|
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. |
On January 16 2016 06:08 Ravianna26 wrote:
For me to consider voting for Bernie Sanders he'd have to reach out to Republicans, to repeal Obamacare and defund PP. I've been a registered Republican since 2004(the first year I was able to vote) so a Democrat would have to really impress me to get my vote. Neither John Kerry nor Barack Obama managed to do that.
Don't worry, no Democrat will ever try to convince you to vote for them because you are a lost cause, having drunk to deep from the well of Bullshit mountain.
|
On January 16 2016 06:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 06:08 Ravianna26 wrote:
For me to consider voting for Bernie Sanders he'd have to reach out to Republicans, to repeal Obamacare and defund PP. I've been a registered Republican since 2004(the first year I was able to vote) so a Democrat would have to really impress me to get my vote. Neither John Kerry nor Barack Obama managed to do that. Don't worry, no Democrat will ever try to convince you to vote for them because you are a lost cause, having drunk to deep from the well of Bullshit mountain.
I miss Jon Stewart.
He would have had a field day when Rick Santorum recently told everyone to Google his own name.
|
On January 16 2016 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 06:50 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2016 06:08 Ravianna26 wrote:
For me to consider voting for Bernie Sanders he'd have to reach out to Republicans, to repeal Obamacare and defund PP. I've been a registered Republican since 2004(the first year I was able to vote) so a Democrat would have to really impress me to get my vote. Neither John Kerry nor Barack Obama managed to do that. Don't worry, no Democrat will ever try to convince you to vote for them because you are a lost cause, having drunk to deep from the well of Bullshit mountain. I miss Jon Stewart. He would have had a field day when Rick Santorum recently told everyone to Google his own name.
Why did he do that?
|
On January 16 2016 07:22 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 16 2016 06:50 Gorsameth wrote:On January 16 2016 06:08 Ravianna26 wrote:
For me to consider voting for Bernie Sanders he'd have to reach out to Republicans, to repeal Obamacare and defund PP. I've been a registered Republican since 2004(the first year I was able to vote) so a Democrat would have to really impress me to get my vote. Neither John Kerry nor Barack Obama managed to do that. Don't worry, no Democrat will ever try to convince you to vote for them because you are a lost cause, having drunk to deep from the well of Bullshit mountain. I miss Jon Stewart. He would have had a field day when Rick Santorum recently told everyone to Google his own name. Why did he do that?
Oh just for people to compare him with Hillary (apparently they debated or argued or some shit and he "won" according to him). That context isn't nearly as interesting as the hope that someone accidentally stumbled across santorum while trying to find Rick Santorum.
|
Just watched the republican debate.... man, Jeb is pathetic
|
On January 16 2016 06:08 Ravianna26 wrote:
For me to consider voting for Bernie Sanders he'd have to reach out to Republicans, to repeal Obamacare and defund PP. I've been a registered Republican since 2004(the first year I was able to vote) so a Democrat would have to really impress me to get my vote. Neither John Kerry nor Barack Obama managed to do that.
Yeah why do you want to defund PP?
|
When Jeb Bush announced a record fundraising haul in July, the Florida Republican rewarded major donors with a two-day celebratory retreat at the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine. They also delivered a message: $114 million was just the beginning of how much cash they would need to win.
Now, seven months later and just 17 days before the first ballots are cast, Bush’s donors are no longer high-fiving or strategizing how to keep funds flowing. Instead, the money spigot is shutting off as the donor class believes it is just a matter of time before the candidate they threw so much money behind drops out of the race.
POLITICO talked to nearly two dozen major donors, and most say they are waiting for what one veteran Republican and former Bush 43 administration appointee described as the "family hall pass" to jump to another campaign after the New Hampshire primary.
“I’m resigned to it being over, frankly. It’s really disappointing,” said one top Bush Wall Street donor. “I’d urge him to get out after New Hampshire if he doesn’t do well, but he probably won’t."
