|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.
on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs.
|
On November 15 2012 04:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:On November 15 2012 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh. The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them. Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation. Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/anti-intellectual?region=us&q=anti-intellectualism#anti-intellectual__6"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods." Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community.
Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
|
On November 15 2012 05:04 oneofthem wrote:
reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.
on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs.
Reduce medical cost? In what way, or through what method(s)?
|
On November 15 2012 04:56 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:(‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.) News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut. However, at least one columnist is looking forward to it. My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock! As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option. This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions ( gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals. I've noticed this a lot on the left in this thread. So I'd like to pose a question to those with a more liberal lean to their political philosophy: what sort of right-ish proposal would you be willing to allow if the Republicans agreed with whatever the Democrats came up with, with the express purpose of balancing the budget?My guess is it would be some form of tax cut or removal of spending. I'd like to set one condition, however: assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fully conclude, and we leave no occupying military force, but just enough for diplomatic relations. So keep in mind, military spending is slashed dramatically already in this hypothetical situation, and the remainder only goes to the defense of the country, though that doesn't sufficiently reduce the deficit in the budget. Basically, more spending needs to be curbed. You may use further defense cuts as a proposal, though that's not terribly conservative, nor does it appear wise even to some anti-war libertarians. + Show Spoiler [What would "I" agree to?] +Personally, I believe the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy, so I'd rather reinstate them for some more time. However, if Obama's really gonna stay hard-left on that issue, I'd be willing remove the cuts and even raise taxes on "the rich" by some if that meant he'd, say, repeal Obamacare for instance. I don't like agreeing to something like this, but that's what I believe "bipartisanship" is supposed to look like, so I wish that that kind of compromise would make some sort of difference. Liberals ask for Conservatives to become more liberal because over the past two years, Conservatives have completely refused to make any liberal concessions. There hasn't been any budging whatsoever on reducing military spending, raising taxes on anyone, etc. So no, you can't claim that liberals refuse to compromise. Liberals have consistently agreed that we can compromise by not raising taxes on any but the most well off and possibly reducing some spending in entitlements. However, this means that Conservatives need to actually compromise. Absolutely refusing to raise taxes on anyone is NOT a compromise, and neither is a refusal to see any cuts in military spending. I would be willing to compromise on military spending...I just don't see tax hikes on the rich really doing anything to help the economy. In fact, I'd even be willing to compromise on most social issues, immigration, and cut spending everywhere (including the military), as long as we don't raise taxes.
Tax hikes on the rich could help the economy by causing rich people to try to lower their profits by reinvesting more to avoid higher taxation.
The idea with super high taxation specifically on income, like the 90 % or whatever it topped out at a hundred years ago, I assume was to make a business not add another $1,000,000 to a manager's salary, but instead rather reinvest that money, or distribute it amongst the rest of the employees, where the money would be taxed much less. This could also turn out better for the economy overall.
|
On November 15 2012 04:58 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:(‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.) News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut. However, at least one columnist is looking forward to it. My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock! As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option. This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions ( gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals. I've noticed this a lot on the left in this thread. So I'd like to pose a question to those with a more liberal lean to their political philosophy: what sort of right-ish proposal would you be willing to allow if the Republicans agreed with whatever the Democrats came up with, with the express purpose of balancing the budget?My guess is it would be some form of tax cut or removal of spending. I'd like to set one condition, however: assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fully conclude, and we leave no occupying military force, but just enough for diplomatic relations. So keep in mind, military spending is slashed dramatically already in this hypothetical situation, and the remainder only goes to the defense of the country, though that doesn't sufficiently reduce the deficit in the budget. Basically, more spending needs to be curbed. You may use further defense cuts as a proposal, though that's not terribly conservative, nor does it appear wise even to some anti-war libertarians. + Show Spoiler [What would "I" agree to?] +Personally, I believe the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy, so I'd rather reinstate them for some more time. However, if Obama's really gonna stay hard-left on that issue, I'd be willing remove the cuts and even raise taxes on "the rich" by some if that meant he'd, say, repeal Obamacare for instance. I don't like agreeing to something like this, but that's what I believe "bipartisanship" is supposed to look like, so I wish that that kind of compromise would make some sort of difference. Liberals ask for Conservatives to become more liberal because over the past two years, Conservatives have completely refused to make any liberal concessions. There hasn't been any budging whatsoever on reducing military spending, raising taxes on anyone, etc. So no, you can't claim that liberals refuse to compromise. Liberals have consistently agreed that we can compromise by not raising taxes on any but the most well off and possibly reducing some spending in entitlements. However, this means that Conservatives need to actually compromise. Absolutely refusing to raise taxes on anyone is NOT a compromise, and neither is a refusal to see any cuts in military spending. That's proving my point. Liberals would possibly reduce some spending in entitlements. But which ones would they be willing to nix or slash? I'd like to hear them, and by how much.
