US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7001

On March 02 2017 00:18 farvacola wrote:

It's important to note that if Trump's budget is any indication, federal policy these next four years will only further shrink the size of rural demographics, particularly as medical migration becomes more and more important between states that fund their healthcare systems and those that don't.

On March 02 2017 00:34 Gorsameth wrote:

I wouldn't call it so much 'sitting on their hands' as it being a very complicated problem involving effects that have been in general very positive for everyone's standard of living (globalization/automation) but detrimental to a group (low skilled labor).

The problem is that there is no visible solution to the problem, not that people don't care about those effected.
The only real solution I know of it Basic Income and it still has major issues in financing (requiring a global restructuring of how we tax production) and social pressure (I don't want to pay for something sitting on their ass all day).

If someone can come up with a good solution there is a Nobel Prize in it for sure.

On March 01 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:

This is precisely the kind of misplaced elitist thinking that has led the democrats to become the weakest American political party in 90 years. For all of the talk about how bad of a candidate Hillary was (and she was bad), what democrats commonly overlook is that their message is not resonating with the voting public at large -- particularly anywhere outside of larger, urban areas. There very much was a "referendum on the Obama era" element to this election that democrats really don't want to talk about because of the implications for many elements of the democrat platform. I don't think that it's too bold to suggest that chalking up a rejection of the democrat platform to the idiocy of the American voting public is the wrong answer.

UFOs are visiting at all-time highs, according to new statistics, which say that sightings are most common in the U.S.

The findings are based on data crunched by Sam Monfort, a doctoral student in Human Factors and Applied Cognition at George Mason University. Monfort wrote up his findings in a blog update that used information from the National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC), an organization that documents UFO sightings.

On March 02 2017 00:16 mikedebo wrote:


Interestingly, 4/5ths of the US population lives in what appears to be defined as "urban areas", and this number is growing. This is a global problem that most of the world appears to be sitting on their hands about -- Canada is in a similar situation. When we define voting boundaries by geography and basically never update those lines despite massive change in population distribution, I think we have a bit of a representation problem.

Anyhow, this obviously isn't directly pertinent to the immediate issues you're describing, and you did specify _large_ urban areas, but it is something I find interesting to think about.

A top House Republican is joining a chorus of GOP complaints over President Donald Trump's plan to dramatically cut funding for the State Department and other agencies in order to boost military spending — showing just how hard it will be for the White House to implement its dramatic new budget proposal.

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, wants Trump to look at changes to popular entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid instead of slashing funding for the federal agencies.

Frelinghuysen is meeting with new OMB Director Mick Mulvaney — a former House colleague — on Thursday to deliver his message.

The White House has floated a plan to steer an additional $54 billion to the Pentagon in 2018, while cutting funding for the State Department, EPA and other agencies. The plan is already running into serious trouble on Capitol Hill.

Trump has said repeatedly that he won't cut Social Security or Medicare, but he would have to make huge reductions in other federal agencies to fund his Pentagon buildup without busting the budget. Democrats have blasted such a move, and Hill Republicans are already signaling their opposition as well.

"I think foreign aid is pretty important myself, so I'd like to see what the president has to say," Frelinghuysen told reporters on Tuesday, hours before Trump was scheduled to address a joint session of Congress. "There are some pretty important programs that keep America open for business and that are vital to our national security. I think it would be good to look at entitlement programs. Those are the real cost drivers."

Frelinghuysen added: "I'd like, obviously, my other congressional colleagues to take a look at those entitlement programs. Social Security is different than others, because its not a traditional entitlement."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also balked at the proposed cuts to State Department and foreign aid at a press briefing Tuesday.

The Kentucky Republican told reporters the Senate would "probably not" pass legislation cutting more than one-third of the State Department's budget, as Trump reportedly wants. Officials there have warned those cuts would require dramatic restructuring and staffing cuts across the board.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) delivered a more blunt take in an interview with MSNBC on Tuesday: "It's dead on arrival. It's not going to happen. It would be a disaster.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) criticized the plan as well, saying on Twitter, "Foreign aid is not charity. We must make sure it is well spent, but it is less than 1% of budget & critical to our national security.”

