Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "The Young Turks"
channel.
-
238
-
171
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
55
-
42
-
39
-
35
-
33
-
27
-
26
-
23
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Oh so your military, police, fire brigade, roads, transmission lines,
harbors, bridges, public transport, water and schools are all privately
owned and not paid for by taxpayers?"
Police: Locally ran and funded
Roads: 3/4 are locally ran and funded and federal funding is constitutional
Fire departments: Around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Some places have a private system, and public systems are locally ran and funded
Bridges: Same with roads
Schools: Locally ran and funded
I think you are getting the point. The military is constitutional. Even at that none of those programs are as complicated as the healthcare system. It is a very poor comparison to compare healthcare to those systems. For example, you don't need a doctorate to teach as a school. But to become a doctor you need almost a decade worth of schooling.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"All I see is them Condemning both in a half-assed insincere way"
What do you want them to do? At this point I just see hate from you as nothing the right does will satisfy you.
" I could also Straw man NRA for not calling Philando Castile's death a tragedy,"
That has nothing to do with the NRA.
", or saying "Guns aren't weapons" "
When did they say that? Also, they are a tool in many ways.
"We both know that not everyone on either side is like that. For someone
who tried to be Nonpartisan and say both sides suck, you don't do very
well at hiding your conservative edge."
What conservative edge?
" BLM doesn't want Cops to stop defending themselves, they want justice for the deaths of people who don't deserve to be killed-"
We have a justice system for that. Michael Brown was killed in self defense. Private autopsy showed that. There was another black individual that the cop did not shoot. Alton Sterling had a gun, was resisting arrest, and was reaching for it. BLM marched for these people. I am all for keeping the cops in check. I would support BLM hiring private investigators and lawyers to look into these cases. However, when you still cry and march over cases like the Alton Sterling one that is cut and dry, I cannot take your ideas serious.
" they are trying to point out the injustices that occur when people like you believe the cops' word without question,"
I question the cops. I want every killing by a cop to be fully investigated. We have to do that on keeping the government in check. And if BLM wants to do it for any time a black person is kill than fine. But accept the results. Most of those killings are justified.
Also, BLM needs to realize that blacks commit a disproportional amount of violent crime. Blacks have lower high school graduate rates and higher rates of single mothers. Solve some of their own problems.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Jeffery, it isn't a false dilemma. Costco pays more because they have limited locations and hours. I live closer to two Walmarts than I do a Costco in my city. Walmarts are open 24 hours, Costco isn't. You can't really compare the two companies. I mean, Google pays more than Costco, why doesn't Costco pay as much as Google does? Also, due to limited hours and locations they have much less employees. Why no complaints about that?
1. Define "poverty wages".
2. Define "decent wages"
3. What?
Let me take your cookie example. The CEO hires the immigrant and worker to turn 20 cookies into 20,000 cookies. Yes, the CEO takes 15,000, but now that worker and immigrant have 5,000.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tiny Hands Donald, you actually shot yourself in the foot. Productivity has been rising because of technology, not because people are working harder. You have to realize a few things.
1. Those that invested and work with that technology has seen an increase in their wages, it is called Skilled Biased Technological Change
2. You point at the 70s. What happened around that time? The increase in the payroll tax. That meant that if businesses paid a higher wage they will pay a higher tax. Instead they paid with benefits such as healthcare insurance. Also you had the creation of other federal programs such as the EPA, OSHA, DOE, etc. The federal government also grew during that time.
3. Increase productivity means goods and services are better and cheaper. Look at cars, computers, cell phones, etc. They are all better and cheaper. How much did a CD player cost in the 1980s? Now you can store thousands of songs on an iPod that is much cheaper then a CD player. Your smart phone has more computing power then what put a man on the moon. A brick cell phone cost $4000 in the 1980s if you include inflation. Your smart phone is much cheaper then that and also includes a computer, walkman, pocket calculator and other technology from the 1980s.
4. Just because overall productivity has increased doesn't mean that the lowest skilled workers have become more productive. NFL players are faster and stronger but we still have people in the US who are very slow.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TheUtuber999, cars today are cheaper not only in sticker price but mainly in quality. Cars today get better gas mileage, have more amenities, are safer, and last longer.
"Runaway exec pay needs to be reversed, meaning workers get a higher percentage of profits... the way it used to be."
Executive pay is not that high. For example, if you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their salaries to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart those workers will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. A lot of profits of these big companies go to shareholders who want to see a return in their investment. Without shareholders those businesses will be much smaller. Now while that does have some advantage, it can also lead to higher prices and less jobs.
I am not saying things are all a great, but you have to be careful in what you think is bad and when put in a different, and most likely proper perspective it really isn't a problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Science education should focus on teaching things as the scientific method, communications in science, what theories and supporting evidence are and so on.
The biggest problem with science is that people don't know what it is. This lady said evolution was proved. Nothing in science is proven. To prove something means without a doubt. Science isn't a religion so there is always doubt.
"I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." —The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman
Science is about innovations and advancement. It is about searching for explanations and new findings. People seem to lack this. It always annoyed me when Richard Dawkins seemed to replace religion with science. To me he isn't a scientist which is why he has never done anything in the past 30 years except promote atheism.
Science is theories to give predictions of the physical world and the theory with the strongest supporting evidence we use. It isn't facts or proofs. I am no so much disturbed by the fact that this law is being proposed, I am more disturbed that people don't understand science. Those students should learn evolution but should learn it as a theory. They don't have to believe it. I don't believe it, but it is a theory I strongly support and reference a lot.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Probus Excogitatoris It seems that politics are not your strong suit. Hence, I have to take this discussion down to a really basic level.
Yes all citizens can run for office, the voters decide which ones they support. To assure that those elected govern in accordance to what the voters support you have to keep government as local as possible.
You say that the voters want their politicians to act on their behalf, we have that. Look at congress. Congress has a low approval rating but a high retention rate. The reason why is that people don't like other people's representatives, but they like their own. They like the ones they can vote for.
How things use to be in the US was a very limited federal government and stronger local government. The more local government is the more control people have over it. You can vote for almost all of your state and local representatives. You know what goes on in your own hometown. You have no clue what goes on in the state next to you, so why should you have any influence on what goes on there?
What you want is a strong, centralized government. With that you lose control of the government. You can't vote for the vast majority of the representatives. You can only vote for 2 senators and, at best, a handful of representative. While they may do what you support what makes you think other politicians at other states will? You may complain when a Mitch McConnell does something, well guess what, you didn't vote for him (assuming you are not from KY).
The founding fathers set up the country on the basis of a limited federal government and more state rights. With our large diversity a one size fits all policy simply does not work, and at the local level people have more control of the government. I met both candidates for mayor, I met the governor, I met a lot of our elected officials. I have never met the president or any cabinet members and only 1 member of congress out of the 535.
Giving more power to the federal government gives them the ability to be bought out. You may say vote them out but guess what, you can only vote for a few. You may say create a law to make it illegal to have money in politics, now how is going to enforce it? The politicians you elected. Now you may say vote them out and vote in ones that will obey and enforce the law but guess what, you can only vote for a view.......you see the cycle being created here? You want to create a law that prevents politicians from doing something, but the only people that enforcing it will be politicians. You say vote them out but you can't when you only vote for a few of them. You have no control of the federal government but you want to give it ability to create more laws and give them the power to enforce them........that is like letting the prisoners control the prison.
The country was designed to have the federal government deal with foreign affairs and enforce the constitution on the states. States were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the fed. It was a checks and balance system. The people had government but at the state level. They had control of the government. What you want to do is take away the checks and balance part and give all the power to the fed. And when it becomes corrupt you want to create a law to stop it, basically all you are doing is wagging your finger at them saying "no no no" without any consequences. They are not going to stop? They will only stop if you limit their power and give powers back to the states.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tokenetta
He hasn't explained himself. We lack doctors, nurses, pharmacists, professors, tutors, TAs, and other skilled workers in healthcare and universities to actually provide it to more people. How do you plan to offer college and healthcare to more people when we lack workers to actually provide it? Also, he somehow thinks that will save money. It isn't about paying for it, it is about how we lack skilled workers in those areas of the market.
And no, economists don't support him.
Having three homes makes you a hypocrite when you want to raise taxes on the rich just because they are rich. He is saying other rich people should be punished, but not him. I don't mind if a rich person has luxurious items. I have a problem with Bernie wanting to take from other people just because they are wealthy, but he is allowed to be wealthy himself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
R. m, the polls are deceptive. Look at them closer
Here are the top 10 by state
VT
VT
WY
WY
ME
ME
SD
HI
DE, OR (tie)
ND
Ok, now states by population
WY
VT
AL
ND
SD
DE
MT
RI
MI
NH
7 of those senators resides in states with small populations (VT, WY,
SD, DE, ND)
Now by demographics, percent white
VT 96%
ME 95%
NH 94%
WV 94%
IA 92%
ID 92%
WY 91%
MN 90%
ND 90%
Do some of those states look familiar?
Now to crime. States with the lowest crime rates
VT
ME
WY
NH
VA
KY
ID
UT
RI
MN
VT, ME and WY are the three states with the lowest amount of crime. VT
ME and WY are 1, 2 and 7 in terms of percentage of whites, and WY, VT
are the two smallest states by population. but yet the six most popular
senators reside VT, ME and WY.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
DjDedan, yes, we could have kept going down if republicans did not stop him from doing another destructive bail out. Also, there is the point of you can only go down so far. We have not recovered from this recession. Last time it took this long to recover from a recession was the recession of 1929.
"please show me any data|article|ANYTHING that says we could not have
kept on receding into an actual depression and i'll take you as more
than just one-dimensional blinded by hatred troll... "
What makes a depression is a slow recovery, like what happened in the 30s. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. Recovery has been slow. We had a major recession in the late 70s early 80s and recovered in a few years with a spike in GDP growth. Same as in 1921 and recovered in a year. Here we are over 8 years later and we are still behind.
"As for GDP growth, that's one indicator you can't ignore the context of the economy as well as an OBSTRUCTIONIST congress"
Yep, keep blaming congress for Obama's failures. He was a poor leader. Also, on Bush's growth, his growth was not following a recession . I am not saying it was great, but steady growth is the norm. After a recession we need a spike to catch us back up which we did not have. Thus we are still behind.
On Obama vs Reagan, we were having a massive job lost, so of course a lot of jobs will be created when unemployment spikes. Even at that low paying jobs is not great.
Fact is that Obama was a terrible president. Economic growth was poor and the country is more divided now. This is why Trump and republicans are winning, the democrats could not run on Obama's record at all, just like republicans could not run on Bush's record in 2006 and 2008 (Bush was a bad president as well). You can try all you want to make Obama look great, but facts don' t like. That is why you can only point to polls that have been wrong lately. Some examples are
1. Clinton was supposed to win Michigan but lost
2. According to Gallup 87% of people want background checks on guns but such laws failed in Maine and only passed in NV by 0.45% with several county sheriffs saying they won't even enforce it
3. Gallup also said people want universal healthcare but such a law failed in Colorado with around 80% voting against it.
