HappyDays Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 There is so much hypocrisy on both sides, it's not even funny. The Republican's biggest complaints about HRC were her lying, investigations and corruption. Where are the same complaints about Trump? On the flipside, the Democrats have now become obstructionists after detesting the resistance of the prior eight years. I'm an independent who thinks both sides have some good ideas, and that agreeing to some middle ground is the only long-term solution. A large number of young people like me view this two party, polarized system as an inefficient joke. I'm not trying to call anyone out. I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness on both sides. Great post, exactly how I feel. Clinton or Trump would BOTH have been under FBI investigation, no matter who won. That's how far the parties have fallen, neither one can muster the strength to nominate a person not under FBI investigation. And neither side can see their own hypocrisy.
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 I absolutely agree that we have too many people living off of the government. I said above that we should get the leeches off the system, and keep social programs for only the people that really need it. I don't think the government intervening is an ideal solution for healthcare, but it is the only way to regulate costs and get prices down for the average American. Entitlements encourage laziness and dependence, but I feel that healthcare is different. The current way is not working, everyone here will see in the next decade or two. Millions don't have insurance or access to Medicaid. Giving them a basic level of care actually would be different. I'm too harsh to be a liberal, and have never had a handout or entitlement in my life. All I am saying is we have to do something because it currently is not working. I genuinely don't know of a single time the federal government got involved in anything that led to lower prices for the average American. Perhaps one day it will act on our behalf. But most certainly not in our lifetimes.
gatorbait Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 I genuinely don't know of a single time the federal government got involved in anything that led to lower prices for the average American. Perhaps one day it will act on our behalf. But most certainly not in our lifetimes. I can't argue with that, and agree with most of the points you have made. I'm just saying costs go down in countries where healthcare is regulated by the government. Citizens don't pay large insurance premiums but their taxes go up. Thanks guys for the debate btw, I love this type of ****. I'm not saying I have all the answers or the solution. Just pointing out we could take parts of other country's health systems to improve ours.
GoBills808 Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 I genuinely don't know of a single time the federal government got involved in anything that led to lower prices for the average American. Perhaps one day it will act on our behalf. But most certainly not in our lifetimes. Food. We subsidize the production of certain commodities which are either used as livestock feed or turned into certain value added products which are fed back into our manufactured food system. Basically, we pay less for the majority of what's eaten today because of artificially low what,corn, and soybean prices. It actually ties back in with the healthcare debate from the perspective that in certain instances governmental subsidies/price floors can have severe unintended consequences that extend beyond what their intervention was meant to address.
B-Man Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Russia, Russia, Russia! No, Tillerson isn’t Skipping NATO for Russia Secretary of State Rex Tillerson received massive backlash when the media reported he planned to skip a formal NATO meeting on April 5-6, but kept his Moscow trip in mid-April. A Secretary of State has only missed a formal meeting twice in the past 21 years. However, the media has buried the fact that Tillerson planned to skip the meeting because he scheduled to meet with Chinese President Xi Jingping in Florida with President Donald Trump on April 6-7. They also casually mention that he will travel to a G7 meeting in Italy between his weekend with Xi and the trip to Russia. But…Russia, Russia, Russia. The media continues to obsess over Trump and Russia. Look, Tillerson is not skipping NATO for the fun of it. The meeting with the Chinese president in America conflicts with the dates. Plus, China is not small potatoes in the matters of the state. Don’t forget that Tillerson has a trip to Italy between the NATO meeting and Russia trip. The State Department planned to send Tillerson’s acting deputy Thomas Shannon to the Brussels meeting From the FOX News Insider: Steyn: Dems Turned Putin Into ‘Bond Villain’ With ‘Drumbeat’ Against Russia Author and commentator Mark Steyn said Democrats in Congress effectively made Russian President Vladimir Putin a “Bond villain” by continuing to accuse them of interference and spying. “The Democrats turned Putin into a Bond villain: the man with the spider’s touch,” he said, using a line from 1964’s “Goldfinger” theme to recount the way Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) described Putin on Monday, “They want to believe that they didn’t lose the election… that someone stole it from them,” Steyn said, calling their drumbeat against Russia “nuts.” He said that the federal investigation into Russia’s actions is akin to doing Putin’s bidding, by appearing to undermine an American president “more than having some cabinet secretary in [Putin’s] pocket would.”
Tiberius Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 I genuinely don't know of a single time the federal government got involved in anything that led to lower prices for the average American. Using progressive taxation instead of tariffs lowered costs for average Americans. The trade deals the federal government did lowered costs
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Food. We subsidize the production of certain commodities which are either used as livestock feed or turned into certain value added products which are fed back into our manufactured food system. Basically, we pay less for the majority of what's eaten today because of artificially low what,corn, and soybean prices. It actually ties back in with the healthcare debate from the perspective that in certain instances governmental subsidies/price floors can have severe unintended consequences that extend beyond what their intervention was meant to address. If only there was a way I could grow, gather and store my own food inexpensively.
