initial point as well, but maybe I didn't. I just also realized I was going to be able to convince you on the point of maintaining steady work if your argument is "I know a guy who drives an Uber." That's not throwing shade; it's just acknowledging futility.

As far as the cost/benefit ratio, the burden should be on the benefit recipient to prove they meet the requirements in order to receive benefits. I have to work to earn money, they can provide documentation to earn benefits. This could be collected very efficiently with the burden of documentation and submission on the benefit recipient.

I don't really care how efficient the administration could be, I care about how efficient it is. If it doesn't save money (and I honestly don't know if it does), it's not worth it to me to burden both the state and recipients. It would be like drug testing for benefits; it's moronic and costs more money than it saves.

For SS, we apparently agree that our wonderful federal government is squandering Americans’ contributions with poor returns. I laid out an alternative plan that has a significantly better ROI and creates wealth for all Americans. We obviously can’t cut to that plan overnight, but reform should include raising the eligibility age for benefits to reduce costs in the near term and a slow shift in funding from the pension option to the savings option.

I believe I agreed with this particular argument pretty well immediately. I was curious as to how you'd feel about changing SS to being better invested and to how that scenario would be meaningfully different than a mandatory savings account with government limited investment options (I acknowledge that it could eliminate some of the re-distributive effects but that's a bug and not a feature to me).

I readily acknowledged that the Republican Party needs a better public position on the climate. There is a logical middle ground for pollution controls and renewable energy investment that doesn’t put a governor on the economy and oil and natural gas independence. The Republicans would be smart to find that balance and carry the banner of logic rather than extremism and doomsday predictions in that debate.

Fair enough. To me it's way better to be alarmist than do literally make things worse but to each their own.

For healthcare, I agree that everyone should be covered in theory and disagree on a shift to a government system. Your primary point is how can other nations do it and we cannot. Generally, these countries are smaller, more homogeneous and have significantly higher taxes.

This is sort of begging the question. A lot of your political leaning seems to be tied to "taxes are bad." If our taxes went up but our premiums went down by more, that's a good thing in my book. I've also always found the "smaller/more homogeneous" argument to be curious. More people should mean better economies of scale. Do you mean more sparsely populated? Canada pulls it off fine. What's the homogeneous thing about? That everyone is bigotted against people who are different so why should we bother helping them? Just musings.

Also, I'm quite amenable to the sorts of solutions Western Europe has; tightly regulated private insurances markets. Does that hold any appeal? Bluntly, I think it's naive to think an unregulated market will fix the problems we're currently facing.

Additionally, I have no interest in potential government rationing or waiting periods or whatever may come from being a number in a public pool that has to balance supply and demand. I’m good paying a premium for me and my family to have immediate access to the best healthcare in the world.

I don't have any personal problem with people being able to pay more for better service. I do take exception to the fact that our current rationing system being driven purely by wealth.

Government run healthcare may also stifle innovation. The US is the world leader in medicine, drug development, medical device development, new techniques, and all sorts of things that drive better, more efficient healthcare delivery and outcomes for patients. The government doesn’t do that, private, for-profit businesses largely do. Even the public healthcare systems in Europe often depend on the medical innovation coming from the US’s private structure.

I don't know, maybe that's true. Isn't it time for the rest of the world to pick up the slack?

And that’s without even getting into government inefficiency. Look no further than the SS math above. It is undisputed that the private example given is better for any individual than processing that money through government waste. I have no interest in doing that with our healthcare dollars.

You're not on firm ground at all, here. It costs less per patient to administer Medicare than private insurance (article has nuance).

Don’t get me wrong, the current system could certainly use improvement and there are plenty of ways to do that without turning it over to the government. I believe I mentioned some cost reduction measures earlier and that’s a good place to start.

That's all well and good. For those of us who think healthcare actually needs to have some reform, though, the GOP is currently only offering to make things worse; not better. In a thread about "why vote Democrat", that's relevant.

Ultimately you just believe in the government more than I do. I don’t need the government to run my life, my healthcare, my retirement, etc. Just look at what’s going on in Washington. It’s a circus up there. Why do I want them more involved in my life? Why do I want to give more money to them to waste? I think the government’s role is to provide a framework within which individuals and businesses can thrive with a safety net to help those who cannot help themselves or to provide a temporary hand up to those who need it.