These polls are not accurate right now. If Obama was so well liked than why did democrats lose?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
MomoTheBellyDancer, it is flawed. Here is my short analysis on it.
I took the time to read the study. At the start they display their bias
with this
"Trump’s lack of support among people
of color and his popularity among white subgroups with less tolerant
attitudes (such as whites
without college degrees)"
Just because you do not have a college degree does not mean you have a
"less tolerant attitude". They make that claim but do not link any
psychological or sociological study to it.
"Moreover, Trump’s call for law and order in the context of discussing
urban
unrest"
How is this race related? Urban is not a race.
"While previous work has shown that racial attitudes predict support for
Donald Trump"
Again, none listed. As someone who writes peer reviewed work in
academics this is a perfect time to list such work.
"Given the unusually racialized nature of Trump’s campaign"
How was his campaign racialized?
"Given his clear racial and ethno-nationalist appeals—for example, about
President Obama’s country of origin, his support for a Muslim ban, the
state of the African American community, and negative comments about
Mexicans"
I agree, Trump pushing the birther idea was asinine, but not racist.
There wasn't a Muslim ban. The "state of the African American community"
is nothing on him. And his "negative comments about Mexicans" were
towards illegal immigrants.
The fact they used only 764 people makes for a small sample size. They
failed to include the ages, income level, education attainment (even
though they mentioned it as a variable in the introduction),
geographical location, etc. of the people sampled.
This is coming from mainly the first half of the "study". I find this
to be bias and poorly done.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I took the time to read the study. At the start they display their bias with this
"Trump’s lack of support among people
of color and his popularity among white subgroups with less tolerant attitudes (such as whites
without college degrees)"
Just because you do not have a college degree does not mean you have a "less tolerant attitude". They make that claim but do not link any psychological or sociological study to it.
"Moreover, Trump’s call for law and order in the context of discussing urban
unrest"
How is this race related? Urban is not a race.
"While previous work has shown that racial attitudes predict support for Donald Trump"
Again, none listed. As someone who writes peer reviewed work in academics this is a perfect time to list such work.
"Given the unusually racialized nature of Trump’s campaign"
How was his campaign racialized?
"Given his clear racial and ethno-nationalist appeals—for example, about President Obama’s country of origin, his support for a Muslim ban, the state of the African American community, and negative comments about Mexicans"
I agree, Trump pushing the birther idea was asinine, but not racist. There wasn't a Muslim ban. The "state of the African American community" is nothing on him. And his "negative comments about Mexicans" were towards illegal immigrants.
The fact they used only 764 people makes for a small sample size. They failed to include the ages, income level, education attainment (even though they mentioned it as a variable in the introduction), geographical location, etc. of the people sampled.
This is coming from mainly the first half of the "study". I find this to be bias and poorly done.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Car insurance mandate is a state law. Nothing in the Constitution prevents states from establishing it. The Constitution gives direct powers to the federal government, no where does it say forcing citizens to participate in healthcare. Healthcare insurance mandates would be Constitutional at the state level.
Also, it is a balance between allowing you to travel freely and creating order in this nation. You can travel freely by walking, but driving is much easier and more efficient. That comes with responsibilities when you do it in public which is why we have laws. A part of that is having liability insurance in case you cause damage to other property or people. You can drive to your heart's content with no license and no insurance if you stay in private land, but in public there is a desire to have order and that is what insurance does. This is also part of the reason why DUI checkpoints do not violate the 4th amendment. Read the Sitz v Michigan Department of State Police, they say similar things.
In comparison we have a right to bear arms. We can own guns, keep them concealed in our homes, shoot them in private land to our heart't content. In public, however, many states have CCW and open carry laws. That does not violate the 2nd amendment as we can still own a gun, but in public there are restrictions to maintain order. It is all about you interacting in public.
Now with healthcare insurance mandate the argument is this, in the ER you cannot be denied care. The problem that creates is that many without insurance go to the ER, receive care, and cannot pay. Thus by forcing people to have insurance means that they are no longer a liability to the public. Much like you are not a liability to the public if you have car insurance and you accidentally cause an accident.
There are arguments on both sides on these issues, but that is the idea behind them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Austin Schlepko, have you actually read the study? I doubt it. To give examples, though, leftists cannot fathom living in a world with less government and more personal freedom. For example, you debate with them on economic issues and many on the left, including Cenk, brings up the fire department. That we need more government because they provide things like fire departments. However, around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer, and most of them exist in rural, conservative areas. They don't live in the fear of less government. Leftists do.
Also, look at the recent reaction to the Parkland shooting. The left is making it look like we are a nation with many mass shootings thus we need more gun control. Who is living in fear now?
But again, read the study, I guarantee you it is coming up with a vastly more vague conclusion than what Cenk is presenting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Theo Lamp, I want to comment on this
"The administration is also ignoring the well paying growth industries of renewable power"
Is it growing? Yes. But you cannot force an industry to grown whiling forcing another one to die. There are still many jobs in coal and oil and many workers there that cannot do other jobs. You have to allow the market to pay out so those jobs gradually go away.
"Green energy" is not efficient yet. It is getting there, but not yet. We cannot go to it drastically because doing so will, as I said, kill many jobs and also make it so our energy source has shortcomings. That will hurt our industry. From a science standpoint, since you claim to support science, that will hurt scientific research. Many labs, like mine, need a consistent source of energy that is reliable. If we do not have that we cannot do experiments. That means less progress in making new drugs, advancing technology, and even making "green energy" more efficient.
This isn't an issue were we can just turn on a switch and everything is better. It is very complex and really, from my experience, too complex for many ultra leftists (TYT fans) to understand.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheUltimateBeing01, you can check my math. Take $25.6 million and divide that by 500,000. I pick 500,000 because some of those 1.4 million can be managers, but not all. Well over half of those 1.4 million are the typical walmart associate. But 500,000 proves my point.
$25,600,000/500,000=$51.20. If you take the McMillion's salary and spread it across to those 500,000 workers equally they will earn an extra $51.20 a year. That's it. There are 52 weeks in a year and a 40 hour work week you have 40*52=2080. And $51.20/2080=0.03 dollars/hr. I rounded it up. So cutting CEO pay to zero, and spreading it to the 500,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart, and assuming they all work 40 hours a week with no vacation, because Walmart is evil and does that, increases their wage to 3 cents an hour.
Wow. I agree now. The min. wage should be doubled I guess. I mean, that extra three cents an hour will lead to a booming economy. Why was I so blind?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here are the top 10 by state
VT
VT
WY
WY
ME
ME
SD
HI
DE, OR (tie)
ND
Ok, now states by population
WY
VT
AL
ND
SD
DE
MT
RI
MI
NH
7 of those senators resides in states with small populations (VT, WY,
SD, DE, ND)
Now by demographics, percent white
VT 96%
ME 95%
NH 94%
WV 94%
IA 92%
ID 92%
WY 91%
MN 90%
ND 90%
Do some of those states look familiar?
Now to crime. States with the lowest crime rates
VT
ME
WY
NH
VA
KY
ID
UT
RI
MN
VT, ME and WY are the three states with the lowest amount of crime. VT
ME and WY are 1, 2 and 7 in terms of percentage of whites, and WY, VT
are the two smallest states by population. but yet the six most popular
senators reside VT, ME and WY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So that means by your logic people should just go away and die? "
No, we should always improve the system. But you have to realize that no system is ideal. 40,000 people is 0.01% of the population. That is minute. You also have to consider that you cannot say with high certainty that the only reason why they died is because of lack of access to care.
35,000 people die a year on the roads in traffic accidents. Does that mean that those 35,000 people were on dangerous roads or in unsafe cars? Or does that mean that there will always be people that fall through the cracks?
"Do you have children, mother, father, sisters, brothers, would you like them to just die? "
People die, you need to realize that. Warren went on a rant about an 80 year old woman. Life expectancy is around 79 years. A woman who is above that but can no longer produce in this country isn't really worth catering to. That is the harsh reality. People die all the time and the world moves on. That is the harsh reality. When you look at the big picture 40,000 is tiny. Which again, you can't say with high certainty that the only reason why they die is because of lack of access to healthcare.
You show me a perfect system where everyone gets high quality care at a low price in a country of 320+ million people I will be the first person to push to promote you a president. The fact is that no such system exists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Millenials are getting older and are wondering why they are making 3/4
of what their parents made, and having to spend 50k in school debt for
the privilege of doing it,"
Millennials also have better cars, high speed internet, overall better technology that makes live easier and cheaper. Just don't look at dollar figures, look at other areas of the market as well. Also, more students are going to college as the economy changes. The tractor killed farming jobs so future generations had to adjust. But in reality the problem of high tuition can be blamed a lot on the federal government's loan program.
"while also paying more for everything from food to utilities than their
parents did (inflation adjusted), all of this while the country gets
more run down every month because tax cut nation is too broke to
allocate tax dollars to road, bridge, utility, and other repairs and
building."
Roads and utilities are localized. Talk to your local government. Unless you live in the same state I do then you do not fund my roads.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Having read this article, and the report, I call BS. There are some important facts that need to be made.
1: The repeal of the law was the repeal of the states LTC law only. It means you no longer need a license to Purchase, it doesn't override the Federal NICS check that still has to be carried out when a handgun is purchased. In other words there is still a background check when a firearm is purchased new or used from a FFL dealer, only private sellers had no way to verify the background of a prospective buyer.
2: This law had no impact on straw purchases at all, and never would have. A person selling a gun to a criminal knowingly wouldn't have been deterred by the LTC requirement in place, and would pass the NICS check for the original purchase.
3: The report claims a 16% increase in gun murders, the real number is 12% However; the total number of murders didn't change, though a larger percentage were committed with firearms over the past few years as compared to 2006 and 2007 (last points for which such data is easily obtainable).
Is the objective to reduce murder? Or to reduce guns? In over 120 studies more than 90 of them determined a negative correlation (less guns = more murder) between firearm reduction and murder rates. 17 Found no relation.
This is a comment from another channel from another profile on this story. I copied and pasted it because I couldn't have said it better myself. Growing up in MO there were no background checks in private sales, just through license dealers. Another problem with this story is that it is signaling out one state and one law. Illinois has very strict gun laws and look at that state. East St. Louis (right across the river of St. Louis , MO) is incredibly dangerous. A lot of times the crime drifts over into St. Louis and it is a problem, much like Jaurez, Mexico is to El Paso. In all this really doesn't support anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jeffrey Crenshaw A little government lesson for you. This country was set up to where the federal government had two main jobs, deal with foreign affairs and give US citizens the ability to control governments. Rights as in free speech, right to bear arms, fair trial, etc. were rights protected by the federal government and the federal government can't use to discriminate or gain in power over the people. Everything else was left up to the states. It was set up so people have government involvement but control over it. It was the check and balance of powers so no one entity can ever get too powerful.
With that said marriage isn't a federal issue because as we see it does lead to discrimination and power of the federal government over the people. Marriage should be left up to the states. I personally find it wrong that married people get tax breaks where people who chose to be single don't. That is a form of discrimination. But in short marriage is a state issue and it isn't a right protected by the federal government.