Nanker Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Food. We subsidize the production of certain commodities which are either used as livestock feed or turned into certain value added products which are fed back into our manufactured food system. Basically, we pay less for the majority of what's eaten today because of artificially low what,corn, and soybean prices. It actually ties back in with the healthcare debate from the perspective that in certain instances governmental subsidies/price floors can have severe unintended consequences that extend beyond what their intervention was meant to address. The government's subsidy of ethanol has increased consumer prices in the US and led to dangerous erosion of engine internal parts. The government's subsidy of sugar beet crops in Utah and Idaho (primarily) costs the economy millions. Sugar cane from the Caribbean is way cheaper.
gatorbait Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) B-man it is too early for anyone without access to classified material to truly know if there was collusion or not. The investigations and hearings will take months. It could very well just be a lot of smoke and a media frenzy. I personally think Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page are the ones that would likely be charged with something. Trump would have to be a huge idiot to knowingly collude with the Russians. Edited March 22, 2017 by gatorbait
B-Man Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 B-man it is too early for anyone without access to classified material to truly know if there was collusion or not. The investigations and hearings will take months. It could very well just be a lot of smoke and a media frenzy. I personally think Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page are the ones that would likely be charged with something. Trump would have to be a huge idiot to knowingly collude with the Russians. Fair enough.
Logic Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/22/paul-manaforts-plan-greatly-benefit-putin-government/99483224/"President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests."It's getting smokey in here. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breitbart-covered-by-fbis-russia-probe-report/article/2617956#.WNHYNN614Fw.twitter "Breitbart News, the right-leaning news site that aggressively promoted Donald Trump's bid for the presidency, is part of the FBI's probe on Russia's influence of the election, according to a report. The report, by McClatchy, said the FBI is looking at whether Breitbart and other "far-right news operations took any actions to assist Russia's operatives." Breitbart was formerly run by President Trump's White House strategic adviser Steve Bannon, who left the site to chair Trump's campaign in the fall."et tu, Bannon? Edited March 22, 2017 by Logic
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 I genuinely don't know of a single time the federal government got involved in anything that led to lower prices for the average American. Perhaps one day it will act on our behalf. But most certainly not in our lifetimes. High fructose corn syrup.
Tiberius Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 The government's subsidy of ethanol has increased consumer prices in the US and led to dangerous erosion of engine internal parts. The government's subsidy of sugar beet crops in Utah and Idaho (primarily) costs the economy millions. Sugar cane from the Caribbean is way cheaper. Those darn farmers abusing the system! http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/22/paul-manaforts-plan-greatly-benefit-putin-government/99483224/ "President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests." It's getting smokey in here. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breitbart-covered-by-fbis-russia-probe-report/article/2617956#.WNHYNN614Fw.twitter "Breitbart News, the right-leaning news site that aggressively promoted Donald Trump's bid for the presidency, is part of the FBI's probe on Russia's influence of the election, according to a report. The report, by McClatchy, said the FBI is looking at whether Breitbart and other "far-right news operations took any actions to assist Russia's operatives." Breitbart was formerly run by President Trump's White House strategic adviser Steve Bannon, who left the site to chair Trump's campaign in the fall." et tu, Bannon? Wow, the right wing media is part of this perhaps?
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 High fructose corn syrup. It's what plants crave.
GG Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 I say give the degenerates a basic level of care and cap them if they meet a limit or don't start improving heir health. We are going to end up paying for them one way or another when they go to the ER imo. Educating them is important, they actually don't get that when they go to the ER, compared with having regular checkups and a doctor who monitors heir health and encourages them to do better. If that still doesn't work, set limits and health requirements/targets for them to meet. If they can't, they receive the bare minimum to stay alive or lose access. Penalties might help. So in effect you're advocating a market based solution to reduce the need for healthcare, as the primary method of controlling costs. Which is completely different than believing the fairy tale that if you throw healthcare under the government umbrella, service will get better and cheaper.
gatorbait Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) So in effect you're advocating a market based solution to reduce the need for healthcare, as the primary method of controlling costs. Which is completely different than believing the fairy tale that if you throw healthcare under the government umbrella, service will get better and cheaper. A basic level of universal care is not market based but whatever. I don't know how old you are but before you die fairy tales might just come true. We are moving towards single payer whether you like it or not. Edited March 22, 2017 by gatorbait
Tiberius Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 A basic level of universal care is not market based but whatever. I don't know how old you are but before you die fairy tales might just come true. We are moving towards single payer whether you like it or not.
GG Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 A basic level of universal care is not market based but whatever. I don't know how old you are but before you die fairy tales might just come true. We are moving towards single payer whether you like it or not. There already is a basic level of universal care, because hospitals do not turn patients down. It's not extremely efficient, but is still better than a nationalized health service that will result in worse service for the vast majority of the population. The move to a single payer isn't as inevitable as you think. As more of the worlds' nationalized healthcare plans teeter towards economic collapse, it will give more ammunition to opponents of nationalized healthcare.
gatorbait Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 There already is a basic level of universal care, because hospitals do not turn patients down. It's not extremely efficient, but is still better than a nationalized health service that will result in worse service for the vast majority of the population. The move to a single payer isn't as inevitable as you think. As more of the worlds' nationalized healthcare plans teeter towards economic collapse, it will give more ammunition to opponents of nationalized healthcare. Agree to disagree and I guess we will see in the long run. Have a good one GG, I'm heading to the golf course and am backing out of this convo.
GG Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Agree to disagree and I guess we will see in the long run. Have a good one GG, I'm heading to the golf course and am backing out of this convo. Over time you will learn that "agree to disagree" is not acceptable on this forum. Meanwhile, back to the original topic at hand, it appears that Mr. Nunes just threw another monkey wrench into the Dem talking points memos.
Recommended Posts