US Politics Mega-thread - Page 405

On August 29 2013 05:22 Artax wrote:
Reading Sammy's posts here and the Reading thread, I feel like he was away at some reeducation camp and came back even more radical than before.

On August 29 2013 07:58 Livelovedie wrote:
And yet, society will go on.

On August 29 2013 03:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I know perfectly well that you're wrong, societies always have and always will consume up to or past their ability to produce.

On August 29 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Malthus is dead can't you let his poor limited butt rest in peace.

On August 29 2013 08:02 sam!zdat wrote:


i don't want to belabor this point you know, but that is quite precisely a religious belief. have you ever read Ecclesiastes? this sentiment here would belong to the genre we call "wisdom literature"

On August 29 2013 08:57 Livelovedie wrote:


No I haven't, care to elaborate?

Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. 3 What do people gain from all the toil at which they toil under the sun? 4 A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. 5 The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises. 6 The wind blows to the south, and goes around to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. 7 All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they continue to flow. 8 All things are wearisome; more than one can express; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, or the ear filled with hearing. 9 What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has already been, in the ages before us.

Edit: Maybe society was the incorrect word. Universe would be more appropriate.

On August 29 2013 05:22 Artax wrote:
Reading Sammy's posts here and the Reading thread, I feel like he was away at some reeducation camp and came back even more radical than before.

On August 29 2013 09:16 sam!zdat wrote:
remember kids, whatever you do, DON'T READ BOOKS. all literature is a dangerous communist plot. be a good boy and watch your television now

On August 29 2013 07:52 sam!zdat wrote:


spent the last months watching the whole world go to shit. QE debt spiral into oblivion, tradings algos turning the whole market into a terrifying skynet, the whole pacific ocean is hot, a regional conflagration brewing in middle east, rampant corruption and incompetence everywhere, not to mention The End Of Jobs As We Know Them. there's not a single person in the whole ruling class who has the slightest clue. our entire political and economic system has been hacked and we spend our time arguing about homosexuals. it's just a farce. you bet i've gotten more radical

On August 29 2013 09:16 sam!zdat wrote:
that's right, I am full of ressentiment. i am, after all, a member of priestly caste

remember kids, whatever you do, DON'T READ BOOKS. all literature is a dangerous communist plot. be a good boy and watch your television now

edit: @below: when you are older you will see what I mean <3. just remember that some crazy communist on the internet said it one time and let it brew as you go through life. on the day that you realize I'm right, all I ask is that you burn one for ol' sam

DES MOINES, Iowa — Despite unrelenting pressure by congressional Republicans to repeal President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, GOP governors in swing-voting states are grudgingly bowing to the reality that "Obamacare" is the law of the land and almost certainly here to stay.

The governors' reluctant acceptance is based on what they call financial prudence and what appears to be political necessity.

"My approach is to not spend a lot of time complaining," Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said recently. "We're going to do our level best to make it work as best we can."

It's the same view embraced by fellow Republicans John Kasich of Ohio, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Rick Snyder of Michigan and Rick Scott of Florida.

It's also in stark contrast to the approach taken by Republicans in Washington, where the GOP-led House repeatedly has voted to repeal the law. Congressional Republicans may keep at it this fall to force a budget showdown even though the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the law.

After initial gripes, these Republican governors are now trying to expand health insurance programs for lower- and moderate-income residents in exchange for billions in federal subsidies. Some governors are building and running online insurance exchanges for people to shop for insurance, instead of leaving the task to the federal government.

While all face re-election next fall in states that Democrat Obama won in both his White House races, these Republicans governors say that the 2014 elections and political calculations are not driving the health care decisions.

But a year after Democrats succeeded in casting Republicans as the party of the prosperous, the governors could blunt criticism they are ambivalent to the poor by embracing billions in federal dollars to cover millions of residents without insurance.

On August 29 2013 13:24 NPF wrote:
Out of curiosity, since ACA forces people to get insurance or pay a fee, would anyone be fine with the governement running their own insurance company as competition without the use of tax money (or no more than an insurance/business would normally get), because one general comment is the high administrative cost on the American insurance system.

Basically the company reveices a governement mandate that sets there goal and the governement can audit and review to make sure it is run efficiently (aka no big wasted salaries or other things). In Canada there are a few crown corporations that have a similar set up in Canada and that fall between, funded, self-sufficient, or profitable where the dividend is given to the government because they are the sole "share holder" of the company.

I'm just curious if a state in US could go single payer (that is to say a state mandated company gets so popular it takes all the market share or just pure state/federal governement funded like canada) and lead the way for the rest of the States like it happened in Canada. A comparative article from 1991 that explains how Canada health system evolved parallelled to the USA source

and a CBC article that explains a bit better what is a crown company if curious source

On August 29 2013 13:24 NPF wrote:
Out of curiosity, since ACA forces people to get insurance or pay a fee, would anyone be fine with the governement running their own insurance company as competition without the use of tax money (or no more than an insurance/business would normally get), because one general comment is the high administrative cost on the American insurance system.

Basically the company reveices a governement mandate that sets there goal and the governement can audit and review to make sure it is run efficiently (aka no big wasted salaries or other things). In Canada there are a few crown corporations that have a similar set up in Canada and that fall between, funded, self-sufficient, or profitable where the dividend is given to the government because they are the sole "share holder" of the company.

I'm just curious if a state in US could go single payer (that is to say a state mandated company gets so popular it takes all the market share or just pure state/federal governement funded like canada) and lead the way for the rest of the States like it happened in Canada. A comparative article from 1991 that explains how Canada health system evolved parallelled to the USA source

and a CBC article that explains a bit better what is a crown company if curious source

On August 29 2013 09:11 Livelovedie wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that I believe military intervention from the US should be a direct democratic process. I think earlier someone posted that a whopping 9 percent of people support US intervention in Syria, 24 percent if chemical weapons were used. This is far from a majority and I see congressmen on both sides of the isle calling for US action nonetheless. It appears that becoming a politician seems to change a persons view of war so that they are no longer representing the views of their constituents in the vast majority of cases. Instead of a congressman ordering someone's son to die in a war it should at least be his mother. What do yall think of this idea?