2020 Election
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI do not believe it is un-American to want to minimize your tax burden by any and all legal measures. Quite the opposite, I think it is very American.
Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Paul Allen (RIP), Mark Cuban, Jeff Bezos, and I disagree with you, to name a few.
America is no longer about freedom and individuality. It's about forcing your own moral compass on others.
Anyways I was just curious on your thoughts on this.
Quote: beachbumbabsWarren Buffett, Bill Gates, Paul Allen (RIP), Mark Cuban, Jeff Bezos, and I disagree with you, to name a few.
And I disagree with them, I honestly don't value their opinion in such matters.
Yeah, I was saddened about Paul Allen.
Quote: beachbumbabsWarren Buffett, Bill Gates, Paul Allen (RIP), Mark Cuban, Jeff Bezos, and I disagree with you, to name a few.
The people you list have said that tax rates on the super wealthy are too low or have too many loopholes.
But the companies they created/ran still have an obligation to their shareholders to pay the least amount of taxes possible.
Quote: RogerKintWhat you do with your hard-earned money is your business. If you choose to donate 100% of your income to the federal government I'm sure they'd be happy to have it. Instead of being a white slave for 3 months out of the year you could be one for 12 months. Everyone should have the exact same recognition as beachbumbabs or they're just plain greedy.
Yeah, Roger, do be sure to exaggerate and mock me being a responsible American.
Did you pave the road to your house/apartment/mom's basement? Did you install the sewer system? Build the runways and navigation aids for the last airplane you rode in? Design and build the fighters and tanks that defend your country? Feed and house the soldiers who man them? The schools that keep America from becoming a total Idiocracy? A thousand other things you take for granted?
Actually, assuming you paid taxes, you did. Thanks for that. Your fair share? Maybe not. That's private information, but I doubt it, given your attitude.
Quote: beachbumbabsYeah, Roger, do be sure to exaggerate and mock me being a responsible American.
Did you pave the road to your house/apartment/mom's basement? Did you install the sewer system? Build the runways and navigation aids for the last airplane you rode in? Design and build the fighters and tanks that defend your country? Feed and house the soldiers who man them? The schools that keep America from becoming a total Idiocracy? A thousand other things you take for granted?
Is that a joke? The schools in this country are what's making America an idiocracy. Everything the government has done the free market has done better. Once again, use your mod status to belittle and insult others. My position is you can pay whatever you want to whoever you want.
Why do you feel the need to force others to be like you? Again, The left is no different than the religious right. In fact, you're worse. The religious right doesn't force me to give my money to the church. I wish all the left did was guilt-trip me.
Quote: RogerKintIs that a joke? The schools in this country are what's making America an idiocracy. Everything the government has done the free market has done better. Once again, use your mod status to belittle and insult others.
Yea, private prisons have been a godsend for basic human rights
Quote: gamerfreakYea, private prisons have been a godsend for basic human rights
And government prisons have been? As I said, theyre better (in this case worse). In Cali there's this new proposition to make it illegal for food producers to keep their animals in cages but yet the gov keeps humans in cages. F*cking ridiculous!
Quote: VCUSkyhawkSo going back to a more generalize political discussion, I'd like to ask you this as you are a bit older than I am. Did the republican party use to be a party that looked to "correct for inequities" in the marketplace? The reason I ask is it seems that at least since Eisenhower the republican party has not been the party that has said it is the government's place to tell the private sector how to run business (perhaps with some exceptions like Air Travel). You seem to favor this, which is why I have always doubted your self imposed republican label. Republicans tend to be at least hands off with businesses in my mind and you don't seem to be. I could be wrong, as I don't frequent the main political thread because of how toxic it get.
Anyways I was just curious on your thoughts on this.
Republicans, historically, enacted and enforced reasonable regulations on industry and commerce. That changed dramatically when Reagan came into office in 1980, and was part of the trickle-down theory of economics his administration advocated.
It took some decades to deregulate the airlines, trucking industry, banks, and others, with mostly disastrous results, including three recessions (1987, 2000, 2007) that can be traced directly back to irresponsible deregulation. It continues to be advocated by Republicans in one form or another because of the apparently irresistible call of the money the few can make by doing it.