The economy has down well under republican presidents. It was strong during Reagan when he had a democrat congress because he worked well with the other side. It was strong under Clinton when he had a republican congress because he worked well with the other side. Bush Jr. worked well with the other side as well. Granted we did have a republican congress so we didn't progress as well as we should of but we still did well, even after 9/11 and mini recessions that always happen.
Under Obama the recession stopped but we haven't progressed. Unemployment is still high, stocks are high only because the federal government is pumping money in it and keeping stocks low, jobs are not being created and now we have a healthcare bill that is making our system worse. Here we are 5 years later and we have gotten nowhere. We are not better off because of Obama because he simply refuses to work with the other side.
FDR wasn't great either. Learn your history and you will see that he did what Hoover was doing. He prolonged the recession. What made him better than Obama was that he was at least willing to listen to others and get people to band together to meet a common goal. That is why when the war started we got out of the recession. We were not separated in groups like Obama has done to us. He didn't separate us into blacks or women or rich or poor. His policies weren't not good but he was great and keeping a positive attitude and not make everyone so angry.
Your assumption that democrat presidents lead to strong economies isn't true. Great leaders do and it is funny how under our sluggish economic times have all been under democrat presidents. Obama, Carter and FDR. The thing about Obama is that he is making everyone angry against everyone else. People are viewing businesses as evil. He is calling women and minorities inferior to make them angry to buy votes. We no longer live in the 50s. Racism is no longer an issue. Sexism is no longer an issue and people have no problems with gays. It becomes an issue when people play the victim card and democrats, especially Obama, allows it to happen. You want to me outline why none of those issue exist? I will next time. Right now I have to get to work. But remember, Obama is a poor leader.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stan Taylor That is the issue, do they really have better outcomes? Also, you have to consider the economic impact. With universal healthcare they will cater to someone who has a "life threatening" issue over someone who doesn't. But say that person who has a "life threatening" issue is not that productive in society, but they get care over someone who is. That hinders economic growth.
For example, say I need knee surgery that is not life threatening. I will have to wait a long time while those who have life threatening issues will get treated. I am productive in society and having a bad knee hurts my productivity. That means my research and teaching will be hindered. I have insurance because I am productive along with anyone else who have it. But with universal healthcare that does not matter. That does hinder economic growth which is one factor (of many) of why the US is more productive than a lot of countries with universal healthcare.
Now it is not that simple as the issue is complicated. But that book outlines how other countries face just as many, if not more problems than the US.
On that ranking, here is what Professor Oshfeldt said
" Prof. Ohsfeldt acknowledges that regression was chosen for its relative simplicity for what he called his “little book project.” And he agrees that some deaths that his book attempted to remove from the life-expectancy tables might be dependent on health-care systems. “We’re not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy estimates,” he told me. “We’re just trying to show that there are other factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote all the time.” These factors (which could also include rates obesity and smoking, also arguably the result of lifestyle choices rather than health care) call into question the value of country rankings, especially where the difference between the leading countries is often less than a year. Prof. Ohsfeldt compared the situation to college rankings where two schools with minute differences are ranked, somewhat arbitrarily."
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/
Which I agree. I see all of these rankings and question them as their methods are not really clear. The Commonweatlhfund you pointed me to is just like that. And as professor Oshfeldt showed, when you change minor things you get different rankings in life expectancy showing how minute the differences are. You can't say that the US has a system that is inferior to other countries when they face many problems as well.
I am not in the top 5%. I know several people who aren't, including one who just got heart surgery. They have never had a problem with healthcare in the US. They are all productive in society. Now does that mean the US system is great? No. I feel it has flaws and stem from the federal government. Allowing the federal government to get involved more is not the answer. People need to realize that just because we have a for profit system does not mean we have a free market system. In reality we don't, we have a for profit system with government involvement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Yes, DETAILS are always up for debate, but when someone pretend there is
a debate about whether global warming is happening, or evolutionary
theory, then they aren't interested in debating details"
Except almost everyone is saying the earth is warming. That is the problem. When someone comes up as a skeptic people immediately label them as a climate change denier when they aren't.
" but whether evolution happened is not of debate."
I agree. But that is not my point. Same with climate change. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. What is happening right now we do not fully understand. And is it even bad?
"The right has made science as much a religion as the left. "
Uh, no. The right wants to keep science out of DC and leave it in the hands of the scientists.
". It's the reporting of science being turned into the science, "
You can report things incorrectly. Science is a complex field that few understand. It seems like you are one of those few. That is not to be rude by you are presenting yourself like that. I get angry when I hear politicians like Obama and Bernie make claims in the name of science. I can see why Bernie struggled in science
" The ones pretending there is some sort of broad "debate" are the same
type of people that think creation science and spirit science are
science"
Again, not true. Look up Dover vs Penn and remember, that was a Bush appointed judge.
"but if you are pretending there is a debate about whether AGW is happening,"
It is happening. But to what degree is man playing and is it even bad?
"There is nothing wrong with more government in science, "
Yes there is. It creates bureaucracy and special interest groups and hinders progress.
"This particular government is supposed to ve a democracy, and people based, but it's led by corporations "
Obama has received donor money from "green" energy companies.
"By the way, science happens to have a left leaning,"
Not true at all.
"because reality has a left leaning liberal bias."
Yeah, like there are more than two genders. Or there is not a consensus on climate change. Or how Oregon, a liberal state, has anti-vaxxers. That is just on science, do not let me get to economics as you will look foolish on that statement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
smarhaus Boo hoo. It is a competitive world out there. I personally hate it knowing that I don't have the option of working more hours. Picking up a second job isn't that easy (even though I have two, and sometimes three myself). A reason why your company laid you off is because one, you simply weren't that good of a worker, or two due to regulations it was too expensive to keep you. The company my dad worked at closed, he picked up a job that pays $26/hr starting off, he is getting paid more now. He had a lot of experience and they went after him. This idea of "worker's rights" and "redistribution of the wealth" is what is killing jobs. It makes it too hard to hire people.
Plus, as I mentioned before, redistribution of the wealth is impossible. You have to create wealth. I showed that with my house example. 61% of an average family's net worth is in their home. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Is it because a homeowner is oppressive to renters? No, because beyond owning a home people don't have much wealth, but they can still have a nice income. In order to have wealth redistribution you will have to start giving people Walmarts. And considering how around 50% of small businesses fail within the first 5 years it is safe to say that in 5 years some Walmarts will do well and others will fail leading to more wealth redistribution. You have to create wealth somewhere, and in order for wealth redistribution to take place the government has to "trickle down" that wealth to people who didn't create that wealth, and they have to do it constantly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Krugman is a fool. We have been using his ideas for the economy for almost half a century now and we are still a mess. He only solution now is more government.
Overall, if you look at the WHO ranking, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th ranked countries have a combined population that is less than every US state. Never mind the point where that list considers access to care to be way more important then quality making that list frivolous. Just that every country faces different issues.
The system in the US has flaws. I don't agree with replacing it with a system that has different flaws. Instead I want to work and become creative to develop the best system possible because that is what we do in the US. We, right away, deal with many different issues compared to other countries, especially smaller ones, so it is hard to compare us with them. Also, in all, why can't we be different? We need to work and develop a great system. To me the only thing holding us back from doing that is liberals since they seem to never want to work. Cost is an issue in the US, but our quality is amazing and anyone who says otherwise is a fraud. So now that we have great quality we need to find a way to keep cost down but at the same time keep improving our quality. Unlike some people out there I don't want a good system but I want the best and improve on that. Socialize care isn't it. The US system isn't that either but compared to every other system out there it is the best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ufutz, education can either the best thing you offer to someone or the worse. It can be great if it is done right as in teaching problem solving skills and creativity. But education can also be used for indoctrination.
"Universities lean left because those who go are intelligent. "
They go with who they can hire. A problem with professors is that many never worked outside of academics and thus they stay in their safe space of academics.
" They have their views challenged,"
Not always.
"That's why there are correlations between intelligence and progressive ideas, and between low intelligence and conservative ones"
Again, not true. I am sure I can dismantle that idea quickly. Why do liberals feel there are 37 different types of sex? Or are so ignorant when it comes to economics?
"Just look and listen to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbah etc. Not smart people, heavily conservative."
I can say the same thing about guys like Bill Maher, Piers Morgan, Cenk, Nancy Pelosi, etc. It goes both ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" because someone said that he has a Phd in science and thinks Dems are idiots"
The democratic party today are extreme and idiots. Just because scientists vote for them does not change that fact. The reality is that many do not follow politics. When I discuss politics with my colleagues (remember, I study science for a living) I can name off politicians and parts of the constitution they can't. They only know what the media feeds them which the media is left as well, for the most part. So they go off of the propaganda that Trump was an idiot and a racist, or that republicans are anti-science, all of which is not true.
To me, the democratic party feeds off of those who are myopic and emotional. With professors as in scientists, you have a career where you interact with only other scientists, you teach what you know young, impressionable minds, and you play politics to get tenure where then it is almost impossible for you to lose a job. It is no secret why they vote democrat at that point. As I said, you have to compare scientists in industry to scientists in academics. Even at that, when you look at academics those in the STEM fields are less liberal than those in the liberal arts.
So as a whole, the idea that "educated" people vote democrats and "uneducated" vote republican is simply not true. Those with a higher income typically vote republican and there is a correlation between intelligence and income.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Speedy, Carlo did not give me stats. He pointed to the WHO which refuses to do another ranking due to how much it was criticized. You can read what I wrote to him about how asinine it is to compare the US to Andorra.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
There are the stats with everything cited. So
1. Universal healthcare has problems and just as many as the US system has. People are not dying on the streets nor is our country being extremely held back by our system. If it was than I would agree, go with what other countries are doing. But the fact is that the US is on par with other countries
2. So what do you do with those insurance workers? Let them go unemployed? Also, our economy is based on a lot, but changing just one sector of it has a large impact. Look what happened with the housing market crashing.
3. The US has been using basically the same system for decades. The vast majority are fine with it as the vast majority are fine with their system in other countries. The reason why is because, as a whole, it works. When you run through the stats you see that. For example, the life expectancy of the US is around 79 years and for Australia it is 82 years. Now former MIT professor Walter Lewin said any number without error is meaningless. A couple of years ago I found the average life expectancy of the world and standard deviation to be 71±7 years. So one, the US is one standard deviation above the average. Two, that 3 year difference between the US and Australia is purely noise.
So, to answer your question. The people are not stupid. What we have works just fine compared to other countries. This is why healthcare reform is so hard to begin with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What do you mean by devaluing education? Is education a zero sum
game?"
College education is more than just sitting in a classroom, doing homework, and reading books. The issue with colleges is that we lack professors, TAs, tutors, etc. If more people go than the quality will go down because it will become similar to just herding people in classrooms, assigning them basic problems, and graduating them. No personal connections developed, no critical thinking assignments that require writing, and limited feedback.
