On December 10 2015 21:38 oneofthem wrote:
nah it's more important that i am entertained
nah it's more important that i am entertained
Smells Like Teen Spirit, here.
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7923 Posts
December 10 2015 12:38 GMT
#52721
On December 10 2015 21:38 oneofthem wrote: Show nested quote + On December 10 2015 21:29 Biff The Understudy wrote: On December 10 2015 13:48 oneofthem wrote: trump can still win by mobilizing his supporters. this is where having a lot of disposable liquidity would propel him. the gop should embrace trump though id hate to see a boring nontrump election year I think you fail to realize that elections are not an entertainment and that the future of your country, if not of the world, is in balance. I'd rather have you being "bored" (wtf really??) than having a lunatic at the white house. nah it's more important that i am entertained Smells Like Teen Spirit, here. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
December 10 2015 12:58 GMT
#52722
On December 10 2015 21:27 Biff The Understudy wrote: Show nested quote + On December 10 2015 13:23 Plansix wrote: The only thing more amusing than Trump are the people who claim that he has "solid credentials" when he shows a limited understanding of the most basic things. Like its not ok so say you want to bang your own daughter. I believe that it's something terribly broken with american politics and their mentality: the idea that if you get very very rich you are smart and competent and that you will be great at running the country. In general, and you can read that in Tocqueville, there is a general notion in the states that money is success and that successful people deserve their success, because of how intelligent and capable they must be to have got there. In my opinion both assertion are more than debatable, and I think that those ideas are the reason why the US have become (or always been) such a ploutocratic country. People are in general not nuanced, and cannot articulate subtle (and even not so subtle) differences. Too many make blatant statements such as the one outlined above on both ends of the aisle - all rich have conned, stole, "exploited", etc. their wealth or all rich have earned their wealth by just transactions and trade. Neither is right, and it were the early radically liberal French we have to thank for such insight. It is precisely in what manner that wealth is acquired, determines both their merit and the justness. There are many rich who have got where they are via rent-seeking, monopolization (in its non-contemporary definition of a Government writ of such), outright subsidy, favorable laws and regulatry schemes, etc. etc, Yet, there are also those who have made their wealth without such action, based solely on the actions of their consumers without the violations of others property rights (though becoming more and more uncommon as the Government gains more and more power). I happen to think Charles Dunoyer was perhaps one of the greatest minds of the 19th Century. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11655 Posts
December 10 2015 13:31 GMT
#52723
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
December 10 2015 13:47 GMT
#52724
On December 10 2015 22:31 Simberto wrote: There is also the notion that it is impossible to accumulate billions just by "working hard", or "earn" tens of thousands of dollars an hour, especially if you compare that "hard work" with the work of, for example, that of a nurse who almost certainly will never even make a single million $ and probably works for less than 20 $/hour. Does Donald Trump really work a thousand times as hard as that nurse? What the hell does working hard even mean? I've never understood this fascination with the equivalence of value and utility with "working hard". A person(s) value isn't a measure of blood sweat and tears (I've always found it idiotic how working hard only means physical properties - it's like intellectual endeavors are not even on anyones mind, yet, they by and large, derive the most value). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
December 10 2015 14:10 GMT
#52725
On December 10 2015 22:47 Wegandi wrote: Show nested quote + On December 10 2015 22:31 Simberto wrote: There is also the notion that it is impossible to accumulate billions just by "working hard", or "earn" tens of thousands of dollars an hour, especially if you compare that "hard work" with the work of, for example, that of a nurse who almost certainly will never even make a single million $ and probably works for less than 20 $/hour. Does Donald Trump really work a thousand times as hard as that nurse? What the hell does working hard even mean? I've never understood this fascination with the equivalence of value and utility with "working hard". A person(s) value isn't a measure of blood sweat and tears (I've always found it idiotic how working hard only means physical properties - it's like intellectual endeavors are not even on anyones mind, yet, they by and large, derive the most value). Intellectuals would have us believe that their endeavors provide the most value. Though the combined efforts of construction works and architects to create the spaces for the intellectual endeavors might tell a different story. But the entire discussion is subjective, since "value" is a matter of perspective. In the case of the elections, the public values someone who is successful in their field and experience in politics. The obsession with "I'm a business man, therefore I will be a good president" isn't a new argument. But in general it has not been a persuasive argument on its own. The person needs more than the ability to make a pile of money. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