They don't care that they're destroying the foundation of this country as long as they can live in the penthouse, apparently. They figure they'll be dead before it crumbles or something.
Quote: beachbumbabsNonsense, as usual. See above.
I actually instead looked below. Your positions are more consistent with the Democrat Party than the GOP. The GOP did not leave you because you were never in line with it now or in the 1970s.
We have discussed this many times. Defense of higher taxes alone proves my point.
Quote: billryanTrump is going to Texas to do a rally. Is he doing it in any of the dozen large pro or college football stadiums nearby?
Nope. It's being held in an 8500 seat arena.
And?
Quote: beachbumbabsRepublicans, historically, enacted and enforced reasonable regulations on industry and commerce. That changed dramatically when Reagan came into office in 1980, and was part of the trickle-down theory of economics his administration advocated.
It took some decades to deregulate the airlines, trucking industry, banks, and others, with mostly disastrous results, including three recessions (1987, 2000, 2007) that can be traced directly back to irresponsible deregulation. It continues to be advocated by Republicans in one form or another because of the apparently irresistible call of the money the few can make by doing it.
They don't care that they're destroying the foundation of this country as long as they can live in the penthouse, apparently. They figure they'll be dead before it crumbles or something.
In another thread you argued for the deregulation of Florida casinos because it would increase competition and thus value for the customer. I thought that was great! Which babs is this?
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd?
I think this is a shot at Trump's claim he would fill the largest stadium in Texas at a Cruz rally. There are nearby stadiums that seat 60,000-80,000 people. They booked a relatively small venue.
Quote: beachbumbabsI think this is a shot at Trump's claim he would fill the largest stadium in Texas at a Cruz rally. There are nearby stadiums that seat 60,000-80,000 people. They booked a relatively small venue.
Trump will still claim that 20,000 were in attendance and an additional 5,000 couldn’t get in.
And certain members here will happily repeat that lie.
Quote: beachbumbabsRepublicans, historically, enacted and enforced reasonable regulations on industry and commerce. That changed dramatically when Reagan came into office in 1980, and was part of the trickle-down theory of economics his administration advocated.
This is where I think you are wrong Babs. I am not calling you a liar, but it doesn't jib with my understanding of the history of the parties. I will do some research and get back to you on this. I know you are waiting with bated breath ;)
Quote: RogerKintIn another thread you argued for the deregulation of Florida casinos because it would increase competition and thus value for the customer. I thought that was great! Which babs is this?
There's a difference between regulation of essential services and free enterprise in non-essential industry, at least to me. RESPONSIBLE regulation and subsidies are necessary in some industries, like air travel and trucking, in order to provide service throughout the country at affordable rates. Let those industries compete within a framework that ensures there will be some service to rural areas, their groceries will not bankrupt them.
Gambling, non-food shopping, cars, let the market shake it out with competition. Banks, structure again, because people need to be protected from predatory practices like financing houses as exorbitant rates or beyond equity, use of their savings and deposits to fund junk speculation or derivatives that have no intrinsic value.
Utilities, again, need some regulation, both because they use government property with little or no cost, and because most are monopolies by jurisdiction.
There's no one-size-fits-all answer. It has to be done with some sense of the larger picture.
Quote: beachbumbabs
Utilities, again, need some regulation, both because they use government property with little or no cost, and because most are monopolies by jurisdiction.
So as government grows regulation also grows, competition decreases and that means less value for the customer?
The obvious failure of our government's space program isn't proof the earth is flat buttttttt I think it's another nail in the coffin for the hard Left ;)
Quote: VCUSkyhawkThis is where I think you are wrong Babs. I am not calling you a liar, but it doesn't jib with my understanding of the history of the parties. I will do some research and get back to you on this. I know you are waiting with bated breath ;)
Yeah, gotta stop having fish for lunch. :D
For one example, Glass-Steagall, which passed in 1933, separating banking and investment services, was introduced by a Democratic Senator and Congressman. However, it passed the House 262-19, and the Senate by floor acclimation. More than a few Republicans there. It was a strong and drastic response to irresponsible and unregulated banking practices that caused the Great Depression.