"Do you think that medical care in the US is better than in
Scandinavian countries?"
Arguably yes. As a whole, it is no better nor is it any worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am not wrong. Who controls congress and most state and local offices? Fact is democrat supporters stayed home.
" It would be interesting to see some stats on that"
Look at the age groups each party attracts. Republicans always attract the older crowd. The older you get you start paying taxes, have to manage a budget, you probably own a home and have a job. You realize the financial side of things and become economically conservative, especially when you deal with the government.
1. Yes, they are being oppressive. People, as a whole don't care if you are gay. Just like people, as whole, don't care about your political party and religion. We just don't want to hear about it or have you use it to gain an advantage.
2. Not really. People do support the traditional value of marriage just like they support a lot of tradition. Why people think like that I can't say. I can't think for others. Why do some people like to wear hats? Again, I don't know. To me my main issue is how marriage, as a whole, should remain a state law and how it is not a right. I personally don't care if it is recognized by government or not (it has always been legal), I just care about the standards of how we create laws
3. Yes. Yes. It is their business that they run from their own money. No one is entitled to their services. What you are doing by forcing them to serve in a way they don't want is being an oppressor. No different than when people used laws to make black people drink at a different drinking fountain. You are being the oppressor now. That is their private business. They don't have to exist at all.
" It's not as fast as the changes in opinion on gay marriage, but at this
rate if the trend continues Christians would become be a minority in
america in about 15-16 years."
Maybe.
"you said they 'lack education'. with that phrasing it's fair to assume
you meant school, college, etc. now you're just making generalizations
about them being emotional, people on both sides are emotional, but
about different values."
Being educated, to me, is knowing how to handle emotions and use logic to dictate actions. Also being educated is having problem solving skills and being able to properly analyze facts and data.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" they have to for everyone once they recognize it for anyone,"
No they do not if there is not benefit to that local community according to the government.
"that's what the fourteenth amendment is about."
"
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the
several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when
the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in
Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members
of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of
such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United
States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion,
or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in
the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the
whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in
Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any
office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature,
or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove
such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or
rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor
any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of
insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations
and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"
The ruling on the 14th amendment is that marriage was between a man and a women, thus it can't discriminate base on race. But in terms of gender one can argue that there is no benefit in recognizing marriage between people of equal sex. If you are going to allow marriage between a man and a woman than race should not matter. But in terms of gender you can make an argument that a marriage should be between a man and a woman as the reason why the government was involved in marriage to begin with was only for that purpose. With your argument you start down the path of incest and polygamy. All or nothing according to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"if that action is only distinguished by race, sexual preference, gender,
religion etc. from an action that is recognized, the non-recognition is
unconstitutional, because it's an unconstitutional discrimination.
polygamy is not recognized from anyone, there is no discrimination."
Polygamy is a religious practice, so according to you it is discrimination.
" discrimination. look, there is a marriage licence waiting to be signed
saying, you are married to john doe. who is able to get that licence?
according to you only a female, not a male. that is discrimination,"
No that is not discrimination. What would be discrimination is only allowing men to get marriage licenses. But as is both men and women can get marriage licenses.
"no male can get that marriage licence, "
They can get another one and receive the same benefits.
"you are married to african american john doe, and only african american people can get this licence, just because of their race."
I told you how race is different. You do not act black. You are genetically born that way. You do act gay. While you may be born to be attractive to the same sex, you still have to commit an action. If the government does not recognize gay marriage they are not recognizing the action. They are not discriminating because everyone can get married that is recognized by the government, it just has to be between a man and a woman. No different than not recognizing the action and practice of polygamy.
" the amount of people who have to agree is irrelevant in this context, the amount of people is not a protected group."
It does matter as I can get a driver's license on my own terms. Plus, if the amount of people does not matter, why is polygamy not recognized? You are contradicting yourself.
"... have the wrong race (you need to have the same race)
... have the wrong color of skin (you are not white)"
You do not act white or black. You are genetically born that way. Your race is something that is always you no matter how you act or what you practice. That is why the government can't discriminate base on race.
"... believe in the wrong religion (you are not christian)"
The 1st amendment prevents that.
"... are not from america or europe (you are from africa)
... are older than 40 (you are 56)"
Same with race, you do not act a certain age, you are 56 no matter what you practice. You are from Africa no matter what you practice.
"... have the wrong sex (you need to have the opposite sex)"
One gay marriage you are practicing something. The government is not recognizing the practice of gay marriage. While you may be attractive to the same sex, being gay is something that involves an action. You can be a black man walking down the street and in the end you are a black man walking down the street. Now if you are black having gay sex, you are still black but now you are performing a gay act. If you decide to skateboard you are still black, but now you are skateboarding. If you get married to a guy you are still black, but now you have performed the act of a gay marriage. You see the trend? In every instance you are black, but the action you are performing defines who you are.
Someone can be a pedophile and be attract to kids. Do we arrest them based only on that? No. We arrest them if they perform the act of having sex with a child. An action has to occur. With gay marriage, no one is discriminating against gays, they are not recognizing the action.
"... you are not a perfect human (you have a genetic irregularity)"
People with mental retardation are not allowed to reproduce. So based on that they are discriminated as well.
But let me add another one to you list
--you are already married (polygamy)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"nope, gay marriage is not a subject to federal law. gay is a sexual
preference in attraction, it has nothing to do with marriage."
Yes it does.
"nope, you cannot do male or female, those are sexes, biological features"
I agree, but action is the key part. You are not recognizing the action.
"neither male nor female are actions, discrimination based on sex is unconstitutional. "
They are not discriminating based on sex, they are not recognizing a practice they are performing. A man and woman can always get married, it just had to be with the opposite sex. No discrimination there.
" nope, i told you when there is no distinction, there is no discrimination"
There is. I will show you again in the next comment.
"the constitution is federal law"
Kind of. But still, state rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"i said they are not reviewed by peer reviewed scientific journals, which is true."
No you did not.
" you were arguing from your textbook, while i was arguing from facts out of scientific papers, so i told you the difference"
They are both peer reviewed. And textbooks are written based on those papers. Arguing from a textbook is no different than arguing from a paper.
" i cited an author of standard economic theory "
No you did not. If so than please list it again.
" but because of your lack of knowledge you could not recognize him in my comment"
You did not list a name, period.
" which was enough to demonstrate your shortcomings"
Enough to demonstrate your shortcomings is showing that you feel that textbooks are unreliable even though they are written based on the papers that are published. And textbooks, especially the introductory ones, are peer reviewed. Introductory ones are done by many professionals in their field where papers in journals may be done by three (and they are, at times, picked by the authors of that paper). Plus, you were talking about basic economics thus you should have been able to find support from any introductory textbook. The fact you did not shows your shortcomings.
"what on earth is wrong with you? the fourteenth amendment guarantees equal rights, "
What on earth is wrong with you? You have no right in getting your marriage or marriages (polygamy) to be recognized, period.
"so if jane doe gets the right to get her marriage recognized with john
smith, then joe doe needs to get the same right, to get a marriage with
john smith recognized"
And based on that than Joe Smith has the right to have his marriage with Jane Doe, Joe Buck, Mary Sue be recognized even if he is married to them simultaneously (polygamy). If not than it is discrimination.
"is that so hard to understand?"
I fully understand, you are just wrong and you are contradicting yourself.
"neither joe doe, nor jane doe, nor john smith nor anyone else has the right to get a polygamy recognized by law"
Why not? Why do you discriminate?
"they only get the right to live in polygamy when it's their religious practice. "
And you have the right to live with someone of the same sex. You can also live with many partners and have that right (beyond zoning laws) and not be religious. You do not want to recognize polygamy which contradicts your discrimination stance. Gay people can always live with each other, same with those practicing polygamy. Thing was the government did not recognize their marriage.
"they won't get any licence, but are free to live as they please."
Same with gay marriage.
"no discrimination at all, no one gets different rights than others"
Uh, yes they do. They are still married.
"states have to follow the constitution"
I agree.
" if states don't offer equal rights, then they act against the constitution and such laws are struck down"
I know, but you have no right to have your marriage recognized by the government.
". distinction upon sex is discrimination"
It is distinction upon the action, not sex.
1
-
1
-
"the right to get my marriage recognized is fundamental"
Nope, not listed in the constitution at all. That is why it is a state issue.
"nope, no one has the right to get a marriage recognized with someone already married,"
I agree, but according to you they do.
"i don't, no polygamy for anyone"
Ok, then no same sex for anyone.
"but i don't have the right to get a marriage with a specific person recognized"
Same with polygamy.
"no one is able to get his polygamy recognized by law "
And same with same sex marriage.
"nope, you said a female can get a marriage to a male recognized, but a
male cannot get a marriage recognized to that same male. that means two
people have different rights because they differ in their sex,"
Nope, those males have to find a female to get married to. It is similar to if a man is married to a woman, and another woman wants to marry that same man, than they can't have that marriage be recognized. That woman has to find another man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fangtorn
Tamir Rice, while a tragedy, was waving a toy gun that looked like a real gun at people in an area that had a shooting recently. His age could not be determined. So that is a poor example.
Eric Garner was an obese man. While I felt the cops were too rough he died due to his poor health. The choke hold was not illegal so you need to get that correct. The cops were rough, but they didn't beat him to execute him as you are making it out to be.
I can't comment on Bettie Jones since I don't know the full story. That is how I approach things. I find out the full story before I make a decision. But that sounds like a horrible accident and not cops out trying to kill black people.
On Jerame Reid, do what the cop says.
On Eric Harris, the cop was found guilty of murder.
Walter Scott, the cop is being charged with murder.
Freddie Gray, the cops (half of who were black) did nothing wrong.
Alton Sterling, had a gun, fought with police after being tazed, reached for the gun.
Philando, a tragic accident.
Felix, another accident.
You need to spend more time reading up on these things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
WizPigTactics
Nope, TYT are comparing different police departments, in different situations, at different times of the day, with the suspect acting in a different manner. TYT takes those situations and boils it down to that cops are murderous racists.
Let us talk about the John Crawford incident. Here was a guy that took a BB gun off of the shelf, the shoppers thought it was a real gun, he was pointing at things with it (unsafe gun practice there), walking around the store with it while holding it, and allegedly failed to drop the gun when asked too. That is different compared to the white guy just standing there with the gun on his shoulder and dropping it when asked. Also, as I said before, different cops, different police departments, different situations. Do I feel the cops are not at fault here? Not 100%, the deserve some blame. But the incidents are different.
This shows how TYT are racist and hate cops. You have to lay out the entire situation and when you do side by side like I did you see that they are not comparable. But to TYT it simply boils down to John Crawford was black and the other guy was white. You can't have a serious discussion when you feel cops are murderous racists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, healthcare should be affordable for everyone. Now how do you do it? We lack doctors, nurses, surgeons, researcher, etc. Also, there is a strong argument in how insurance should only cover serious, expensive, unplanned situations. Car insurance does not cover oil changes, so why should healthcare insurance cover routine check ups?