December 10 2015 14:36 GMT
#52726
i happen to think profiting from hiring other people is built into the structure of the coordination problem of business already. in a large scale organization of more than a few people, some will have to order and arrange how others work. employer having ingenuity, enterprise, access to rent extracting power, hustle, information or a wide range of other advantages or actions. put in other way, the controller of the business opportunity will get the full share, while laborers are competing as commodities. in the process of their work, they get instructed and organized by the one in control of the money making process. all of this arise out of individual interactions and strategies. make no mistake, enterprise creates more value than day laborers no matter how hard the latter works. but it's always a mix of power and good ideas, and you want to maximize the latter while guarding against former. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
December 10 2015 14:55 GMT
#52727
Nate Silver is killing it, as normal: How Republicans And Polls Enable Donald Trump Donald Trump’s probably unconstitutional1 proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States was soon denounced by … exactly who you might expect to denounce it. The three remaining Democratic candidates immediately condemned it. So did several Republican candidates — Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham — who are running in the New Hampshire “lane” of the GOP primary, hoping to cultivate more moderate voters. The more conservative Republican candidates were slower on the draw. Marco Rubio waited three hours before saying (on Twitter) that he disagreed with Trump. Ted Cruz’s and Ben Carson’s campaigns clarified their candidates’ positions rather than saying much about Trump’s. Mike Huckabee, as of early Tuesday, still hadn’t commented. It’s not obvious what Republican voters will think of Trump’s proposal — no pollster, as far as we can find, has directly asked about a “total and complete” ban on Muslims entering the U.S.2 Trump, however, evidently thinks his proposal is good politics: He retweeted a claim from Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent David Brody that the plan could “give [Trump] a boost with evangelicals,” a key group in the Iowa caucuses. Cruz, Rubio and the other campaigns are arguably acting in their narrow best interest. Cruz’s campaign has been “drafting” off Trump’s for months, staying as close to it as possible without quite colliding with it. (It seems to be working: Cruz has been gaining in the polls, especially in Iowa.) Rubio has also been slowly but steadily improving in the polls and gradually adding endorsements to his tally. Kasich, Bush and Christie, who are struggling everywhere but New Hampshire, have much less to lose. What’s more perplexing is the reluctance of Republican Party leaders to speak out against Trump. Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan declined to comment on Trump’s anti-Muslim proposal, for instance. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus hadn’t issued any statement as of late Monday night. And of the past three Republican nominees — George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney — only McCain had said anything. Perhaps these Republicans are waiting to craft the right language — Romney, in particular, has had no trouble criticizing Trump before. Or perhaps they think any such statements wouldn’t be helpful — or could even backfire, given the distrust of the establishment that the GOP base has. It’s not clear that the GOP has anything in the way of a living elder statesman or stateswoman who has unimpeachable credentials to speak up about Trump. In a poll conducted by Gallup last year, the most admired male politician among Republican voters was … Barack Obama, who was chosen by 8 percent of Republicans. (George W. Bush was next, at 3 percent.) Condoleezza Rice (9 percent), Hillary Clinton (5 percent) and Sarah Palin (4 percent) were the most admired female politicians among Republicans. But it’s also possible that the Republican reluctance to criticize Trump stems from a surfeit of short-term thinking — combined with a possible misreading of the polls. Several times so far in the campaign, we’ve witnessed the following cycle: Trump says something offensive or ludicrous. Some pundits loudly proclaim that it could bring