The healthcare system is being reformed in many ways and is continuing to become leaner and more efficient. That's the kind of reduced spending that should occur, not simply taking the money away. As is America's not in the lead with its social welfare by anyways without considering cuts in benefits.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 15 2012 05:08 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:04 oneofthem wrote:
reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.
on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs. Reduce medical cost? In what way, or through what method(s)?
uh.................read the thread or something. been over this like 20 times.
|
On November 15 2012 04:58 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:(‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.) News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut. However, at least one columnist is looking forward to it. My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock! As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option. This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions ( gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals. I've noticed this a lot on the left in this thread. So I'd like to pose a question to those with a more liberal lean to their political philosophy: what sort of right-ish proposal would you be willing to allow if the Republicans agreed with whatever the Democrats came up with, with the express purpose of balancing the budget?My guess is it would be some form of tax cut or removal of spending. I'd like to set one condition, however: assume the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fully conclude, and we leave no occupying military force, but just enough for diplomatic relations. So keep in mind, military spending is slashed dramatically already in this hypothetical situation, and the remainder only goes to the defense of the country, though that doesn't sufficiently reduce the deficit in the budget. Basically, more spending needs to be curbed. You may use further defense cuts as a proposal, though that's not terribly conservative, nor does it appear wise even to some anti-war libertarians. + Show Spoiler [What would "I" agree to?] +Personally, I believe the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy, so I'd rather reinstate them for some more time. However, if Obama's really gonna stay hard-left on that issue, I'd be willing remove the cuts and even raise taxes on "the rich" by some if that meant he'd, say, repeal Obamacare for instance. I don't like agreeing to something like this, but that's what I believe "bipartisanship" is supposed to look like, so I wish that that kind of compromise would make some sort of difference. Liberals ask for Conservatives to become more liberal because over the past two years, Conservatives have completely refused to make any liberal concessions. There hasn't been any budging whatsoever on reducing military spending, raising taxes on anyone, etc. So no, you can't claim that liberals refuse to compromise. Liberals have consistently agreed that we can compromise by not raising taxes on any but the most well off and possibly reducing some spending in entitlements. However, this means that Conservatives need to actually compromise. Absolutely refusing to raise taxes on anyone is NOT a compromise, and neither is a refusal to see any cuts in military spending. That's proving my point. Liberals would possibly reduce some spending in entitlements. But which ones would they be willing to nix or slash? I'd like to hear them, and by how much.
Don't take Democrats' words for it: here it is from the GOP: http://www.gop.com/news/research/reach-out-and-touch-medicare/
|
United States41934 Posts
On November 15 2012 05:08 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:04 oneofthem wrote:
reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.
on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs. Reduce medical cost? In what way, or through what method(s)?
The public system is vastly more efficient, both in terms of actually spending healthcare money on the provision of care and through superior allocation of resources. For example preventative care is a fantastic investment but the only party who can really invest in it is one guaranteed to pick up the tab for the emergency room care anyway, ie the state. There's no real debate about whether or not a public system would reduce healthcare costs compared to the current system, even the right wingers concede that what you currently have is a monstrosity, they just argue that it goes fully private > fully public > current mess. Every country in the world with socialised healthcare provides far more care per $ spent than the US, there's no question that the current US system is inefficient.
|
On November 15 2012 05:08 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:04 oneofthem wrote:
reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.
on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs. Reduce medical cost? In what way, or through what method(s)?
In a way that every other first world country achieves that ?
|
On November 15 2012 05:05 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:On November 15 2012 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh. The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them. Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation. Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/anti-intellectual?region=us&q=anti-intellectualism#anti-intellectual__6"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods." Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community. Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan.
In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
|
On November 15 2012 05:18 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:08 cLAN.Anax wrote:On November 15 2012 05:04 oneofthem wrote:
reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.
on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs. Reduce medical cost? In what way, or through what method(s)? In a way that every other first world country achieves that ?
Dat dun der universal healthcare :D lol
|
On November 15 2012 05:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:18 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 05:08 cLAN.Anax wrote:On November 15 2012 05:04 oneofthem wrote:
reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.
on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs. Reduce medical cost? In what way, or through what method(s)? In a way that every other first world country achieves that ? Dat dun der universal healthcare :D lol
Well if I saw Kwark's post I would have skipped my jab as he answered it much better.
|
KwarK's the only one who actually answered my question....