Now I know why that happens, and it deals with the payroll tax and the reason why employers pay with healthcare insurance. But for Ana to just dismiss the argument shows a high level of ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Now though, if one of your paid checkups returns with a need for a
CTscan to 'check' for something that may or may not be a problem.. is
this covered? or at your own expense?
"
That can depend on the plan you buy. At that point you are getting into the area of what type of healthcare plans do you want to buy. Can you afford catastrophic care only or can you afford anything extra. Maybe your plan will lower your rate if you get routine checkups. Maybe your plan will pay for a CT scan every other year. You are getting into the area of what the consumer wants to buy themselves. But in the end people should have that option.
"I'm happy knowing, if anything happens to me anywhere in this country. I
will be picked up and transported by ambulance to a hospital and
treated for whatever i need for $0 out of pocket. I pay, as we all do,
2% income tax to fund public health, and I'm covered literally for
anything, anywhere. GP's are free, basic medicines are heavily
subsidised."
I am happy knowing that the US leads the world in research and innovation in healthcare and technology and we can treat rare cases like what was mentioned in this video. I am happy knowing I am not at the mercy of the government like Charlie Gard was. I am happy knowing that I don't have to wait on a waiting list to receive care.
Every system has flaws. To feel that the system you live in does not have flaws is ignorance. I don't say that to be rude, I say that because people need to understand that. There is no such thing as an ideal system. I feel they system I want is better as it leads to lower prices, better quality, and freedom for the consumers giving them the power as opposed to giving power to the government and/or insurance companies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"why is driving a privilege but owning a gun is a right? "
Because owning a gun is a killing machine that can be used to fight against a tyrannical government. You are talking about this situation
" Look at every regime that resorted to killing it's own citizens as a
means of repression. Tsarist Russia, Britain, Revolutionary
France, various regimes in Africa and South America,
and even China. Rarely are the regimes able to continue repressing their
people after resorting to slayings. The regime always caves to pressure
and makes concessions sooner or later. In this situation it is better
for the health of society to have controls on civilian firearm ownership
so as to prevent the facilitatation of crime.
It's not like people in other countries don't own guns or that gun
control means they are totally banned anyway."
But the key thing is that you are saying they don't have the rights to begin with. We do. We have a standard that ends up leading to civil ways to discuss laws and how the are created. With gun ownership the standard is there to give citizens the ability to control government, and any discussion of gun control only happens because of the 2nd amendment. It has prevented the government from disarming the citizens.
"Driving allows for greater freedom than not, and driving would also be valuable in a revolution. "
Not really. Government controls the roads. Also you do have freedom to move all over the country no matter what means that may be. So you have freedom to travel which is covered in the constitution as well.
"If gun ownership is a right, why shouldn't we have the right to own anything we want?"
For the most part you. Gun ownership set a hard line because it is a tool to fight with. Owning a car isn't, same with a house. But you have the right to pursue happiness like owning a car and home.
"If the reason the state can regulate cars is in the name of safety, then why should they not do the same for guns?"
In the public sector they do such as having a CCW or not having a loaded gun in your car (like in CA). You can own the gun, but in public there are restrictions. Much like DUI checkpoints don't violate the 4th amendment. You can own a car without registering it and you can drive it without having a license, as long as you stay on private property. Just like my gun is concealed in my home.
"Do you understand now why making gun ownership a guaranteed right not make perfect sense?"
You don't fully understand the constitution. Gun ownership was the hard line set in the constitution. If contested it will lead to a civil debate as opposed to the government just marching into your harm and taking your guns away like the British did. On car ownership that falls under state rights and the right to pursue happiness. You are given the right to own a gun, but you are not given a gun. Just like have the right to pursue happiness, but you are not guaranteed it. If a state were to ban driving that is their right as a state, but their economy will suffer as people are free to move.
1
-
1
-
1
-
" It would be great if we could have things like more robust welfare,
universal healthcare (including mental health), free college (or at
least more subsidies and forgiveness of student
loans), more infrastructure spending, paid family leave, and policies to
promote higher wages, but Republican politicians are opposed to all of
those things as well. "
It is more of the fact that they are unconstitutional. Also, I assume you are a person who feels that money in politics is a problem and politicians are corrupt, do you want to give those same federal politicians that kind of power to run all of those services?
"For example, they always love to say "we have a mental health problem"
and then turn around and try to repeal the largest healthcare reform the
country has seen in decades."
Obamacare made healthcare worse. Just because the government provides something doesn't mean it is the best we can have.
"Weak government is exactly what the corporations that buy our government want! "
Nope. If the federal government has no power than it can't be bought. A limited federal government means that corporations can give as much money as they want to federal politicians but nothing will happen as the powers are limited.
"How can you be so blind!? Why do you think all that the Corporatist
politicians want to do is de-regulate business and defund
regulatory agencies?"
They have the power to regulate to begin with. Democrats make "regulations" that favor certain companies.
"When the government is weak, no one is there to stop corporate entities from doing whatever they want"
And the federal government has no power, so there is no need to buy it.
"Local and state governments are even easier to buy than the Federal Government "
Not true. If you are involved in your community you can see first hand how government is working for you and control it. Also you can move and remain a US citizen if it continues to fail.
"The only way to end corruption is to cut it out like the cancer it is. "
The cancer is the federal government have growing power. The symptom is money in politics. Money in politics is just a symptom, you need to kill the disease. If you allowed the federal government to run healthcare you have just given it the power to pick and choose which provider we have to get our care from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Patternicity
"His small payroll tax raise will fund the healthcare plan which will in turn save people money"
How would it save people money? Also you do know that with a payroll taxes businesses can't afford to give out higher wages.
"People will have more disposable income which will grow the economy. "
What grows the economy is producing, not spending.
"He has also said he wants to tax wall st speculation in order to pay for tuition-free college. ""
To pay for 2/3 of college. The states will pick up the rest of the tab, and that is if they want to. Also, how is he going to solve the problem of us lacking professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, facilities, staff and so on?
"improving the education of the workforce and reducing consumer debt thereby increasing spending and growing the economy?"
Again, producing grows the economy, not spending. Also you want a workforce with more skills, not necessarily more education.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Erik Dumas" Just as long as those actions do not in any way infringe on constitutional rights"
I agree, I have been saying that the entire time. You have no right to drive, that is a privilege.
". For instance, they can't stop individuals based purely on their race, and they cannot search your vehicle without probable cause or a warrant."
I agree on race, that is the 14th amendment. On searching the car not so much. Again, you are on public roads so they can search your vehicle with limits. In my state it was within arm's reach of the driver. So front and back seat but not a third row of seats. Not the trunk or glove compartment.
"Are you just going to ignore the fact that the Supreme Court ruled the way they did precisely because they felt that outlawing abortion would go against the privacy rights outlined in the 14th Amendment?"
And they misinterpreted the 14th amendment. You have a right to privacy, but not a right to an abortion. I have no clue how you can read the 14th amendment and say abortion has to be legal based on how it is written.
"You're fine with the federal government setting legal precedent due to fuzzy wording of the Constitution when it comes to murder"
It is not fuzzy wording, Some of those forms of murder dealt treason. Killing an elected official is just that. Others deal with international situations. I don't agree with all of them, but killing on a ship in water where no state has jurisdictions is a federal issue at that point.
"You are free to disagree with that law, but don't go making absurd claims that the Roe v. Wade decision was in any way illegal. You disagreeing with something doesn't make it illegal"
Based on what was written in the constitution it was an incorrect ruling. How can one make a conclusion the SC did by the wording of the 14th amendment is beyond me.
"If that were the case, a hell of a lot of Supreme Court decisions would not have passed."
Which is not a bad thing.
" How much do you want to bet that there are quite a few in that list you agree with?"
Doubtful, I am really strict when it comes to the constitution. Also, with a unanimous decision it will be partisan. Right now SC justices vote on party lines.
" A privilege is a type of right "
Not really. Rights in this country are listed in the constitution. They are protected and can only be changed by amendment the constitution which takes a federal effort.
1
-
Erik Dumas Actually I am very knowledgeable on constitutional law since I have to pass a test on it for my job. Yes, your definition of a "right" is very broad. We have protected rights that are listed in the constitution. You are pointing at laws. Now yes, due process is a right, but you don't have a right to drive. Your privilege to drive is protected by due process. Big difference.
"The 14th Amendment requires that laws be reasonably justifiable."
Define "reasonable". That is a very broad word which is why that word is not in the 14th amendment. The constitution is the standard, it is not meant to be broad.
"Correct. Adults between the ages of 18 and 21 no longer have the right to smoke tobacco in California. I didn't say that no laws could ever be passed that restrict rights. What I said was that such laws need to justify themselves by demonstrating that they protect more important rights"
But where is the due process? Now you are running away from that. A state just took rights away from citizens according to you without due process. Or, maybe the reality is that they changed a law. Those individuals no longer have the privilege to smoke.
"That's weird, because I'm pretty sure lots of people (most people, in fact) already did."
And they are incorrect.
"Why not indeed! I think they should be (at least most recreational drugs). That would be consistent with the privacy rights established in the 14th Amendment."
The reason why is because the 14th amendment does not cover abortion like it does not cover drugs. The 14th amendment, by how section 1 is written, prevents states from treating US citizens differently in any way. That is how I interpret it. For example, in Brown vs Board a state could not deny a certain race education but offer it to others.
You want to talk about privacy I agree that is covered in the 14th amendment under
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
But that's it. There is nothing about making abortion illegal or legal. You want to extend on privacy, if I were to kill my wife in the privacy of my own home, what isn't that legal? I have a right to privacy. But yet murder is illegal. Honestly, as a lawyer told me you can have sex with little boys if you want as long as you don't get caught. That is privacy. You an have an abortion and as long as you don't get caught you are fine. But whether or not it is illegal is a state issue. Just like having sex with little boys is. I can do it, without proper cause the government can't search my home. But if I get caught it is illegal. The act of having an abortion would be determined to be illegal or legal as you don't have a right to that. You have a right to privacy.
1
-
Erik Dumas Actually I passed with a 93%.
You have a privilege to drive and as I showed you the government can find a way to prevent that even without due process much like they change smoking laws.
Your interpretation of the 14th amendment is incorrect. When the 14th amendment says privileges they mean what is protected for them in the constitution, like privacy. Again, abortion being illegal or legal can not be interpret from that, period.
"Because you would be, by definition, depriving your wife of her right to life"
And you are depriving those cells from living. By definition they are a living thing. Also, you have a right to life, you are not guaranteed it. Just like you have a right to free speech but not guaranteed it if a radio station does not allow you to play an ad. Or you have a right to bear arms but you are not given one.
"
What? That same logic could be applied to any crime. Just because you haven't been caught yet doesn't make the act you committed legal. It just means you haven't been caught yet. That lawyer is an idiot and should frankly be disbarred for giving out that kind of "legal advice.""
Well, just like you enjoy making up definitions for what a right is and is wrong you are also wrong here. He is a very successful lawyer and is correct here. Having sex with little boys is illegal, but as long as you don't get caught you can do it. That is the key point there. You have privacy in your own home and the government can't spy on your or invade your privacy without probably cause. So someone can do that as long as they want as long as they caught. When they do they were caught committing a crime and will be arrested.