about the end of Trump’s campaign. Instead, Trump’s position remains steady or even improved in ballot-test polls.3 The same pundits therefore conclude that Trump is indestructible and impervious to criticism. This is not a ridiculous interpretation. But there are some potential problems with it. One is that most Republicans are still not paying all that much attention to the campaign. Some controversies that garner wall-to-wall coverage from the political press may only reach one-quarter to one-fifth of Americans at home. That mutes the impact of most things the candidates are doing. And any actual effects can easily be overwhelmed by noise in the polling, making it hard to make inferences about causality. The second big problem is that in a field that still has 14 candidates, more media coverage — even negative media coverage — potentially helps a candidate to differentiate himself and thereby improve his position on the ballot test. In general, there has been a strong correlation between how well a candidate is performing on the ballot test and how much media coverage he’s receiving, although the causality is hard to determine. Trump seems to understand this; indeed, he seems to issue his most controversial remarks and proposals precisely at moments of perceived vulnerability.4 Put another way, the media’s obsession over the daily fluctuations in the polls — even when the polls don’t predict very much about voter behavior and don’t necessarily reflect people who are actually likely to vote — may help enable Trump. Republicans are afraid to criticize Trump in part because it rarely produces instant gratification in a “win-the-morning” political culture that keeps score based on polls.5 Without seeing any repercussions, Trump goes farther out on a limb, shifting the window of acceptable discourse along with him and making it harder to rebuke him the next time around. UPDATE (Dec. 8, 1:35 p.m.): Although a Trump spokeswoman initially said the ban would include American citizens traveling abroad, Trump said in an interview on Tuesday morning that citizens would be able to travel freely. I am enjoying his focus on the media and how their needs to report every poll at all times is driving the race is a specific direction. That they are far more in the drivers seat than they may be aware of and that may be appropriate for a news agency. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
December 10 2015 14:56 GMT
#52728
On December 10 2015 22:31 Simberto wrote: There is also the notion that it is impossible to accumulate billions just by "working hard", or "earn" tens of thousands of dollars an hour, especially if you compare that "hard work" with the work of, for example, that of a nurse who almost certainly will never even make a single million $ and probably works for less than 20 $/hour. Does Donald Trump really work a thousand times as hard as that nurse? Median salary works out to be just north of 30$ best I can tell. I don't know how much you lean on numbers in the benevolent-salary argument, but there you go. It won't convince several of my friends who think a single investment manager earning more than a nurse is proof of injustice in the system. 50$ minimum for nurses, 25$ for fry cooks in their opinion. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
December 10 2015 15:05 GMT
#52729
On December 10 2015 22:31 Simberto wrote: There is also the notion that it is impossible to accumulate billions just by "working hard", or "earn" tens of thousands of dollars an hour, especially if you compare that "hard work" with the work of, for example, that of a nurse who almost certainly will never even make a single million $ and probably works for less than 20 $/hour. Does Donald Trump really work a thousand times as hard as that nurse? A well received author like GRRM makes more than a random fan fiction author. It doesn't matter who 'works harder' on their stories, the former's work is much more highly valued than the latter's. From what I've read, even marxists / communists didn't value all labor equally. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
December 10 2015 15:24 GMT
#52730
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
December 10 2015 15:51 GMT
#52731
It’s not clear that the GOP has anything in the way of a living elder statesman or stateswoman who has unimpeachable credentials to speak up about Trump. In a poll conducted by Gallup last year, the most admired male politician among Republican voters was … Barack Obama, who was chosen by 8 percent of Republicans. (George W. Bush was next, at 3 percent.) Condoleezza Rice (9 percent), Hillary Clinton (5 percent) and Sarah Palin (4 percent) were the most admired female politicians among Republicans. From Plansix's post. I lol'd. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
December 10 2015 16:16 GMT
#52732
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
December 10 2015 16:22 GMT
#52733