The deterioration of the Bush campaign has been a humbling experience for his fundraisers. A year ago, even before he was a candidate, Bush's team was locking down donors across the country and getting commitments for six- and seven-figure checks with little trouble. Donors were pitted against each other to see who could raise more and be in the good graces of the man who, at the time, was described by many in Bush World as the inevitable nominee.
Now the fundraising pitch is decidedly different.
"Hey, I need you to throw away money on Jeb — out of loyalty," a Bush fundraiser has told donors recently.
Rival campaigns are watching Bush's finance operation closely and have been working behind the scenes to lay the groundwork to poach his donor network. So far, a top Florida Republican fundraiser, Brian Ballard, has been one of the only notable defections to Sen. Marco Rubio's camp after Bush's campaign attacked Rubio.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the big game here should be building up a shaken confidence in the government and pushing good policy to address the very severe challenges both the u.s. and the world face. in this vein sanders is a less competent obama in the sense that he is really high on the rhetoric and ideals and even lower on actual plan and identification of a strategy to put government to work effectively.
saying things like free college and 15 dollar minimum wage would sound nice, particularly to young people. but these are things likely to backfire spectacularly and harken to the clientelism plaguing third world countries in some parts. giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
first step to proposing a platform is to identify the structural problems in the economy, particularly those driving inequality, but also one must understand the importance of the market and individual enterprise and drive in the development of the economy, which is after all a macro view of productive activity in society.
the form of the solution should be closer to raising people's awareness of their position in the market, enhancing human capital in the underprivileged, and removing the unfairness of exclusive social capital ordinarily reserved for the rich. teach kids in high school about financial sensibility, where they are in the job market, and so on. have community colleges better match market demand. etc etc there are a lot of space for creative and problem solving oriented policies.
i don't really see the left acknowledging the importance of giving people more capabilities in the marketplace. the unions are entrenched only for members, and so on.
the concern i have is that, in the case of a failure of drastic government actions by the left, the reaction would be extremely harsh. there is also a large batch of frustration for lack of a good candidate to represent what i see as the correct moral values at stake in the larger question of whether the world in 100 years would be more like the u.s. or east asia corruption.
|
giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
To be fair a single payer healthcare system wouldn't actually cost significantly more money for the average guy or the government because they're significantly cheaper on a per capita basis than whatever the US has going on now, it would actually lower public spending significantly. Why do conservatives not love single payer systems?
|
Hooray!
Citing concerns over pricing and pollution, the Obama administration on Friday unveiled a moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands. The change won't affect existing leases, which generated nearly $1.3 billion for the government last year.
The Department of the Interior says it wants to make sure the money it's charging for coal leases takes into account both market prices and what's often called the "social costs" of coal — its impact on climate change and public health.
The agency says federal lands account for roughly 40 percent of all U.S. coal production.
Source
|
On January 16 2016 08:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +
giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
To be fair a single payer healthcare system wouldn't actually cost significantly more money for the average guy or the government because they're significantly cheaper on a per capita basis than whatever the US has going on now, it would actually lower public spending significantly. Why do conservatives not love single payer systems?
Because we understand the mechanisms employed to achieve those cost savings and do not like them.
|
Remember that scene in Batman where the Joker burns that mountain of cash? That's how I picture Bush donators.
|
United States43978 Posts
On January 16 2016 09:53 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 08:52 Nyxisto wrote:
giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
To be fair a single payer healthcare system wouldn't actually cost significantly more money for the average guy or the government because they're significantly cheaper on a per capita basis than whatever the US has going on now, it would actually lower public spending significantly. Why do conservatives not love single payer systems? Because we understand the mechanisms employed to achieve those cost savings and do not like them.