The same is for abortion. You have a right to privacy, a state can't deny that via the 14th amendment since you are a US citizen. If you get caught doing an abortion and it is illegal according to that state then you will be arrested. But you have to be caught.
"
Yes, everyone automatically has a right to privacy (though, that does not mean they are incapable of forfeiting that right through their actions in instances where protecting that right to privacy would necessitate not protecting someone else's fundamental rights), which is why making abortions (prior to viability) illegal is unconstitutional"
Ok, and having sex with little boys is legal than along with killing dogs, doing drugs, beating your wife and other things as long as it is private. That is your entire argument. My argument is that you have a right to privacy in that the government can't get into doctor's records. So if you have an abortion the doctor does not have to say. That is privacy. Abortion can still be illegal, but if you don't get caught then so be it. Same with killing your wife.
"Since no one else's right are being threatened, the State has no authority to interfere"
What about the father? Why does he have to pay for child support? He has a right to his property and a right to privacy. Why does he not get a say considering how half of that child is his. Seems like again the law is not consistent.
" Like I said earlier, rights are worthless if the government isn't given the power to protect those rights"
They do, abortion is not one of those rights.
" The Constitutional interpretation you suggest would essentially gut the federal government's ability to protect rights listed in the Constitution"
Nope, because they are clearly listed. You do not have a right to an abortion. That will have to be written in the constitution to make it a right.
It is clear you don't study constitutional law.
1
-
Erik Dumas
I understand the constitution. I am question if you do.
"If knowledge of constitutional law and legal precedent is a requirement, then you have demonstrated that you are woefully inadequate."
I find a lot of irony in that statement.
"They can, but they can't just do it for whatever reason they want. The Supreme Court reserves the right to overturn any state or federal laws they deem to be unconstitutional."
A state can change a law if they want as long as it does not violate the constitution. You have to understand if state banned driving they will piss off a lot of voters. They do not need a reason.
"
Obviously it can. I'm doing that right now. The Supreme Court did that back in 1973, and they have continued to interpret it that way."
Then why have states, let the federal government set all the laws.
"And how much privacy can you truly say a person has if the government is able to arbitrarily stick it's nose in their personal medical business? Seriously, if the state has the authority to outlaw this medical procedure (which harms no one), what other medical procedures can they outlaw? How is that not an egregious infringement of personal liberties?"
A state can outlaw medical procedures like it can outlaw certain drugs. It does not mean you can't do them. All it means is you have privacy and the state cannot access your medical records without a warrant. Just like I can shoot up a bunch of heroin tonight. As long as I do not get caught I am fine. The government cannot invade my private life. If abortion is illegal in a state you can still perform it, just do not get caught like that lawyer told me. But according to you he should be disbarred.
This relates to if evidence is obtained without a warrant it cannot be used in court because that person's private life was violated.
"And living thing does not equal person. If it did, we would have to give plants and animals the same fundamental rights human beings get. Are you advocating for that?"
And that is one of the issues of abortion. Personally I do not care. I care about the standard in how laws are set. Whether or not abortion is illegal or not does not matter to me. But it is a legit argument that fetus is potentially a living human being so killing it is murder. I am not saying I agree, I am saying that is a legit argument.
"As far as the government is concerned, I am. That's why it's illegal for someone to come along and murder me."
Then why isn't all murder federal law? Why do we not give homeless people homes to lower the chance of them dying? Why do we not give out food to everyone? How far are you going to take this "right to life"?
"Let's not muddy the waters with yet another constitutional topic you don't fully understand."
Again, an ironic statement. Forget a private company, why not a government radio company? We do have PBS. Why do we not have those so I am guaranteed my right to speech? Why am I not given a gun?
"In short, the situation you describe is not an example of the government limiting free speech. At all."
I agree, but why don't we have public stations that allows everyone to have free speech?
"How does any of what you've said justify making the invasion of privacy by the state necessary inherently necessary in making abortions illegal?"
In this entire argument you are talking about privacy. Do you even know what privacy means? Privacy does not mean having an abortion. You an make abortion illegal and still have privacy. For some reason you are equating privacy to abortion which makes zero sense. A state can make abortion illegal and still respect your privacy. You do not have a right to an abortion, you have a right to privacy.
"You idiot, if abortions were made illegal, doctors wouldn't be legally able to perform an abortion."
I know. But you have the right to privacy. Just like I can do drugs in my apartment and the government can't just invade my apartment. That is the point. Privacy does not equal abortion. I find it ironic you call me an idiot when you do not know the definition of basic words.
"What about the father? What does the father have to do with the discussion of abortion? Unless this is a very special father, the fetus will not be residing in his body."
Biologically, half of that child is his. So the father should play a role. Seems like science is also not a strong point for you.
"It's very consistent in this matter. A fetus is not a person."
But potentially could be.
"Privacy is a fundamental right protected by the federal constitution."
I agree. Abortion isn't though.
"This horseshit again? Abortion is a private medical procedure, which does not effect any person but the person choosing to get an abortion."
The father loses a child. So I disagree. But I agree, it is a private medical procedures and the government does not have the right to access it. You brought up someone ratting on the doctor. They can arrest that doctor, but can't get into the medical history of his patients. That is the key there.
"If you're arguments so far are any indication, all you are is some idiot with a copy of the Constitution in his desk and a tendency to completely ignore the bits of it you don't like."
And this is ironic because according to you privacy=abortion. Think about that before you talk about definitions. But oh, I forgot. You seem to think a certain lawyer should be disbarred. I feel you are no more than some fool who thinks they know everything but don't. You only cited one court case, Roe vs Wade so you are no better off.
Open a dictionary and look up the definitions of
Privacy
and
Abortion
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Mathew Carley
1. The productivity increase of min. wage worker has been basically stagnate for years. In some cases they have been replaced all together due to technology. We have seen an increase in productivity due to improvements in technology. Look up Skilled Biased Technological Change.
2. It is comparable. Businesses don't pay more for one simple reason.....they can't afford it. Same as in how some people down own homes or nicer cars. Businesses manage their money and if someone makes a low wage then they should manage their money as well. Businesses would love to pay more and offer more to both their workers and customers but simply can't.
3. What doesn't make sense?
Over 80% of McDonalds are franchised, so no, McDonalds corporate headquarters simply can't raise wages because they have zero control over it.
You seem to not understand how corporations work as well. Corporations have to keep shareholders happy. McDonalds has over 900 million shares oustanding. Shareholders want to see their investment grow for whatever reason (mostly retirement). If you cut profits you cut the value of shares thus you have now made investing in McDonalds a greater risk. Due to that people will pull out their money causing McDonalds to having to shrink in size and thus less jobs. It isn't as easy as they make X thus they can pay Y.
As far as price increases are concerned, as I said, if all it took was that much of an increase with no lost in customers then businesses will raise prices already to collect more profits. But in the competitive market it isn't that easy.
Herman Cain had a great discussion with Bill Clinton running through the numbers how forcing his business to pay for healthcare insurance will lead to employees being fired. Clinton said that they can just raise the price of pizza. Cain said that in reality you can't do that because larger companies can do with less resources (employees for example) until the market stabilizes. This is why Walmart supported a min. wage increase in the past, they knew it would hurt smaller competitors. So like with profits, simply saying it will raise the price of X a certain amount is over simplifying the situation.
As far as other price increases are concerned? They are due to other factors involved in business related expenses which is another topic in itself. But usually can be pointed towards other government regulations (for example gas prices and the fact that regulations have not allowed for a refinery to be open in 40 years).
If you look at PPP you will see that the US is high on the list of GDP per capita. The reason why is because of our low prices.
What you also have to realize is that in all these min. wage studies the min. wage has be risen at small amounts, at around 30%. That is small compared to the US economy. Christina Romer said that if the min. wage were to go up to $9.50/hr, and assuming that all the money is transferred from the top (which isn't the case ever), the economy will grow 0.02%. That is it.
So here you are jumping up and down about a min. wage increase and giving me numbers when you have to realize that overall we are currently talking about a small part of the economy. And comparing the overall economy to the min. wage and the price of the Big Mac is quite pathetic really. And I also love how you pick on a major corporation without realizing all the other companies that exist out there with much smaller numbers in profits and businesses.
If you want me to provide data I easily can. Right now I feel the best route is to correct your misunderstanding of the current numbers you are looking at. You have to understand economics, business and marketing before we can go farther. Compare it to you have to understand general physics before we can go on to Quantum Mechanics, or Optics and so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Spencer, your numbers are deceptive. Of course no one in Canada dies due to lack of healthcare insurance because they have a difference system. Everyone, by definition, have access in Canada to healthcare. But that does not mean the quality is high. In my state we lowered the standard for graduating high school and changed the definition of what a drop out is and the next year our graduate rate increased by a lot. Does that mean people in my state are more educated? No. So simply saying "no one dies in Canada due to lack of access of healthcare" is deceptive. How many die because the quality is low?
Next, 45,000 is only 0.01% of the population in the US. In statistics that is noise. If you have an error of 0.01% in any statistical data set that is great. I have published data with 10% error before in my work. You cannot say, with high certainty, that the reason why those 45,000 people died is because of lack of healthcare access. Most are poor to begin with where poor people are generally less healthy and less responsible. For example, everyone has access to K-12 education but around 10% of the US natural born population do not have a high school diploma. It is offered to them for free, they choose not to pursue it despite data showing that having a degree increases the probability of your life being better off. Just because those 45,000 have access to healthcare does not mean they will pursue it or properly use it. In all they will still die but at that point you can't say they died because of lack of access, they died because they were not responsible.
The exact same thing is with bankruptcies. In Canada you just wait a long time and possibly die. In the US you may go bankrupt (643,000 is still 0.02% of the country) but in other countries you die.
Also, the fact that other countries do it (in reality they all have their own systems) is not an excuse for the US to regress to the norm. Also, many of those countries are tiny. Iceland had 300,000 people. But as a whole, when you run through the numbers nothing suggests that single payer is better than what the US has.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hermes, where is that book incorrect? They list all their references and their methods. Now point to me where they are wrong. You just saying it is is not an argument. I am sorry.
" As others have previously explained, they cherry-pick data (as most
"conservative" publications) and exclude key pieces of the overall
healthcare picture to make it seem like single-payer is only equivalent
to the current American system"
Ok, how? What was wrong with their methods?
"The VAST majority of healthcare workers are on the side of single-payer"
Eh, not really. Nothing suggests that is the case.
" because it's the objectively better option, based on studies that evaluate outcomes and cost for overall cost-efficiency"
Ok, I will look at them.
"Providing universal coverage lowers costs dramatically"
But at what quality? I always hear two things from the left on this issue
1. low cost
2. everyone is covered
But they never mention quality. Even Bernie Sanders admits there will be rationing.