It was repealed in 1998, after working for all those years. Took less than 10 years to cause the housing crisis and the 2007-2008 recession, where again the crash of our economy traces directly back to bad banking and investment policies. Biggest recession since 1930s, no controls on basic monetary policy. Big surprise, not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Banking_Act
Quote: beachbumbabsThere's a difference between regulation of essential services and free enterprise in non-essential industry, at least to me. RESPONSIBLE regulation and subsidies are necessary in some industries, like air travel and trucking, in order to provide service throughout the country at affordable rates. Let those industries compete within a framework that ensures there will be some service to rural areas, their groceries will not bankrupt them.
Gambling, non-food shopping, cars, let the market shake it out with competition. Banks, structure again, because people need to be protected from predatory practices like financing houses as exorbitant rates or beyond equity, use of their savings and deposits to fund junk speculation or derivatives that have no intrinsic value.
Utilities, again, need some regulation, both because they use government property with little or no cost, and because most are monopolies by jurisdiction.
There's no one-size-fits-all answer. It has to be done with some sense of the larger picture.
Where I come from aviation and trucking have loads of regulations.
Price is no longer regulated, a good thing. If you are claiming regulating prices is “reasonable” then you are making my point about claimed political leanings.
Quote: beachbumbabsI think this is a shot at Trump's claim he would fill the largest stadium in Texas at a Cruz rally. There are nearby stadiums that seat 60,000-80,000 people. They booked a relatively small venue.
Anyone knows in politics you want a filled room.
Quote: beachbumbabsYeah, gotta stop having fish for lunch. :D
For one example, Glass-Steagall, which passed in 1933, separating banking and investment services, was introduced by a Democratic Senator and Congressman. However, it passed the House 262-19, and the Senate by floor acclimation. More than a few Republicans there. It was a strong and drastic response to irresponsible and unregulated banking practices that caused the Great Depression.
It was repealed in 1998, after working for all those years. Took less than 10 years to cause the housing crisis and the 2007-2008 recession, where again the crash of our economy traces directly back to bad banking and investment policies. Biggest recession since 1930s, no controls on basic monetary policy. Big surprise, not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Banking_Act
LOL the fact that we had a federal reserve artificially controlling interest rates had nothing to do with it. What a joke.
Quote: RogerKintSo as government grows regulation also grows, competition decreases and that means less value for the customer?
The obvious failure of our government's space program isn't proof the earth is flat buttttttt I think it's another nail in the coffin for the hard Left ;)
The space program didn't fail the government. The government failed the space program, by starving it.
Every dollar we spent on the space program has been returned to us 7x (maybe more by now, that number is about a decade old). Look it up.
For the reader: NASA's daily budget is around 50 million dollars PER DAY. You better believe it's a globe and it's totally warming.
Quote: WizardI haven't heard anyone mention the Tea Party in a long time. Is that still a thing?
Not really. No more than "the resistance" will be a thing once the democrats get back power. They want to limit the power of the presidency when they don't have power and justify it when they do. A perfect example was DACA.
Anyways, I am over here like, yes we DO need to curb the power of the president no matter who is in control.
Quote: RogerKintLOL the fact that we had a federal reserve artificially controlling interest rates had nothing to do with it. What a joke.
It wasn't interest rate caps. It was speculative and risky investments. It was lending mortgages on insane ARMs with balloons and 125% or more LTV HELOCs. It was derivatives that inflated the actual value of the core stock by 4000%. And a hundred other abuses.
People lost their houses by the millions. People lost their pension and retirement funds, their deposits, their savings to predators. Where have you been?
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI do not believe it is un-American to want to minimize your tax burden by any and all legal measures. Quite the opposite, I think it is very American.
The entire welfare class is the most American then.
Quote: RogerKintEverything the government has done the free market has done better.