But the current system is worse, surely. Health insurance is, for some reason, a tax free part of employee compensation while low income people get it gratis. For the average man, employed or unemployed, there is no difference between scrapping employer health insurance, mandating it be replaced with a pay bump and then negating most of the pay bump with a National Health Service tax and leaving things as they are. None.
|
On January 16 2016 09:53 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 08:52 Nyxisto wrote:
giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
To be fair a single payer healthcare system wouldn't actually cost significantly more money for the average guy or the government because they're significantly cheaper on a per capita basis than whatever the US has going on now, it would actually lower public spending significantly. Why do conservatives not love single payer systems? Because we understand the mechanisms employed to achieve those cost savings and do not like them.
So you acknowledge that a single payer system would be better at allocating the resources and provide a net benefit for society in terms both of cost and outcome but you'll disregard it on principle? That's pretty much fundamentalism and it's also dishonest to consider Sanders a radical if all he does it promoting the pragmatic and economically reasonable solution.
|
On January 16 2016 09:53 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 08:52 Nyxisto wrote:
giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
To be fair a single payer healthcare system wouldn't actually cost significantly more money for the average guy or the government because they're significantly cheaper on a per capita basis than whatever the US has going on now, it would actually lower public spending significantly. Why do conservatives not love single payer systems? Because we understand the mechanisms employed to achieve those cost savings and do not like them.
while I'm sure some individuals in congress and academia understand them; I'd say most people (on all sides of the issue, in terms of the general public) do not have anywhere near the understanding of the issues of the mechanisms properly.
|
On January 16 2016 08:43 oneofthem wrote:
the big game here should be building up a shaken confidence in the government and pushing good policy to address the very severe challenges both the u.s. and the world face. in this vein sanders is a less competent obama in the sense that he is really high on the rhetoric and ideals and even lower on actual plan and identification of a strategy to put government to work effectively.
saying things like free college and 15 dollar minimum wage would sound nice, particularly to young people. but these are things likely to backfire spectacularly and harken to the clientelism plaguing third world countries in some parts. giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
first step to proposing a platform is to identify the structural problems in the economy, particularly those driving inequality, but also one must understand the importance of the market and individual enterprise and drive in the development of the economy, which is after all a macro view of productive activity in society.
the form of the solution should be closer to raising people's awareness of their position in the market, enhancing human capital in the underprivileged, and removing the unfairness of exclusive social capital ordinarily reserved for the rich. teach kids in high school about financial sensibility, where they are in the job market, and so on. have community colleges better match market demand. etc etc there are a lot of space for creative and problem solving oriented policies.
i don't really see the left acknowledging the importance of giving people more capabilities in the marketplace. the unions are entrenched only for members, and so on.
the concern i have is that, in the case of a failure of drastic government actions by the left, the reaction would be extremely harsh. there is also a large batch of frustration for lack of a good candidate to represent what i see as the correct moral values at stake in the larger question of whether the world in 100 years would be more like the u.s. or east asia corruption.
The impending failure of the market is the problem. You sound like Kwark, advocating that everyone start saving and investing wisely in mutual funds. I really fail to see how what you've said here amounts to anything more than, "people should be be better with their money and we need to educate them to be more productive workers." It's a complete failure to asses the real and systemic problems with the way the global market is operating. If your fear is a US shift to "asian values" capitalism with more top down authority and control over the market I will tell you that you are worried about nothing. The market cannot sustain two Chinas. Why hasn't India emerged like the forecasts a decade ago? The same reason. We are experiencing a failure of demand that has driven the trend towards financialization. The big banks and financial players have already made the shift from serving the corporate productive class to the currently instantiated form of predatory debt peddling. Walmart is the new model of securitization. You seem to be saying that that same drive is the solution, when it is the problem: that the average citizen needs to be more invested in the market, more linked to the global crisis of overaccumulation. It sounds very nice, and I have no opposition to a more "educated" or "useful" populace per se except insofar as it is an impossible dream with a religious faith in divinig technocratic solutions out of this mess.