"I could go on and on about the benefits, but you clearly are either too
stupid or too arrogant and self-deluded to be convinced by objective
truths, just like the "conservatives" (true conservatives believe in
CONSERVATION) that believe climate change is a hoax..."
Insults displays your lack of intelligence meaning almost anything you say is purely opinion at that point. Also, climate change has nothing to do with this, but if you want to discuss that we can as I am a scientist myself.
Ok, now to your sources.
Your first one is giving opinions and her is why. Their references are for data for the ACA, but they they give this
"
A single-payer NHP, in contrast, would provide
comprehensive coverage without copayments or deductibles to everyone in
the country, replacing our current complex and wasteful patchwork of
coverage.All medically necessary
services would be covered, including inpatient, outpatient, and dental
care, as well as prescription drugs. The NHP would also cover long-term
care, a benefit that few Americans currently enjoy."
No references at all. So what do they base that off of? Simply opinion.
Same here
"Significant sums would also be saved by allowing the NHP to negotiate
with drug companies over prices, as do universal health programs in
other advanced nations. The greater efficiency and simplicity of the NHP
would curb inflation in health costs, so that cost savings would grow
with time."
No references.
And the whole section under payment had.....you guessed it, zero references to support their claim.
So that source is done. The next one
That book has cited that paper already, so I will leave it at that. Goes to show that book does not "cherry pick" data as they cite sources you are citing right now.
On source three
Your third source simply outlines what should be the goal in healthcare and how the US is trying it. It does not praise single payer. It does point to the NHS but also pointed towards the employer offering care with the help of the union. Or states offering it. But again, this source does not indicate single payer is superior.
Now the last one
The problem with pointing to administration cost is this, with a government program they can hide the cost in other agencies. For example, with insurance, they pay for disease awareness to lower costs for customers where with medicare they have the CDC pay for that. That is why medicare has lower overhead cost than insurance. That same is with healthcare. Also, single payer does have less efficiency and with the private option you can sue them, you really can't sue the government so much. But I will say this, this is the one source that looks the most promising and I will read it closer later.
So one out of four is your result. You need to try harder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
iMarooned
"No I want power for the programs that benefit the many not the few"
So you support oppression and slavery then.
"when it's someone who like Bernie wants too genuinely benefit the population,"
Bernie wants to give you a unicorn that flies and shits rainbows. Tell me how do you plan on giving away "free college" and "free healthcare" when we lack professors, tutors, TAs, researchers, doctors, nurses and other skilled workers in those fields?
"a government "for the people, by the people" not "without the people, for the elite"!!!!"
Yes, people, all people.
"Educate yourself about your country"
I am well educated on the country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Badass Atheist, it isn't just my school. Around 2% of the population has a doctorate, and unemployment amongst them is less than 2%. These people have jobs. If you make college "free" you will increase enrollment. Now who is going to educate them? And how do you know if the person you hire is able to teach? You have to consider that a lot of professors are not great at teaching to begin with. At that point you will be just herding students in classrooms at 500+ a class like cattle, having them doing generic online assignments, getting little interaction with TAs, tutors and professors, and receiving a letter grade in the end. Is that really and education? Sure, universities can take on more students by doing all of that, but what do students gain?
" Almost 50% of americans make below $30k a year."
Which is highly deceptive. I am a part of that 50% that earn below that. I earn $23,000 a year, but I have my own car, my own apartment, and I am a doctorate candidate. You are leaving out several variables.
1. What is the cost of living where they live?
2. Do they receive benefits (I do as a grad student)?
3. Do they have a spouse that earns more?
4. How old are they and are they close to finishing college so they can earn a higher income?
5. How many live with parents as in they are teens?
You can go on but just throwing a number out there means nothing. You have to put it in the correct perspective. It is similar with education. Just herding students in a large classroom, having them do generic assignments, and giving them a grade and later a diploma is not an education.
1
-
Badass Atheist, many government jobs require you to do some sort of "training" that isn't really the greatest. For example, my laser safety training was a 2 hour course where I took a test that did not even get graded. But according to the state I am certified to work with class 4 lasers that can burn a hole in your skin. Or with FERPA training, I watched a 30 min. video, took an eight question test, had three times to pass, and that's it. Oh, on the test was the same questions in the same order each time. So you played the video in the background, took the test, remembered what you got wrong, and took it a second time and passed with a 100%. And now you are FERPA trained. You have the ability to look at other college students' grades. That is the level of government standards. Do you want that with college education?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" are you arguing against preliminary injunctions in general or just
against the federal government? The state of Hawaii didn't make any
decision, it was a federal judge from the district of Hawaii. "
I am arguing against the fact that the SC should be making this decision because this is a federal law that deals with an international affair. If a federal judge in some other state makes a decision then why not get all of the opinions of all of the federal judges? What is the point of the SC? Why did that one federal judge have a say? It all seems vague and arbitrary to me.
"The State of Hawaii brought a civil action to the district court (the
first level in the appeals process) against the federal government over
the ban, "
Which should go directly to the SC. Again, why just stick to Hawaii? What if TX, or OK, or FL, or NV or some other state disagreed and the federal judges there disagreed with Judge Watson? Whose opinion do we go with? That is why the SC should deal with this action.
"Regarding the Kevin thing, you seem to be saying that only SCOTUS should
be able to issue an injunction halting the pursuit of a policy. Why?
This is impossible, since any case must be ruled on by a lower court before SCOTUS can even see it. "
The issue is that this isn't "any case". This is a federal law dealing with immigration which is a foreign affairs. States should not be deciding these laws, the federal government should. There is a reason why states cannot build a military to attack a foreign country and why states cannot develop import and export taxes. Allowing this type of action to happen opens the doorway to allowing states such as TX and AZ in controlling immigration. TX can just stop immigration from Mexico. This is giving control of immigration to states when immigration is a federal issue. You are muddying the waters in who has control in this instance.
This as not an emergency situation thus it could have waited until the SC made its decision. A federal judge in Hawaii, or any state should not be making this decision since it is a federal law dealing with foreign affairs. I understand that the law is written the way it is to allow for that process to happen. I am just saying that with the design of the country this should not be happening.
1
-
Seljuck, you bring an intelligent point and I learned a few things. To cover a few points.
"Well, there's no legal basis for this, nor is there a clear definition
of "international affair," let alone a coherent set of cases considered
"international" for which we should disregard injunctions from lower
courts (which means all preliminary injunctions). None of this
has a constitutional basis and I don't see any imperative to completely
reconstruct the federal judiciary."
International is just that, international. It involves other countries. As I said before, individuals states cannot develop their own military and start a war with other countries. States cannot develop immigration laws. Now I will have to go back and look but if I recall there isn't anything in the Constitution dealing with immigration as "immigration" is not in the text. But in Article I Section 8 you have
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
and
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Now this deals with congress, but reading the Constitution it is in my opinion that anything involving a foreign country in anyway is strictly a federal issue.
"Because there are thousands of cases to deal with each term. It would be
absurdly inefficient to have all ~700 judges hear and rule on hundreds
of cases every week. Further, matters local to Iowa are better left to a
judge in the corresponding part of the country. These are just a couple
of the myriad reasons for the structure of the judiciary."
I agree with this. That is why we have local courts so they can deal with local issues. Just like we have local governments. I am not asking for every judge to look at every case. I am simply saying that this particular case was a federal law involving foreign nations and thus should be handled by the SC.
"Who decides that? If I pull a case that's completely nonsensical out of
my ass, the Supreme Court should waste their time hearing my case?"
This wasn't some random case. This was a federal law involving immigration which is a situation dealing with foreign countries and foreign citizens. You are making it sound like this was some random case when it wasn't. It is a matter of foreign affairs. This was not a case like DUI laws which the SC left completely to the states as states were creating the law. This is a federal law dealing with immigration.
"SCOTUS is composed of nine people, they don't have time to hear every case."
I know, and I never suggested that they should. When did I ever said they should?
" what makes it distinct from me suing the US government under the eighth amendment for not deporting Miley Cyrus?"
Miley Cyrus involves one person, not a specific country. That is what makes it distinct.
"There's no reliable way to identify a legitimate lawsuit without first having a judge hear it;"
Again, this was a federal law. The SC should have looked at it and determined if it was OK or not before it was enforced. Their failure to do so opened this situation up.
"Again I ask how this is supposed to work. It would make no sense for the
Supreme Court itself to take a case, then issue an injunction that the
executive branch wait until the Supreme Court hears the case. Once it
reaches the Supreme Court, the injunction has already fulfilled its
purpose of delaying action until the Supreme Court rules."
And I reply by saying this was a federal law. And thus the SC has should have the call in that case as this is a law coming from the federal level. If this was a state or local law then yes, start with the state courts. But this was a federal law.
"Who defines the parameters of "foreign affairs" and why are they special?"
Foreign is anything outside of US territory. And it is a special case because the Constitution gives Congress the authority to naturalize citizens from foreign countries and deal with commerce between foreign nations. Nowhere does the Constitution give that power to the states. As you dig farther into the Constitution it is my opinion that anything that deals with foreign relations is left strictly to the federal government and not the states.
"There sure is. Now why does that matter?"
It matters because that deals with foreign relations, just like this travel ban.
"I agree, which is why it is deciding it. Beyond initiating the lawsuit, the state of Hawaii had no role in the judge's decision. Judge Watson is a part of the District Court of Hawaii, which is a part of the federal government. The issuing of an injunction is part of the process by which the federal government enacts policy."
The federal court is the SC. Watson represents the federal courts in Hawaii. So yes, it is a part of the federal government, but it does not have the final say. The SC does. So this judge should not be having a say in deciding if federal law should be enforced, that is the SC's job.
"How so? Give me a scenario in which Arizona could control immigration that is analogous to this."
They can build their own wall or do what they did with Arizona SB 1070. There was a lot of controversy with that and I remember people on the left crying foul with AZ passed that law. However these same people on the left were jumping for joy when a Hawaii judge stopped the travel ban. I see some inconsistencies there.
"No they can't. If a judge in a Federal District Court in Texas issued an injunction ordering a change
in policy, the injunction would be ignored and immediately shot down.
There's a difference between delaying the implementation of a new
policy, and demanding a specific policy be enacted."
Why? I see no difference because in both cases you are refusing to enforce a federal law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't support the federal government getting involved in any state issue unless it is to enforce the constitution. There is an argument to be made with the 14th amendment in making gay marriage legal. Let us look at CA definition of marriage
"Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons...."
Nowhere does it say between a man and woman, or people of the same state. Now look at section 1 of the 14th amendment
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Ok, if two people of the same sex were to get married then CA has to allow them since their law does not specifically say man and woman, but two people. Same with two people of different race. CA, via the 14th amendment, cannot deprive citizens of that. Now if CA's law said between a man and a woman then the 14th amendment can't be applied in gay marriage here. You understand what is going on?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+w9j15g
Walmart pays above the min. wage already. And they have pushed for a higher min. wage in the past knowing it would hurt smaller competitors. Walmart pays the market rate for retail workers. I find it funny that you rip on Walmart but not Target, Hy Vee, Safeway, Raley's and so on for their comparable wages (and they also hire less people). You are wanting to make a policy that effects everyone just because you hate one company. That is now how we should be approaching economic policies.