On November 15 2012 05:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:08 cLAN.Anax wrote:On November 15 2012 05:04 oneofthem wrote:
reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.
on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs. Reduce medical cost? In what way, or through what method(s)? The public system is vastly more efficient, both in terms of actually spending healthcare money on the provision of care and through superior allocation of resources. For example preventative care is a fantastic investment but the only party who can really invest in it is one guaranteed to pick up the tab for the emergency room care anyway, ie the state. There's no real debate about whether or not a public system would reduce healthcare costs compared to the current system, even the right wingers concede that what you currently have is a monstrosity, they just argue that it goes fully private > fully public > current mess. Every country in the world with socialised healthcare provides far more care per $ spent than the US, there's no question that the current US system is inefficient.
So it's my understanding that we don't have a 100% private or 100% public system, but a mix of both? And the recommendation is to make it fully public? See, in my mind, (comparing to the tax system here, bear with me please) that sounds like implementing a flat tax to solve the issues with our current tax system. It ain't perfect, and it's not ideal from my point of view, but it would remove a lot of the mess that is there currently, make it more streamlined at least.
*sigh* I still don't like it, but that's better than nothing.... -.-'
|
On November 15 2012 05:21 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:05 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:On November 15 2012 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh. The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them. Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation. Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/anti-intellectual?region=us&q=anti-intellectualism#anti-intellectual__6"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods." Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community. Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this. Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan. In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant.
I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
|
On November 15 2012 05:32 cLAN.Anax wrote:KwarK's the only one who actually answered my question.... Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:17 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 05:08 cLAN.Anax wrote:On November 15 2012 05:04 oneofthem wrote:
reduce the rich's entitlement to monies.
on a more serious note, the left wants to reduce medical cost. which is relaly the only problem with the major social savings programs. Reduce medical cost? In what way, or through what method(s)? The public system is vastly more efficient, both in terms of actually spending healthcare money on the provision of care and through superior allocation of resources. For example preventative care is a fantastic investment but the only party who can really invest in it is one guaranteed to pick up the tab for the emergency room care anyway, ie the state. There's no real debate about whether or not a public system would reduce healthcare costs compared to the current system, even the right wingers concede that what you currently have is a monstrosity, they just argue that it goes fully private > fully public > current mess. Every country in the world with socialised healthcare provides far more care per $ spent than the US, there's no question that the current US system is inefficient. So it's my understanding that we don't have a 100% private or 100% public system, but a mix of both? And the recommendation is to make it fully public? See, in my mind, (comparing to the tax system here, bear with me please) that sounds like implementing a flat tax to solve the issues with our current tax system. It ain't perfect, and it's not ideal from my point of view, but it would remove a lot of the mess that is there currently, make it more streamlined at least. *sigh* I still don't like it, but that's better than nothing.... -.-'
Well the interesting thing about paying tax on healthcare is that you find since EVERYONE is paying the premiums aren't 6-12 thousand but more like 2-6 depending so not only do you pay less, but you also never have the issue of not getting healthcare for say a preexisting condition simply because it's the government and not a company making a profit off your death.
It'd be interesting when America finally accepts the Universal Healthcare known throughout the educated sections of the world, right now this "obamacare" which was actually pioneered by Romney is a start, but it could be better.
|
On November 15 2012 05:34 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:21 HunterX11 wrote:On November 15 2012 05:05 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:On November 15 2012 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh. The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them. Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation. Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/anti-intellectual?region=us&q=anti-intellectualism#anti-intellectual__6"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods." Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community. Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this. Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan. In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant. I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls.
I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know.
This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
|
On November 15 2012 05:47 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:34 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 05:21 HunterX11 wrote:On November 15 2012 05:05 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:On November 15 2012 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh. The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them. Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation. Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/anti-intellectual?region=us&q=anti-intellectualism#anti-intellectual__6"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods." Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community. Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this. Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan. In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant. I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls. I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know. This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
Ok well that makes me feel alot better and a little bit stupid for being overly sensitive to Republican bashing. My bad lol
|
On November 15 2012 05:47 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:34 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 05:21 HunterX11 wrote:On November 15 2012 05:05 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:On November 15 2012 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh. The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them. Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation. Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/anti-intellectual?region=us&q=anti-intellectualism#anti-intellectual__6"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods." Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community. Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this. Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan. In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant. I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls. I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know. This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off.
If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military.
But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D
But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 15 2012 05:05 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:On November 15 2012 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh. The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them. Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation. Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/anti-intellectual?region=us&q=anti-intellectualism#anti-intellectual__6"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods." Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community. Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this.