On December 10 2015 23:55 Plansix wrote: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-republicans-and-polls-enable-donald-trump/ Nate Silver is killing it, as normal: Show nested quote + How Republicans And Polls Enable Donald Trump Donald Trump’s probably unconstitutional1 proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States was soon denounced by … exactly who you might expect to denounce it. The three remaining Democratic candidates immediately condemned it. So did several Republican candidates — Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham — who are running in the New Hampshire “lane” of the GOP primary, hoping to cultivate more moderate voters. The more conservative Republican candidates were slower on the draw. Marco Rubio waited three hours before saying (on Twitter) that he disagreed with Trump. Ted Cruz’s and Ben Carson’s campaigns clarified their candidates’ positions rather than saying much about Trump’s. Mike Huckabee, as of early Tuesday, still hadn’t commented. It’s not obvious what Republican voters will think of Trump’s proposal — no pollster, as far as we can find, has directly asked about a “total and complete” ban on Muslims entering the U.S.2 Trump, however, evidently thinks his proposal is good politics: He retweeted a claim from Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent David Brody that the plan could “give [Trump] a boost with evangelicals,” a key group in the Iowa caucuses. Cruz, Rubio and the other campaigns are arguably acting in their narrow best interest. Cruz’s campaign has been “drafting” off Trump’s for months, staying as close to it as possible without quite colliding with it. (It seems to be working: Cruz has been gaining in the polls, especially in Iowa.) Rubio has also been slowly but steadily improving in the polls and gradually adding endorsements to his tally. Kasich, Bush and Christie, who are struggling everywhere but New Hampshire, have much less to lose. What’s more perplexing is the reluctance of Republican Party leaders to speak out against Trump. Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan declined to comment on Trump’s anti-Muslim proposal, for instance. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus hadn’t issued any statement as of late Monday night. And of the past three Republican nominees — George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney — only McCain had said anything. Perhaps these Republicans are waiting to craft the right language — Romney, in particular, has had no trouble criticizing Trump before. Or perhaps they think any such statements wouldn’t be helpful — or could even backfire, given the distrust of the establishment that the GOP base has. It’s not clear that the GOP has anything in the way of a living elder statesman or stateswoman who has unimpeachable credentials to speak up about Trump. In a poll conducted by Gallup last year, the most admired male politician among Republican voters was … Barack Obama, who was chosen by 8 percent of Republicans. (George W. Bush was next, at 3 percent.) Condoleezza Rice (9 percent), Hillary Clinton (5 percent) and Sarah Palin (4 percent) were the most admired female politicians among Republicans. But it’s also possible that the Republican reluctance to criticize Trump stems from a surfeit of short-term thinking — combined with a possible misreading of the polls. Several times so far in the campaign, we’ve witnessed the following cycle: Trump says something offensive or ludicrous. Some pundits loudly proclaim that it could bring about the end of Trump’s campaign. Instead, Trump’s position remains steady or even improved in ballot-test polls.3 The same pundits therefore conclude that Trump is indestructible and impervious to criticism. This is not a ridiculous interpretation. But there are some potential problems with it. One is that most Republicans are still not paying all that much attention to the campaign. Some controversies that garner wall-to-wall coverage from the political press may only reach one-quarter to one-fifth of Americans at home. That mutes the impact of most things the candidates are doing. And any actual effects can easily be overwhelmed by noise in the polling, making it hard to make inferences about causality. The second big problem is that in a field that still has 14 candidates, more media coverage — even negative media coverage — potentially helps a candidate to differentiate himself and thereby improve his position on the ballot test. In general, there has been a strong correlation between how well a candidate is performing on the ballot test and how much media coverage he’s receiving, although the causality is hard to determine. Trump seems to understand this; indeed, he seems to issue his most controversial remarks and proposals precisely at moments of perceived vulnerability.4 Put another way, the media’s obsession over the daily fluctuations in the polls — even when the polls don’t predict very much about voter behavior and don’t necessarily reflect people who are actually likely to vote — may help enable Trump. Republicans are afraid to criticize Trump in part because it rarely produces instant gratification in a “win-the-morning” political culture that