No. What we really need is a way to decouple ourselves entirely from that death spiral and to focus on a a reproducible, sustainable way of life that captures the best of what we have now while doing away with a need for constant return on capital ( aka Kwark's mutual funds) to sustain the good life.
|
On January 16 2016 10:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 08:43 oneofthem wrote:
the big game here should be building up a shaken confidence in the government and pushing good policy to address the very severe challenges both the u.s. and the world face. in this vein sanders is a less competent obama in the sense that he is really high on the rhetoric and ideals and even lower on actual plan and identification of a strategy to put government to work effectively.
saying things like free college and 15 dollar minimum wage would sound nice, particularly to young people. but these are things likely to backfire spectacularly and harken to the clientelism plaguing third world countries in some parts. giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
first step to proposing a platform is to identify the structural problems in the economy, particularly those driving inequality, but also one must understand the importance of the market and individual enterprise and drive in the development of the economy, which is after all a macro view of productive activity in society.
the form of the solution should be closer to raising people's awareness of their position in the market, enhancing human capital in the underprivileged, and removing the unfairness of exclusive social capital ordinarily reserved for the rich. teach kids in high school about financial sensibility, where they are in the job market, and so on. have community colleges better match market demand. etc etc there are a lot of space for creative and problem solving oriented policies.
i don't really see the left acknowledging the importance of giving people more capabilities in the marketplace. the unions are entrenched only for members, and so on.
the concern i have is that, in the case of a failure of drastic government actions by the left, the reaction would be extremely harsh. there is also a large batch of frustration for lack of a good candidate to represent what i see as the correct moral values at stake in the larger question of whether the world in 100 years would be more like the u.s. or east asia corruption. The impending failure of the market is the problem.
Does that mean the world has bad economy soon again? 
|
On January 16 2016 10:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 09:53 cLutZ wrote:On January 16 2016 08:52 Nyxisto wrote:
giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
To be fair a single payer healthcare system wouldn't actually cost significantly more money for the average guy or the government because they're significantly cheaper on a per capita basis than whatever the US has going on now, it would actually lower public spending significantly. Why do conservatives not love single payer systems? Because we understand the mechanisms employed to achieve those cost savings and do not like them. But the current system is worse, surely. Health insurance is, for some reason, a tax free part of employee compensation while low income people get it gratis. For the average man, employed or unemployed, there is no difference between scrapping employer health insurance, mandating it be replaced with a pay bump and then negating most of the pay bump with a National Health Service tax and leaving things as they are. None.
The exact numbers are unclear, but I would concede that for the next 5 years, this is the likely scenario (plus wait times because one of the only reasons the system is not flooded is because of high co-pays and low medicaid reimbursment rates). IMO, however, meting out care at our current levels, given the regulations on the professionals (and how much education they require) would not lower overall healthcare spending as a % of GDP by much. If you look at Medicare, it spends more than EU countries spend for caring for their 65+ populations. While the mantra is "Medicare for all" the reality, if you look at costs, is "Medicaid for all."
On January 16 2016 10:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 09:53 cLutZ wrote:On January 16 2016 08:52 Nyxisto wrote:
giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
To be fair a single payer healthcare system wouldn't actually cost significantly more money for the average guy or the government because they're significantly cheaper on a per capita basis than whatever the US has going on now, it would actually lower public spending significantly. Why do conservatives not love single payer systems? Because we understand the mechanisms employed to achieve those cost savings and do not like them. So you acknowledge that a single payer system would be better at allocating the resources and provide a net benefit for society in terms both of cost and outcome but you'll disregard it on principle? That's pretty much fundamentalism and it's also dishonest to consider Sanders a radical if all he does it promoting the pragmatic and economically reasonable solution.
No, not at all. I think it would provide a cost savings on the overall % of GDP spent on healthcare because the government would impose cost controls, just as Canada, Australia, and all EU countries already do. I actually do not think this will result in a better allocation of resources (I don't know what the optimal % of GDP healthcare spending should be), I simply know it will be lower because of the price controls. I also believe that this will substantially impede medical progress, not only in America, but worldwide. Its been argued, but its fair to say that the US market is the reason pharmaceutical drugs are developed (even if its by a German company). Also, nearly all EU countries have a reciprocity-style system where if the FDA approves a drug/device, they submit it to less testing, the US does not, basically another worldwide cost the US bears.