The issue was never about the Republican party in its entirety being anti-intellectual. The problem is that the party goes out of their way to pander to such individuals, and other like-minded folks have significant influence in the party and are very visible. The Republican party does not understand that to win over the public, in the long run it would be better to just dump the turd.
|
On November 15 2012 05:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:47 JinDesu wrote:On November 15 2012 05:34 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 05:21 HunterX11 wrote:On November 15 2012 05:05 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 15 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:49 Djabanete wrote:On November 15 2012 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 15 2012 03:28 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how much you know about ad homs but...sigh. The implication was Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual and elitist. Therefore Asians don't trend towards Republicans. That doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is basically, "Well of course you would think that, you're a ____." Or "What would you know about it? You're a _____!" There are plenty in this thread but that wasn't one of them. Anyway... which do you disagree with? That Republicans are viewed as anti-intellectual, or that it's a factor for Asian voters? You didn't really specify. Edit: Ninja'd by explanation. Both. Saying someone (or a party in this case) is anti-intellectual is just another way to be condescending and preassume your intellect is superior to that person (or party) and that they think they are better than everyone, while you are humble. "Asians don't vote for Republicans because Republicans are dumb and think they are better than everyone else" to put it in layman's terms. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/anti-intellectual?region=us&q=anti-intellectualism#anti-intellectual__6"A person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods." Claimingthat someone is anti-intellectualism doesn't say that "my intellect is superior than yours." That's a ridiculous strawman. Anti-intellectualism is, by definition, not intellectual. the shunning of or complete refusal to accept methodology, practices, or knowledge that is accepted by the "intellectual" (academic, scientific) community merely because they are the "intellectual" or "academic" or "scientific" community. You can't claim that Republicans have their own intellectual community; most anti-intellectual claims are based off of the religious community. Why can't I claim that the Republicans have their own intellectual community? Just because it has some bible thumpers in power, doesn't mean they should represent the entire party..which is the point of my argument. That's like saying white people tend not to vote for Democrats because Democrats are viewed as people who overly use the race card. I could make a few arguments for some Democrats in power who do this, but it would be foolish to say that the Democratic party as a whole does this. Republican intellectuals have been marginalized in terms of policy and ideology much more than Democratic intellectuals have been. The transition from the Old Left that was much more about labor, to the New Left and the "big tent" ideology that includes minorities has seen a rise in the prominence of intellectual influence since discussion of minority issues is largely an intellectual one in the United States. On the other hand, the Republican marriage of business interests and social conservatives, particularly the grassroots pro-life movement, has shifted the party away from the more intellectual wing which would be identified more with people such as Barry Goldwater, and more to the emotive wing, exemplified by the near-beatification of Ronald Reagan. In simpler terms, "Republican intellectuals" are the libertarian wing of the party, but it is a small and largely ignored force in the GOP today, whereas "Democratic intellectuals" are progressives, who while ignored in practical terms, are given a lot of lip service and held up by Democrats as what they support (even if they don't in practice), But this is about perceptions anyway, so it is relevant. I really need to stop trying to defend mainstream Republicans and just stick to my Libertarian views and just accept that they are going to be lumped together in general talking points. Or would you say that when people are referring to Republicans they don't mean Libertarians at all? Also, would you consider Dennis Kucinich as the champion of the progressive Democrats? I actually like him alot, even though I disagree with a few of his stances. My views lie somewhere between his and Ron Pauls, though definitely a little more towards Pauls. I can only speak for myself and the Democrats I know, but when we refer to the Republicans - we think of Romney, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Santorum. We don't think of Rubio, Christie, and we definitely don't think of Ron Paul. It's unfortunate - but the big names during the primaries are the ones we know. This is mostly because we don't really bother researching that much into your party - as we don't actually get to select your candidates (or do we? I dunno). So as far as we are concerned, seeing Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc getting large amounts of support - and seeing Paul and Huntsman get dropped to the bottom - really turned us off. If anyone was going to win the election from the GOP, it was Ron Paul bar none. Shame... He's what I would call a real conservative. Conserving the military, defending the homeland, giving states the rights to legislate themselves (IE alcohol, marijuana) and so many other real conservative values. His idea of "conservatism" isn't put another 2 trillion into the Military. But alas here we are, the better of two cats :D But yeah "Republican" gets a bad rap mostly for Palin/Romney/Bachmen. It's not the ideology of the entire party but it's enough to generalize.
I was thinking Huntsman had a good chance against Obama - provided he didn't turn into a Romney when under the pressure. He was many of the good points for Conservatives minus the massive flipflop of Romney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