Well, the free market has really screwed the pooch on our health care system, so I'd be willing to let the government take a shot at it. Seems to work in almost every other country on earth.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt wasn't interest rate caps. It was speculative and risky investments. It was lending mortgages on insane ARMs with balloons and 125% or more LTV HELOCs. It was derivatives that inflated the actual value of the core stock by 4000%. And a hundred other abuses.
People lost their houses by the millions. People lost their pension and retirement funds, their deposits, their savings to predators. Where have you been?
My mom's basement, duh. So when the fed keeps interest rates artificially low creating a bubble in asset prices, that doesn't cause a risky environment for the average Joe? When they raise interest rates and pull the cheap money from underneath the economy causing asset prices to crash, is that great for the average Joe? When banks fail and the gov chooses to bail out some, but not others, is that the capitalism you eloquently explained to Nathan?
Quote: RogerKintWow if that's true then government must be really inept. Can you imagine getting a 700% rebate you spent in a casino? And then you just leave? LOL. Or, you start a hedge fund make a 700% return and your investors are like "nah this is too good, I'm done". You can't make this stuff up!!!!
Government IS really, really inept. The space program didn't have the Champions in place it needed to survive budget slashing in the last 20 years. Congress needed to get rid of things when they were shutting down government all those times for running out of money.
There was no room in that climate for future investment in space, and no charismatic or powerful lobby keeping it feasible. People were bored with the shuttle doing routine things, and uneasy at the human cost of losing Challenger and Columbia.
So they didn't fund the logical next step to replace the aging shuttle program, or see the point of going to Mars, or building a moon base, so they killed the funding of that.
Nothing happens all at once, you know. But there comes a point where the funding doesn't support the mission any more, and when that point came, instead of continuing the investment with enough money to sustain it, they just cut it to put that budget elsewhere.
Quote: TigerWuWell, the free market has really screwed the pooch on our health care system, so I'd be willing to let the government take a shot at it. Seems to work in almost every other country on earth.
Wrong, see babs' explanation of how over regulation kills competition and value for the customer. You can become a doctor what, after 90 years of education? ;)
Quote: beachbumbabsGovernment IS really, really inept.
Thank you. I will continue to vote for less governent taxes/spending while continuing to pay what I'm forced to.
What's really bothersome to me is this trend of paying for government spending by taxing future generations (borrowing money). Obviously at some point we are going to have to inflate our currency supply to pay those loans. What happens when your safe-haven cash is no longer good? What happens when our creditors no longer accept USD for payment?
AND I don't care about anyone who doesn't see that, because they're idiots,.
Quote: rxwineThe entire welfare class is the most American then.
ZING!
Quote: rxwineThe purpose of regulation is to provide a fair playing field for competition. It's other purpose is to protect us from unsafe products and practices whether it's chemical dumping or catching companies making dangerous airbags.
AND I don't care about anyone who doesn't see that, because they're idiots,.
Don't call babs an idiot. She explained, better than I could, how regulation restricts entry into a particular industry which decreases competition and value for the customer. This is all economics 101.
Besides, with yelp and Amazon reviews, do we really need government regulation? ;)
Quote: RogerKintDon't call babs an idiot. She explained, better than I could, how regulation restricts entry into a particular industry which decreases competition and value for the customer. This is all economics 101.
Isn't it more accurate to say SPECIFIC regulations CAN restrict entry and decrease competition? Not just "government regulation" in general...
Quote: RogerKintNo, almost by definition, regulation makes it harder to enter an industry. That's the whole point. You dont want any geek off the street doing your brain surgery. Now, you could argue, like rxwine, did that regulation is necessary cause he's afraid of bad doctors or whatever (if u scurred go to church).
Ah. Well, that sounds like a good idea to me, then.
Thanks babs for the lively discussion! I hope to meet you one day.
Quote: rxwineThe purpose of regulation is to provide a fair playing field for competition. It's other purpose is to protect us from unsafe products and practices whether it's chemical dumping or catching companies making dangerous airbags.
AND I don't care about anyone who doesn't see that, because they're idiots,.
Why does a fair playing field matter?
I agree with protection from unsafe practices and the like, FWIW.