keeps score based on polls.5 Without seeing any repercussions, Trump goes farther out on a limb, shifting the window of acceptable discourse along with him and making it harder to rebuke him the next time around. UPDATE (Dec. 8, 1:35 p.m.): Although a Trump spokeswoman initially said the ban would include American citizens traveling abroad, Trump said in an interview on Tuesday morning that citizens would be able to travel freely. I am enjoying his focus on the media and how their needs to report every poll at all times is driving the race is a specific direction. That they are far more in the drivers seat than they may be aware of and that may be appropriate for a news agency. Republican leaders are carefull to speak out against trump because it would not help themselves. Speaking out against trump and attacking him more fiercely would most likely help ted cruz, And many republicans dislike cruz even more then trump,so there is that. A usa university that simulated the elections and managed to predict the right outcome every time since 1975 predicts Bernie sanders to become president. It doesn't seem that unlikely to me anymore,thought Clinton would win but she is quiet controversial. Maybe to controversial to become the democratic candidate. Am also not 100% sure Clinton would beat trump. Would have been nice though to have the first female president. If Clinton wont make it then who knows how much longer we have to wait for that. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
December 10 2015 16:31 GMT
#52734
Best part imho was "Trump steaks are by far the best tasting most flavorful beef you ever had" | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
December 10 2015 16:47 GMT
#52735
On December 11 2015 01:22 Rassy wrote: Show nested quote + On December 10 2015 23:55 Plansix wrote: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-republicans-and-polls-enable-donald-trump/ Nate Silver is killing it, as normal: How Republicans And Polls Enable Donald Trump Donald Trump’s probably unconstitutional1 proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States was soon denounced by … exactly who you might expect to denounce it. The three remaining Democratic candidates immediately condemned it. So did several Republican candidates — Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham — who are running in the New Hampshire “lane” of the GOP primary, hoping to cultivate more moderate voters. The more conservative Republican candidates were slower on the draw. Marco Rubio waited three hours before saying (on Twitter) that he disagreed with Trump. Ted Cruz’s and Ben Carson’s campaigns clarified their candidates’ positions rather than saying much about Trump’s. Mike Huckabee, as of early Tuesday, still hadn’t commented. It’s not obvious what Republican voters will think of Trump’s proposal — no pollster, as far as we can find, has directly asked about a “total and complete” ban on Muslims entering the U.S.2 Trump, however, evidently thinks his proposal is good politics: He retweeted a claim from Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent David Brody that the plan could “give [Trump] a boost with evangelicals,” a key group in the Iowa caucuses. Cruz, Rubio and the other campaigns are arguably acting in their narrow best interest. Cruz’s campaign has been “drafting” off Trump’s for months, staying as close to it as possible without quite colliding with it. (It seems to be working: Cruz has been gaining in the polls, especially in Iowa.) Rubio has also been slowly but steadily improving in the polls and gradually adding endorsements to his tally. Kasich, Bush and Christie, who are struggling everywhere but New Hampshire, have much less to lose. What’s more perplexing is the reluctance of Republican Party leaders to speak out against Trump. Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan declined to comment on Trump’s anti-Muslim proposal, for instance. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus hadn’t issued any statement as of late Monday night. And of the past three Republican nominees — George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney — only McCain had said anything. Perhaps these Republicans are waiting to craft the right language — Romney, in particular, has had no trouble criticizing Trump before. Or perhaps they think any such statements wouldn’t be helpful — or could even backfire, given the distrust of the establishment that the GOP base has. It’s not clear that the GOP has anything in the way of a living elder statesman or stateswoman who has unimpeachable credentials to speak up about Trump. In a poll conducted by Gallup last year, the most admired male politician among Republican voters was … Barack Obama, who was chosen by 8 percent of Republicans. (George W. Bush was next, at 3 percent.) Condoleezza Rice (9 percent), Hillary Clinton (5 percent) and Sarah Palin (4 percent) were the most admired female politicians among Republicans. But it’s also possible that the Republican reluctance to criticize Trump stems from a surfeit of short-term thinking — combined with a possible misreading of the polls. Several times so far in the campaign, we’ve witnessed the following cycle: Trump says something offensive or ludicrous. Some pundits loudly proclaim that it could bring about the end of Trump’s campaign. Instead, Trump’s position remains steady or even improved in ballot-test polls.3 The same pundits therefore conclude that Trump is indestructible and impervious to criticism. This is not a ridiculous interpretation. But there are some potential problems with it. One is that most Republicans are still not paying all that much attention to the campaign. Some controversies that garner wall-to-wall coverage from the political press may only reach one-quarter to one-fifth of Americans at home. That mutes the impact of most things the candidates are doing. And any actual effects can easily be overwhelmed by noise in the polling, making it hard to make inferences about causality. The second big problem is that in a field that still has 14 candidates, more media coverage — even negative media coverage — potentially helps a candidate to differentiate himself and thereby improve his position on the ballot test. In general, there has been a strong correlation between how well a candidate is performing on the ballot test and how much media coverage he’s receiving, although the causality is hard to determine. Trump seems to understand this; indeed, he seems to issue his most controversial remarks and proposals precisely at moments of perceived vulnerability.4 Put another way, the media’s obsession over the daily fluctuations in the polls — even when the polls don’t predict very much about voter behavior and don’t necessarily reflect people who are actually likely to vote — may help enable Trump. Republicans are afraid to criticize Trump in part because it rarely produces instant gratification in a “win-the-morning” political culture that keeps score based on polls.5 Without seeing any repercussions, Trump goes farther out on a limb, shifting the window of acceptable discourse along with him and making it harder to rebuke him the next time around. UPDATE (Dec. 8, 1:35 p.m.): Although a Trump spokeswoman initially said the ban would include American citizens traveling abroad, Trump said in an interview on Tuesday morning that citizens would be able to travel freely. I am enjoying his focus on the media and how their needs to report every poll at all times is driving the race is a specific direction. That they are far more in the drivers seat than they may be aware of and that may be appropriate for a news agency. Republican leaders are carefull to speak out against trump because it would not help themselves. Speaking out against trump and attacking him more fiercely would most likely help ted cruz, And many republicans dislike cruz even more then trump,so there is that. A usa university that simulated the elections and managed to predict the right outcome every time since 1975 predicts Bernie sanders to become president. It doesn't seem that unlikely to me anymore,thought Clinton would win but she is quiet controversial. Maybe to controversial to become the democratic candidate. Am also not 100% sure Clinton would beat trump. Would have been nice though to have the first female president. If Clinton wont make it then who knows how much longer we have to wait for that. If Sanders turned out to the contender, he'd be killed or convicted of kiddy fiddling or something else. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
December 10 2015 16:48 GMT
#52736
Ben Carson sought to reinvigorate his presidential campaign late on Wednesday by rolling out a proposed healthcare overhaul that would eventually increase the Medicare eligibility age to 70. The Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon appeared confident before a crowd of 250 at Eastern Michigan University, speaking on a subject he has drawn a national following for: healthcare. Carson, a native of nearby Detroit, rallied the crowd around his plan that would repeal Obamacare, one of the few lines that drew applause in his nearly hourlong remarks. “We don’t want a bunch of bureaucrats dictating to people what they ought to do,” Carson said in his deadpan delivery. The main feature of his proposal is the expansion of tax-free health empowerment accounts (HEAs), which would be paired with high-deductible major medical coverage. The 64-year-old used the town hall setting mostly to roll out his 10-page proposed healthcare overhaul – a plan that aims to gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age to 70 and, he wrote in the proposal released on Wednesday, would “restore trust in the individual patient”. “Instead of removing choices and restricting options,” Carson wrote, “I would return to an approach that places the relationship between patient and doctor at the forefront.” The proposal was vague on financial specifics; it didn’t include an estimated cost or economic impact. Carson told reporters after the town hall that he believes it would save between $2tn-$4tn over a decade. Source | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21973 Posts