On March 02 2017 00:48 farvacola wrote:
I actually just had a talk with my health law professor on the topic, and outside a few references in newer textbooks that touch the heightened health system differentiation allowed by the Supreme Court's ruling against the Medicaid expansion and according migration between states among those interested in particular kinds of health systems, there is very little data on it. The biggest shock, one could guess, is going to come when we start hitting those years in which the mortality rate of baby boomers spikes upwards, many of which are the last practitioners of traditional local limits on migration.

On March 01 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:

This is precisely the kind of misplaced elitist thinking that has led the democrats to become the weakest American political party in 90 years. For all of the talk about how bad of a candidate Hillary was (and she was bad), what democrats commonly overlook is that their message is not resonating with the voting public at large -- particularly anywhere outside of larger, urban areas. There very much was a "referendum on the Obama era" element to this election that democrats really don't want to talk about because of the implications for many elements of the democrat platform. I don't think that it's too bold to suggest that chalking up a rejection of the democrat platform to the idiocy of the American voting public is the wrong answer.

On March 02 2017 00:08 Plansix wrote:
The elitism of democrats is an overreliance on what they believe is rational arguments and talking down to anyone who appeals to emotions. That feelings are invalid and someone’s fear of immigration or refugees born of ignorance. There is some truth to that, but they are never going to change minds that way. Its like the fear of GMOs. You are never going go convince people they are safe by saying they don’t understand the science.

I would also say it is chicken shit leadership that is unwilling to appeal to trust and faith in them. That is a big part of Trump’s appeal. He says “Trust me, I will save you” and the voters want that. Democrats don’t want to tap into that because they see it as manipulative, which is not an invalid view. But it is also a core part of real leadership. Trusting someone to do what is in your best interest does require faith.

On March 02 2017 01:32 On_Slaught wrote:


I agree 100%. It's very similar to the problem with debating religion. Faith is an emotional decision not an intellectual one. So trying to defeat its with rational arguments simply does not work.

The problem with politics is that a significant portion of the voting bloc are idiots that do not rely upon rational thought when making political decisions and instead rely upon emotions fed to them from their insular media choices or social group, which many times are unfounded. I'm confident that changing demographics will prove better for the Democrats but they definitely need to appeal more to emotions for the time being.

Newt Gingrich was definitely correct when he said that facts tend to favor liberals. That doesn't mean complete reliance upon them will get them what they want.

On March 01 2017 14:49 GreenHorizons wrote:


Just call it an "insurance premium" then, if they prefer to pay that instead.

Pitch it as treatment for the opioid epidemic in those rural places and explain it will be mostly California and New York paying for it.

Just stop being so awful at recognizing that the base is moving left and understand Democrats aren't going to win Republicans without losing ~70% of the next generation of Democrats.

On March 01 2017 17:30 KwarK wrote:

Not really, take a look at your 1095-C sometime. The employed population are already paying an absolute fortune for healthcare. Medicare for all wouldn't be an additional tax on top of that.

On March 02 2017 01:44 Plansix wrote:

As someone who grew up surrounded by those “idiots”, it is best to avoid using that language. Even with friendly audiences like myself. That attitude is what doomed democrats this time around and will continue to be a problem as long as people use it. I can say a lot of things about the GOP, but they avoid calling their supporters stupid at all costs.

On March 02 2017 01:01 farvacola wrote:

Think about it in terms of infrastructure and it starts to make a bit more sense; while western states are usually pretty conservative at the state level, they have a far more healthy attitude towards the funding of services than the state governments of the Deep South or Kansas, for example. Accordingly, I'd bet that measures of how "urban" a state are take that discrepancy into account.

On March 02 2017 01:01 farvacola wrote:

Think about it in terms of infrastructure and it starts to make a bit more sense; while western states are usually pretty conservative at the state level, they have a far more healthy attitude towards the funding of services than the state governments of the Deep South or Kansas, for example. Accordingly, I'd bet that measures of how "urban" a state are take that discrepancy into account.