Oh yeah. Venezuela and Cuba are the two nearest examples of . . . government (socialist) total failure. Just look at your example of health care. Name any socialist country where people with means flock to for the best medical care. And that doesn't even touch on more fundamental food supply.Quote: TigerWuWell, the free market has really screwed the pooch on our health care system, so I'd be willing to let the government take a shot at it. Seems to work in almost every other country on earth.
Quote: SanchoPanzaOh yeah. Venezuela and Cuba are the two nearest examples of . . . government (socialist) total failure. Just look at your example of health care. Name any socialist country where people with means flock to for the best medical care. And that doesn't even touch on more fundamental food supply.
Medical care =/= the healthcare system
The United States has some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world. Nobody is disputing that. We also have one of the worst health insurance systems in the world. Those are not mutually exclusive conditions. People come to the U.S. for the best medical care BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD IT. Nobody comes to the U.S. just to sign up for health insurance for the hell of it. People LEAVE the U.S. when they can't afford medical care because it's cheaper elsewhere. It's called medical tourism.
Look at this map. All those countries in green have universal healthcare. Are you telling me they are ALL socialist failures? Canada? Greenland? Literally every single country in Europe? Australia? Japan? Korea? 95% of South America? Those are all failed systems?
Look at the countries in red. The U.S. is one. The others are half of sub-Saharan Africa and a handful of countries in the Middle East. Are you telling me that's a list you're proud to be on when it comes to wealthy industrialized nations providing healthcare to its citizens? That's a success story to you?
Quote: RSWhy does a fair playing field matter?
I agree with protection from unsafe practices and the like, FWIW.
Because unregulated allows one to cut corners, make unsafe working conditions for employees, and if you're clever you can hide shortcomings from consumers to beat down competition.
if everyone sells housing materials to specs, you don't find out years later your cheaper material is less durable, or the wall board was injected with formaldehyde that you were breathing, or other inferior look-a-like products were never verified as meeting a standard and were used instead.
Sure you can get instant feedback from rotten food and not buy, but how do you know if the medication you're taking for hair loss isn't increasing your chances for a stroke x 3 if no outside agency is inspecting?
Awhile back a Chinese company was selling cheaper dog food, that was adulterated with a filler that was killing dogs. Took awhile to figure that out, meanwhile companies selling safe food lose business.
MAKING sure companies have to compete on a fair field doesn't come without costs. IF a company figures out how to give you better service or product on the fair field that's great for everyone. LIKEWISE, if employees all have to work under same conditions, you hopefully avoid being beaten by child labor, or employees paid barely enough to live,
Enforcing a fair field for competition is good for everyone.
Quote: RogerKintThank you. I will continue to vote for less governent taxes/spending while continuing to pay what I'm forced to.
So why are so many conservatives upset that gay people can get married?
If government sucks at everything, they shouldn’t even be involved in marriage.
Quote: TigerWuThe United States has some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world. Nobody is disputing that. We also have one of the worst health insurance systems in the world. Those are not mutually exclusive conditions. People come to the U.S. for the best medical care BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD IT. Nobody comes to the U.S. just to sign up for health insurance for the hell of it. People LEAVE the U.S. when they can't afford medical care because it's cheaper elsewhere. It's called medical tourism.
Great post.
And when Americans can't afford health care, and when they can't afford to travel FOR health care, they die. 45,000 Americans die each year because of a lack of health insurance.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
"YOUR PRESIDENT" said this about Australia's health care vs ours:
Quote: Steverinos
45,000 Americans die each year because of a lack of health insurance.
"See? The system works!" -- The GOP
Quote: SteverinosAnd when Americans can't afford health care, and when they can't afford to travel FOR health care, they die. 45,000 Americans die each year because of a lack of health insurance.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
"In 2009, during the run-up to the passage of a health care reform bill, Rep. Bill Pascrell (N-NJ) claimed on the House Floor that “as many as 22,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have health insurance.” A few months later, prior to the Senate vote on what became the Affordable Care Act (ACA), then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) upped the ante, claiming that, “45,000 times this year – nearly 900 times every week, more than 120 times a day, on average every 10 minutes, without end – an American died as a direct result of not having health insurance.”