This is one of the aggravating things about the GOP. They can get elected, deliberately break stuff, and say "see, it's not working! Let's privatize EVERYTHING." Don't get me wrong, I know the bureaucracy isn't perfect or even good and I share some of your concerns. I even share some of your values but clearly not your priorities. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but you want a lot of the stuff we've talked about to get better but not it it requires you to sacrifice anything. I want things to get better and if I have to sacrifice some for it then so be it.

The idea of a $10T+ government budget for all of these programs is insane and dangerous and sets us up for major financial problems in the future with no benefit for the majority of Americans.

That's begging the question again but ok.

Thanks again for taking the time. I think I just got riled up when you said "Dems hurt my bottom line so why vote for them?" as though that logic should apply to everyone. The overwhelming majority of the left leaning people I'm friends with (selection bias, I know) would personally suffer if our dreams came true. Some stuff (like parental leave for everyone) is just a win for everyone and, from my perspective, beyond a no brainer. A lot of it though is because we want to be in a better place and we'll sacrifice to do it. Climate change, for example, simply won't be solved by "the market" until it's far too late. Some of our problems simply require massive solutions.

All the best!

 

[scotchtiger]

It's good discussion - and kind of shows that when both side put down the gloves, there is room in the middle to work together.

Thanks for taking the time to respond again!

I believe I talked about administrative burden in my initial point as well, but maybe I didn't. I just also realized I was going to be able to convince you on the point of maintaining steady work if your argument is "I know a guy who drives an Uber." That's not throwing shade; it's just acknowledging futility.

I don't really care how efficient the administration could be, I care about how efficient it is. If it doesn't save money (and I honestly don't know if it does), it's not worth it to me to burden both the state and recipients. It would be like drug testing for benefits; it's moronic and costs more money than it saves.

Keep in mind that this is being administered today, so it's not a net new increase in administrative costs. Trump's action literally just enforces existing rules. This rules are being administered and then the states are requesting exemptions. This eliminates the exemptions. I don't really see where the extra administrative cost comes from. If there's limited administrative cost, 20 hours is clearly reasonable (generous IMO), it discourages abuse, etc, then what's the downside?

What isn't helpful is when the media talks about the mean president ripping away food from poor people. This is an existing rule that simply asks people to do something in exchange for benefits.

I believe I agreed with this particular argument pretty well immediately. I was curious as to how you'd feel about changing SS to being better invested and to how that scenario would be meaningfully different than a mandatory savings account with government limited investment options (I acknowledge that it could eliminate some of the re-distributive effects but that's a bug and not a feature to me).

I think it would be better, but a private alternative still includes features that better investments don't solve. Primarily, being able to retain your principle and pass it to future generations to create wealth.

There would be nuances to that option as well. A % of the contribution would need to be allocated to a general pool to cover SS disability and death benefits for example.

Regardless, it's an overwhelmingly expensive program with very poor ROI for most participants. Any improvement would be welcomed, even if it's not an ideal state.

This is sort of begging the question. A lot of your political leaning seems to be tied to "taxes are bad." If our taxes went up but our premiums went down by more, that's a good thing in my book. I've also always found the "smaller/more homogeneous" argument to be curious. More people should mean better economies of scale. Do you mean more sparsely populated? Canada pulls it off fine. What's the homogeneous thing about? That everyone is bigotted against people who are different so why should we bother helping them? Just musings.

Also, I'm quite amenable to the sorts of solutions Western Europe has; tightly regulated private insurances markets. Does that hold any appeal? Bluntly, I think it's naive to think an unregulated market will fix the problems we're currently facing.

I don't have any personal problem with people being able to pay more for better service. I do take exception to the fact that our current rationing system being driven purely by wealth.

I don't know, maybe that's true. Isn't it time for the rest of the world to pick up the slack?

You're not on firm ground at all, here. It costs less per patient to administer Medicare than private insurance (article has nuance).

