EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2128
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35159 Posts
| ||
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 20 2020 11:38 Mohdoo wrote: Buttigieg somehow making me hate him more than Bloomberg. Holy shit. Joined the debate late and only now got to see that part of the debate. Wow. Couldn't agree more, what an awful hot take. Easily one of the worst candidates on the stage here. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35159 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44584 Posts
On February 20 2020 12:36 Wegandi wrote: It's funny hearing Bernie talk about the rich buying votes when all his plans are essentially, here's some free shit, $$$, vote for me. There's no pretense this debate is anything else. Every candidate is in a game of one upmanship to who can use the Government to give away the most shit. It's hilarious how transparent it is. There's almost no substantive and factual "talk" going on. Universal healthcare is not free, nor is it advertised as being such. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
10/10 Klob burn. Love it. | ||
|
TentativePanda
United States800 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 20 2020 12:49 TentativePanda wrote: That last question was terribly ominous. The DNC is ready to not vote with public opinion I did really like Sanders' answer here. He clearly differentiated himself in terms of making a good point rather than just saying "follow the process" and at the same time drew clear attention to his leading status in this race. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On February 20 2020 12:47 JimmiC wrote: Wow if you think that is essentially his plans you really really really missed the mark. Might be time to reread them and think about what they actually mean and are about. If you have specific questions feel free to ask in this thread and a lot of us can help you through it. Lol. He's not planning to change the current tax structures to mimic those countries he always cites. The US has the most progressive taxes of any OECD country. When you hear all those candidates on stage talk to the average person they hear "tax the rich, they'll pay, because they pay 0 now (a hilariously bald faced lie)" and now here's some free shit for you - we'll pay for child care, give you subsidized loans, pay for your healthcare, etc. The fact is, unless you're a MMT person, you can't pay for 5% of the shit they're trying to buy votes with with their tax rhetoric. Go take a look at those countries Bernie always love to cite. Look how much tax the average person pays compared to the "rich people". On the progressive scale, the US dwarfs places like Denmark. You can't promise the largest economic bloc that they're going to get all this stuff, and the rich will pay for it, that's lunacy. If they were honest, they'd tell people these facts and say, ya, we'll need a VAT, your taxes will need to increase from the marginal 15-25% rates they're at now to more like 43-50% (or higher since the US spends a ginormous sum of $$$ on the military where European countries do not). That's ok though. Bernie will be George McGovern V2. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
1. Bloomberg and how badly he fumbled his first appearance. 2. Should the candidate with the most votes be the nominee? Lot of other things were talked today, but those two points clearly stand out right now. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15712 Posts
On February 20 2020 12:36 Wegandi wrote: It's funny hearing Bernie talk about the rich buying votes when all his plans are essentially, here's some free shit, $$$, vote for me. There's no pretense this debate is anything else. Every candidate is in a game of one upmanship to who can use the Government to give away the most shit. It's hilarious how transparent it is. There's almost no substantive and factual "talk" going on. Bernie would significantly raise my taxes and I already have great health insurance. Giving health insurance to all Americans reduces overall costs and prevents the government from covering emergency room visits. As a manufacturing engineer, I could never stand against Medicare for all. My "work center" incurring a higher cost so that the overall cost to my factory is significantly reduced is a slam dunk. The federal government *today* pays for unpaid emergency bills. Every insurance company has HR, finance, data science, marketing and a ridiculous number of other departments that go with being a business. That is why companies merge and buy each other. When you eliminate those departments from all companies, you save an insane amount of money. If nothing else, the idea that a single company having an entire market is something many libertarians should understand. Once someone becomes king, being king is as simple as being king. When you don't have to fight, you can focus more on growth. Similarly, if healthcare was treated like fighting fires and crime, we would just have a wound/illness fighting agency that just focuses on making people more healthy. Keep in mind that health issues cost less to treat when detected early. Insurance companies do not have an incentive to reduce overall costs, only to reduce costs they incur. Those are very different things. | ||
|
vult
United States9400 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9213 Posts
On February 20 2020 13:11 vult wrote: Warren won here, looked tough and decisive, but damn the infighting in the DNC scares me. I don't see how anyone who wasn't already a Warren supporter would change their mind and vote for her after this. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15712 Posts