This is just an opinion, but I'd say that healthcare has already been set back 5-10 years as a result of the nearly worldwide adoption of the EU-Socialized healthcare model, and if America had joined them in the 60s that number would be 20 years. Its a tradeoff between equality, and quality, not merely today, longterm. It is a classic seen vs. unseen problem, and I find it very strange that this is not intuitive to you.
|
On January 16 2016 11:24 A_needle_jog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 10:57 IgnE wrote:On January 16 2016 08:43 oneofthem wrote:
the big game here should be building up a shaken confidence in the government and pushing good policy to address the very severe challenges both the u.s. and the world face. in this vein sanders is a less competent obama in the sense that he is really high on the rhetoric and ideals and even lower on actual plan and identification of a strategy to put government to work effectively.
saying things like free college and 15 dollar minimum wage would sound nice, particularly to young people. but these are things likely to backfire spectacularly and harken to the clientelism plaguing third world countries in some parts. giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
first step to proposing a platform is to identify the structural problems in the economy, particularly those driving inequality, but also one must understand the importance of the market and individual enterprise and drive in the development of the economy, which is after all a macro view of productive activity in society.
the form of the solution should be closer to raising people's awareness of their position in the market, enhancing human capital in the underprivileged, and removing the unfairness of exclusive social capital ordinarily reserved for the rich. teach kids in high school about financial sensibility, where they are in the job market, and so on. have community colleges better match market demand. etc etc there are a lot of space for creative and problem solving oriented policies.
i don't really see the left acknowledging the importance of giving people more capabilities in the marketplace. the unions are entrenched only for members, and so on.
the concern i have is that, in the case of a failure of drastic government actions by the left, the reaction would be extremely harsh. there is also a large batch of frustration for lack of a good candidate to represent what i see as the correct moral values at stake in the larger question of whether the world in 100 years would be more like the u.s. or east asia corruption. The impending failure of the market is the problem. Does that mean the world has bad economy soon again?
Most of the world already does...
|
On January 16 2016 11:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 11:24 A_needle_jog wrote:On January 16 2016 10:57 IgnE wrote:On January 16 2016 08:43 oneofthem wrote:
the big game here should be building up a shaken confidence in the government and pushing good policy to address the very severe challenges both the u.s. and the world face. in this vein sanders is a less competent obama in the sense that he is really high on the rhetoric and ideals and even lower on actual plan and identification of a strategy to put government to work effectively.
saying things like free college and 15 dollar minimum wage would sound nice, particularly to young people. but these are things likely to backfire spectacularly and harken to the clientelism plaguing third world countries in some parts. giving people more direct transfers is not the correct solution nor is it really the correct message for the left. it is a strategic mistake to think that tax and spend, or debt and spend, will be the solution.
first step to proposing a platform is to identify the structural problems in the economy, particularly those driving inequality, but also one must understand the importance of the market and individual enterprise and drive in the development of the economy, which is after all a macro view of productive activity in society.
the form of the solution should be closer to raising people's awareness of their position in the market, enhancing human capital in the underprivileged, and removing the unfairness of exclusive social capital ordinarily reserved for the rich. teach kids in high school about financial sensibility, where they are in the job market, and so on. have community colleges better match market demand. etc etc there are a lot of space for creative and problem solving oriented policies.
i don't really see the left acknowledging the importance of giving people more capabilities in the marketplace. the unions are entrenched only for members, and so on.
the concern i have is that, in the case of a failure of drastic government actions by the left, the reaction would be extremely harsh. there is also a large batch of frustration for lack of a good candidate to represent what i see as the correct moral values at stake in the larger question of whether the world in 100 years would be more like the u.s. or east asia corruption. The impending failure of the market is the problem. Does that mean the world has bad economy soon again? Most of the world already does...
That is true. I heard news of Brazil where you from they have biggest problem in economy since long time the newsman said 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