That's all well and good. For those of us who think healthcare actually needs to have some reform, though, the GOP is currently only offering to make things worse; not better. In a thread about "why vote Democrat", that's relevant.

I can't foresee a scenario in which public healthcare results in my premiums going down by more than my taxes go up. I don't think it's realistic at all.

I don't know all of the nuances of the various European programs. I will say that I wasn't opposed to the individual mandate, unlike many Republicans. I think everyone should be required to have health insurance just like car insurance. Because just like car insurance, I don't want to be on the hook when you have a problem - which is what happens with uninsured people. And I'm okay with some subsidies - provided those people work full-time, pay their share of taxes and control what they can to reduce their burden on the system.

Not sure I want to wait for the rest of the world to pick up the slack if it means a lower chance of a better procedure, cure, outcome, etc. for me or a member of my family.

I'm 100% on board with reducing administrative cost. We need reform. I don't deny that. And I said we need to start with cost reduction. Let's reduce administrative waste. Let's ensure people are accountable for their health (ex. you pay more if you smoke, don't take care of yourself, etc), which will drive down medical loss costs. Let's let free markets drive down costs (see the GoodRX thread for an example of how this is working for prescriptions).

Driving cost and waste out of the system should be a huge, huge priority.

The thread only included "Democratic Socialist," not Democrat. Because that's what you're supporting if Bernie wins. And it's pretty clear that even hard left Democrats on CNN, MSNBC and all sorts of other representatives of the party recognize that.

This is one of the aggravating things about the GOP. They can get elected, deliberately break stuff, and say "see, it's not working! Let's privatize EVERYTHING." Don't get me wrong, I know the bureaucracy isn't perfect or even good and I share some of your concerns. I even share some of your values but clearly not your priorities. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but you want a lot of the stuff we've talked about to get better but not it it requires you to sacrifice anything. I want things to get better and if I have to sacrifice some for it then so be it.

I don't think they deliberately break anything, but it is frustrating when there aren't productive solutions. Republicans had years to work on their vision of healthcare reform post ACA and when presented with the opportunity after Trump's election, they completely fumbled.

Thanks again for taking the time. I think I just got riled up when you said "Dems hurt my bottom line so why vote for them?" as though that logic should apply to everyone. The overwhelming majority of the left leaning people I'm friends with (selection bias, I know) would personally suffer if our dreams came true. Some stuff (like parental leave for everyone) is just a win for everyone and, from my perspective, beyond a no brainer. A lot of it though is because we want to be in a better place and we'll sacrifice to do it. Climate change, for example, simply won't be solved by "the market" until it's far too late. Some of our problems simply require massive solutions.

All the best!

I don't think it comes down to a willingness to sacrifice. I think giving the government more tax dollars to expand entitlement programs will lead to more problems, more government dependence and an unsustainable size and scope of the federal government.

I do think we see similar goals for the country. It's a shame that there isn't more moderate, reasonable discussion about how to get there. And while the subject of the thread was a bit tongue in cheek, it does seriously concern me that a significant percent of our country has drifted so far from the middle.

It makes any real discussion about how to improve healthcare difficult when one side wants to blow up the entire system. Same with immigration. There are reasonable, logical reforms to be had there. But open borders, free healthcare for illegals, etc. certainly isn't it. That's just not a reasonable position and it's hard to find a middle ground when one side is so extreme.

Good discussion. Hopefully Washington can embrace some civility and logic and actually do something that helps move us in the right direction.

 

[scotchtiger]

hopefully Bernie wont be the candidate. Its not that I think that he is scary, its that his tax plan will negatively affect my income in an extreme way since most of my income is through qualified dividends. I will not vote for Trump though, who I believe is the most corrupt, self serving and dangerous president we have ever had. the way he has neutered the republican party is terrifying.

Big day yesterday! Can’t see how anyone but Biden takes it after the Democrat party panicked about the idea of a socialist being their nominee. Glad they have some sense.

I did enjoy seeing you attempt to justify voting for crazy Bernie though. Very happy that you will not have to.

Now we get to watch ole Joe yell and get confused and whisper sweet nothings in little girls’ ears. Should be a fun ride to November.