On February 20 2020 13:11 vult wrote: Warren won here, looked tough and decisive, but damn the infighting in the DNC scares me. It will take somewhere around 3 hours for democrats to forget infighting and remember trump after the primary finishes. The idea that unfixable damage is even possible against trump as a democrat during the primary is not based in reality. Democrats finally hate republicans as much as republicans have hated democrats since like 1980. We may have finally grown a spine as a movement and convinced enough neolibs they're on the wrong boat to get this done. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On February 20 2020 13:06 Mohdoo wrote: Bernie would significantly raise my taxes and I already have great health insurance. Giving health insurance to all Americans reduces overall costs and prevents the government from covering emergency room visits. As a manufacturing engineer, I could never stand against Medicare for all. My "work center" incurring a higher cost so that the overall cost to my factory is significantly reduced is a slam dunk. The federal government *today* pays for unpaid emergency bills. Every insurance company has HR, finance, data science, marketing and a ridiculous number of other departments that go with being a business. That is why companies merge and buy each other. When you eliminate those departments from all companies, you save an insane amount of money. If nothing else, the idea that a single company having an entire market is something many libertarians should understand. Once someone becomes king, being king is as simple as being king. When you don't have to fight, you can focus more on growth. Similarly, if healthcare was treated like fighting fires and crime, we would just have a wound/illness fighting agency that just focuses on making people more healthy. Keep in mind that health issues cost less to treat when detected early. Insurance companies do not have an incentive to reduce overall costs, only to reduce costs they incur. Those are very different things. I would address your general point, but you didn't rebut my point so going on a tangent with you serves little purpose; suffice to say though the current mostly Government-dictated healthcare "market" is a mess, not because there's too much market involved, but the surprising lack of one. As for your second paragraph do you ever stop for a moment with that last sentence and analyze the definition of a Government? Even in the distorted upside down healthcare "market" you can still enter it somewhat, but when Government takes something over, that's it, that's the point of a Government being THE monopoly institution. My point is, doesn't the cognitive dissonance ever ring a little? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 20 2020 13:13 Sent. wrote: I don't see how anyone who wasn't already a Warren supporter would change their mind and vote for her after this. Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. She certainly did well, but not in a way that will get her the votes she needs. She certainly did the most to tank Bloomberg, but that's about all I see happening here. Maybe a moderate jump in the polls, but her "strong" performance just didn't feel relevant enough. | ||
|
vult
United States9400 Posts
On February 20 2020 13:20 LegalLord wrote: Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. She certainly did well, but not in a way that will get her the votes she needs. She certainly did the most to tank Bloomberg, but that's about all I see happening here. Maybe a moderate jump in the polls, but her "strong" performance just didn't feel relevant enough. As far as convincing voters goes, this debate didn’t play out that way. She was definitely strongest in the context of this debate alone, however yes I’d agree that it’s not going to convince someone to vote for her. I’m just glad she didn’t go in on Bernie as much as she has been. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15712 Posts
On February 20 2020 13:16 Wegandi wrote: I would address your general point, but you didn't rebut my point so going on a tangent with you serves little purpose; suffice to say though the current mostly Government-dictated healthcare "market" is a mess, not because there's too much market involved, but the surprising lack of one. As for your second paragraph do you ever stop for a moment with that last sentence and analyze the definition of a Government? Even in the distorted upside down healthcare "market" you can still enter it somewhat, but when Government takes something over, that's it, that's the point of a Government being THE monopoly institution. My point is, doesn't the cognitive dissonance ever ring a little? You said Bernie is buying votes. I told you I'd lose money voting for Bernie. It is entirely fine for government to be our only healthcare provider. They are our only military provider too and they're the best in the world by a long shot. In industry efficiency is often attained by encouraging selfishness and directing it productively. Similarly, when the only goal of the healthcare industry is to improve health, cost:benefit analysis, risk assessment and a million other things wildly change. Imagine no marketing, no competition, relying on a budget passed by Congress. How would that change the way business is done? When the effectiveness of healthcare is judged by the quality of care and they can not directly control their funding, the entire dynamic shifts. You should consider the idea that certain things might be cheaper when it isn't a competition and the goals are shifted. | ||
| ||