December 10 2015 16:53 GMT
#52737
On December 11 2015 01:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Show nested quote + Ben Carson sought to reinvigorate his presidential campaign late on Wednesday by rolling out a proposed healthcare overhaul that would eventually increase the Medicare eligibility age to 70. The Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon appeared confident before a crowd of 250 at Eastern Michigan University, speaking on a subject he has drawn a national following for: healthcare. Carson, a native of nearby Detroit, rallied the crowd around his plan that would repeal Obamacare, one of the few lines that drew applause in his nearly hourlong remarks. “We don’t want a bunch of bureaucrats dictating to people what they ought to do,” Carson said in his deadpan delivery. The main feature of his proposal is the expansion of tax-free health empowerment accounts (HEAs), which would be paired with high-deductible major medical coverage. The 64-year-old used the town hall setting mostly to roll out his 10-page proposed healthcare overhaul – a plan that aims to gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age to 70 and, he wrote in the proposal released on Wednesday, would “restore trust in the individual patient”. “Instead of removing choices and restricting options,” Carson wrote, “I would return to an approach that places the relationship between patient and doctor at the forefront.” The proposal was vague on financial specifics; it didn’t include an estimated cost or economic impact. Carson told reporters after the town hall that he believes it would save between $2tn-$4tn over a decade. Source all hail voodoo economics. How do you save money when everything listed would raise costs? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
December 10 2015 16:57 GMT
#52738
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
December 10 2015 16:58 GMT
#52739
On December 11 2015 01:53 Gorsameth wrote: Show nested quote + On December 11 2015 01:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ben Carson sought to reinvigorate his presidential campaign late on Wednesday by rolling out a proposed healthcare overhaul that would eventually increase the Medicare eligibility age to 70. The Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon appeared confident before a crowd of 250 at Eastern Michigan University, speaking on a subject he has drawn a national following for: healthcare. Carson, a native of nearby Detroit, rallied the crowd around his plan that would repeal Obamacare, one of the few lines that drew applause in his nearly hourlong remarks. “We don’t want a bunch of bureaucrats dictating to people what they ought to do,” Carson said in his deadpan delivery. The main feature of his proposal is the expansion of tax-free health empowerment accounts (HEAs), which would be paired with high-deductible major medical coverage. The 64-year-old used the town hall setting mostly to roll out his 10-page proposed healthcare overhaul – a plan that aims to gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age to 70 and, he wrote in the proposal released on Wednesday, would “restore trust in the individual patient”. “Instead of removing choices and restricting options,” Carson wrote, “I would return to an approach that places the relationship between patient and doctor at the forefront.” The proposal was vague on financial specifics; it didn’t include an estimated cost or economic impact. Carson told reporters after the town hall that he believes it would save between $2tn-$4tn over a decade. Source all hail voodoo economics. How do you save money when everything listed would raise costs? Raising the medicare eligibility age will save a ton of money. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43298 Posts
December 10 2015 16:58 GMT
#52740
You have to understand that Carson is a true literalist in the Seventh Day Adventist church. His believing against all the evidence that the pyramids were made by Joseph is funny but he also believes that the end of the world is coming soon. Like really soon. That very soon we'll all be judged by God and the world will end. Those of us who think that the odds of that are low might wonder how it impacts his decision making. If I believed what he did then I'd make an economic plan with the assumption that any issues that won't hit for a decade or so won't matter. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • StrangeGG StarCraft: Brood War• HeavenSC • Hupsaiya • davetesta25 • Berry_CruncH8 • Migwel • sooper7s • AfreecaTV YouTube • intothetv • Kozan • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamezSOOP Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
StarCraft2.fi
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
StarCraft2.fi
PiGosaur Monday
Wardi Open
StarCraft2.fi
[ Show More ] Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo League
BSL 21
Sziky vs OyAji
Gypsy vs eOnzErG
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL 21
Bonyth vs StRyKeR
Tarson vs Dandy
|
|
|