Both of these claims were based on academic or think-tank studies, which had previously been called into question on methodological grounds by Richard Kronick, then an academic and former Clinton-administration official, who was serving in the Obama administration as a deputy assistant secretary of HHS at the time the ACA was passed. Kronick re-analyzed existing data and found that when controlling for initial health status, smoking status, and body mass index, there was no difference in mortality between those with employer-sponsored health insurance and those who were uninsured."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/12/11/new-evidence-obamacare-is-not-saving-lives/#3dc08c827d3c
Too bad that there does not seem to be a map or other source that would lay out the extent of what you call "medical tourism." Nor is there a list about health insurance systems serving their populations.Quote: TigerWuMedical care =/= the healthcare system
The United States has some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world. Nobody is disputing that. We also have one of the worst health insurance systems in the world. Those are not mutually exclusive conditions. People come to the U.S. for the best medical care BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD IT. Nobody comes to the U.S. just to sign up for health insurance for the hell of it. People LEAVE the U.S. when they can't afford medical care because it's cheaper elsewhere. It's called medical tourism.
Look at this map. All those countries in green have universal healthcare. Are you telling me they are ALL socialist failures? Canada? Greenland? Literally every single country in Europe? Australia? Japan? Korea? 95% of South America? Those are all failed systems?
Look at the countries in red. The U.S. is one. The others are half of sub-Saharan Africa and a handful of countries in the Middle East. Are you telling me that's a list you're proud to be on when it comes to wealthy industrialized nations providing healthcare to its citizens? That's a success story to you?
"Canada, for example, cannot be called a "success" when "Canada's single-payer healthcare system forced over 1 million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. That's an all-time record.
Those long wait times were more than just a nuisance; they cost patients $1.9 billion in lost wages, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think-tank.
Lengthy treatment delays are the norm in Canada and other single-payer nations, which ration care to keep costs down. Yet more and more Democratic leaders are pushing for a single-payer system -- and more and more voters are clamoring for one." forbes
Canadians flock to the U.S. for treatment by the tens of thousands:
" The institute asked the specialists to approximate the percentage of their patients who received non-emergency treatment outside of Canada in the previous 12 months. Based on that data, the institute estimates that 63,459 Canadians left the country for non-urgent medical care in 2016.
Nearly 9,500 patients travelled abroad for general surgeries, about 6,400 sought urology treatments and just over 5,000 left the country for procedures such as colonoscopies and angiographies (examinations of veins and arteries), according to the report.
The Fraser Institute says the top three provinces from which patients travelled abroad for treatment are:
Ontario: 26,513 patients
British Columbia: 15,372 patients
Alberta: 9,067 patients
"If that many Canadians are willing to pay out of pocket to get faster access to the treatment they need, that means they are dissatisfied with the quality of care," said Yanick Labrie, a senior Fraser Institute fellow and one of the authors of the report.
The report says "one explanation" for patients leaving the country may be the long wait times in Canada. It also notes that some patients may be sent out of country for treatment, at the expense of the public health care system, because the procedure or equipment they need are not available in their jurisdiction." ctv
P.S. Whoever drew up that wiki map ought to give the legend for the "gray" countries. Besides, I know first-hand many of those "blue" countries and can state definitively that medical care is far from "free" there. Yup, "success" is when people from around the globe flock to your shores for medical care. And you have not been able to cite even one of the "green" countries.
Quote: gamerfreakSo why are so many conservatives upset that gay people can get married?
If government sucks at everything, they shouldn’t even be involved in marriage.
I don't know anyone that thinks gay people can't get married so I can't speak for them. I knew a few who said they didn't want to recognize a gay marriage but they didn't care if they went off and got married. I don't know what that means nor do I care. In that same vein I know many people who think women should be able to have an abortion but don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's abortion, ya dig?
So yeah, we agree on the marriage thang I think. BTW, I like your posts regarding big biz and big gov involved with each other. When you look at government as just another corporate entity, things make more sense. Obviously big business wants to stamp out competition through over regulation and gov helps them do that. The products of this are the very same thing the left complains about (wage gap increasing, higher prices for services etc).