"The data show that raising the minimum wage has only a minor,
short-term, adverse effect on employment when it is done reasonably."
Not really. It has a long term effect on those at a disadvantage such as teenagers from communities that suffer through poverty. Instead of getting a job, developing skills and connections and getting out of poverty, they get stuck. Before the min. wage black and white teenage unemployment was comparable. Since then black teenage unemployment has gone up drastically. There is a reason why the black community continues to suffer and be in poverty. There are other factors as well but the inability to get a job at a young age plays a role.
"By putting more money in the hands of low-wage earners, it actually
boosts economic growth leading to increases in employment down the line."
Again, false. If it were that easy then why not a $100/hr? Or why not just mail people checks for $20,000? What boosts an economy is producing, not spending.
"The FHA did NOT cause the housing bubble. You are parroting misinformation from the Republican Party."
Actually I never heard of the republican party mentioning the FHA. My own intelligence has me realizing the FHA caused a housing bubble just like the student loan program is going to cause a student loan bubble.
"Why should a degree be as expensive as a house?"
Because for the four years of work you do you can get a lot of value back from that, such as buying a house.
"Why should a degree PREVENT you from buying a house? "
It doesn't.
"The average student graduated in 2015 with $35,000 in student loan debt."
I agree, that is a slight problem. The federal government artificially increased demand with their student loan program and supply did not keep up with demand causing an increase in prices. That is basic econ. 101. The federal government again caused a problem here. It increased spending without increasing production and prices went up......hmmmm......this sounds familiar.
"The economy is helped much more when people have disposable income"
I agree. With increased production goods and services get better and there are more of them which drives prices down.
"Do you know who benefits from student loan debt? The banks! And you have been fooled into supporting their policies!"
I really don't support the federal student loan program.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+porculizador
We have had boom and bust cycles under Glass Steagall. We had a bust under Carter, under Reagan we improved. "i have the most credible source for this," but have yet to provide it. Look at GDP growth throughout the year. You see recessions. You never hear of them because we recovered quickly due to little to no federal government action, just like what happened in 1921.
The happiness index is subjective. Also it still doesn't change the fact that you are comparing the US to Denmark, two countries with vastly different societies. Really, what is happiness? Settling for mediocrity is happiness? Being forced to join the military is happiness? If you did that in the US then people would be very pissed off. Saying "they are happier in Denmark" is not an argument. They have 5 million people, little diversity, and accomplish almost nothing compare to the US. How many times have they landed on the moon? How many major companies do they have?
"is a tenet for the first stages of libertarianism, which is a conservative movement btw. are you for a small military? "
It is not a tenet for libertarianism, but if you want to think that then fine. I see what you are trying to do with the military question. You do know that when compared in percent of GDP we are number 4 in the world in military spending. We are a military that is comparable in size to other countries, and people on their own free will sign up for it. The military we have now is fine.
" and small police force?"
Whatever that local government wants. Police are ran and funded locally.
"and small firemen force?"
Considering how around 70% of firefighters are volunteered it is safe to say it is pretty small. But again, it all depends on what that local government wants.
"and small infrastructure?"
What is infrastructure? Really, I hear this a lot. Maybe if we built something correctly the first time it wouldn't be falling apart. But again, it comes down to what the state and local governments want.
You are trying to say "you want small this and small that". I can't define what "small" is. How ever much of those programs you want is up to the state and local government (with the exception of the military since that is ran by the fed and is constitutional in doing so). If a state wants a large police force and their citizens vote on it then why not? That is their choice. If they don't want it then they can rally to vote against it or move to another state and remain a US citizen. You see the balance of that?
"let's also get rid of unemployment and disability and social security and medicare."
Considering they are programs that are inefficient an running out of money, plus are unconstitutional and has created more problems, why not?
Here is the problem, you want your idea of government to be instituted at the federal level. I am not saying your idea of government is 100% wrong, it is just that not everyone wants it. People wanted healthcare reform in 2008 but we could not get 60 senate democrats go agree on one bill. The reason why is because while people wanted healthcare reform they all wanted something different. This is the exact same problem the founding fathers ran into thus they created state rights.
You want your government to be established at the fed. But when a group of republicans come in push to establish theirs then you complain. You action causes that to happen. Mine is saying you can push to establish your idea of what government should do at the state and local level. If you like it then great, if not then rally to change it or move to another state that fits your ideas. I live in a state that is right to work, has no income tax, is right leaning. I moved here. I will not live in CA that is very liberal. I will also not push to change what CA is doing because that is what those citizens want, but you will. You can call me a libertarian all you want but at least I am not a fascist like you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+XamicutOAC
It isn't a "fair assumption" but instead a fact. Think of this, too much government is just as bad as no government. We need that balance and the constitution lays that balance out.
"However, the US economy is crumbling with student debt and ever-increasing healthcare costs"
Both problems caused by the federal government like the federal payroll tax and federal college loans. Adding more federal government is just going to make it worse.
"but it is taking away our fundamental rights to LIVE"
You don't have the right take from others to "live".
"we all want to be able to seek medical attention when our environment
and natural resources are polluted/contaminated (i.e. Flint, MI)"
Flint, MI is a great example of a problem government can create. Imagine if we had politicians like Flint has in DC, now the problem is national, we are all screwed.
"Such fundamental rights are covered under the 9th amendment."
No they are not.
"Unfortunately, the cost of education nullifies a person's ability to afford healthcare."
Again, thanks to the federal government. Also, you don't need to go to college or have the government to be educated. If you feel that way then you are in trouble.
"When State governments fail to supply educators enough income or
healthcare coverage, it only makes sense that federal action be taken to
ensure that these fundamental rights to life be protected on a greater
scale"
It doesn't make sense. Where are your bounds? How far do you want the federal government to go? Bernie may be working for the people, but what about future politicians? What is going to stop them from being corrupt? Berni is not going to be around forever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Point out anywhere in our constitution that says government can't take taxpayers money and provide a service to the taxpayers"
The 10th amendment is one. If the constitution does not directly state something then it falls to the responsibility of the states. Also Article I Section 9
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion
to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Now the 16th amendment changed that (and since then we have seen two depressions). So the taxes they created were constitutional, but the programs they fund aren't.
"it is our government responsibility to protect the general health and well being of it's citizens. "
Protect but not guarantee. Just like you have the right to pursue happiness, you are not guaranteed it. You have the right to free speech, but if a newspaper company refuses to publish your opinion then your ideas are not heard by others. Also the government has nothing to begin with. In order to have something it has to take, in this case the people. With healthcare they will have to force doctors to offer their services to others which violates the 13th amendment.
" You are aware we have less people living in poverty now, than before food stamps was first introduced, right? "
That is not true. Food stamps became a permanent thing in the 60s, around the time the war on poverty was enacted. Before the war on poverty was enacted poverty rates were dropping perceptibly. Since then poverty rates have been stagnate. So with food stamps poverty rates have not been improving. So apparently food stamps don't work.
Social Security is a pay as you go program. It is running out of money because when it was enacted the retirement age was higher than the average life expectancy. Now life expectancy is almost 20 years higher than the retirement age. People try to push for raising the age bu that has been met with a roadblock.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"sorry but reducing the federal income tax won't have much of an impact in sales tax funded state like florida."
Yes it would. More money in the hands of consumers to spend locally. They will have more money due to zero federal income taxes.
"Why cause food prices would rise if you reduced federal income tax."
How would food prices rise? Food prices have been dropping due to technology. That has nothing to do with taxes.
" Its the federal governments money, "
No, it's our money. You (assuming you work) and I earned it. The federal government took it. That is our money, period.
"they have the authority to use the budget how they wish."
No they don't, there are restrictions in the constitution. That is why they can't expand medicaid without state's consent.
"The federal government is backed by the Constitution "
Which has the 10th amendment.
"and the Supreme Court"
Which has made incorrect rulings in the past, see Kelo vs City of New London and how the states reacted after that.
" Congress their current powers over commerce, "
Which has been misinterpreted.
" the Supreme Court fought over the agencies for over 4 decades starting when FDR "
FDR threaten to stack the courts with his judges to get his polices of pass. Some of his polices were ruled unconstitutional in the past, such as the min. wage. But after FDR abused his power things changed. That is corruption. It isn't surprising that under FDR we also had a depression.
" Now we have an FDA that is funded by the Congress and by extensions the taxpayers. "
The FDA is listed as "other" in the budget. That is how insignificant it is.
"does not conflict with the Bill of Rights"
It does because it violates the 10th amendment.
"Its not a violation of the 10th Amendment because it is not taking a State's ability to form their own health agencies "
And nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government is supposed to run health agencies, thus only the states run it.
" The Supreme court debated the powers of administrative agencies in a variety of cases throughout fdr's presidency. "
And they ruled in favor of FDR due to FDR threatening the courts with his judges.
"You can't call the 16th Amendment Unconstitutional."
I never did.
"Also it isn't unconstitutional to make a person buy a product or service, so long as it is a police power"
It is unconstitutional. Say that the federal government forced you to buy guns? Would you agree? Or forced you to buy a car or a home?
"Hence why states can force everyone to have car insurance "
That falls within their 10th amendment right. If states force citizens to buy healthcare insurance then fine, but the federal government can't. The powers of the fed are clearly listed in the constitution. What isn't listed means it falls to the states.
"Which is also legal for the government to do so long as the compensate
the original owner. Why? Because if the government properly compensates
you for your property,"
The compensation wasn't just though. They ruled in favor of a business owner. The government ruled in favor of a business. The business could have offered more money but instead used government force to get what they want. This sounds familiar. Almost every state changed their law after that ruling.
"You didn't read Kelo at all."
I did, it is clear you didn't.
1
-
1
-
"You are ignorant about how law is interpreted and applied."
I can start with that because clearly you are ignorant in how the law is interpreted and applied. The constitution sets a standard in what laws governments can create and what actions governments can and cannot do. In Kelo vs New City of London the 5th amendment was clearly violated. You clearly don't understand that and feel that the ruling of 5 justices is all we need despite 4 feeling that the 5th amendment is being violated. You clearly have no problem removing standards set by the constitution. I suggest you read some more on the history of the constitution and its design beyond the lesson I am giving you now.
Now that we are done with correcting an error you said about me trying to be condescending, I will break down how you are incorrect.
"echnology has only done so much too food. At the moment, the amount of
resources needed to produce plant food is very high, particularly water
costs. In the case of meat its even higher and has higher food cost
because an animal has to eat to grow large enough for us too eat it. You
are greatly underestimating the cost of growing the amount of food
necessary to feed the U.S. We subsidize farms to cover portions of their
operational costs so they can sell the food cheaper."
States can run subsidizes if needed. There is no reason for the fed to run it. States can run it by collecting taxes and at the local level they can run it more efficiently. Even at that we are a nation that produces too much food. We throw a lot of it away (at work we just threw away 5 sandwiches). We produce so much food because we advanced so much in technology. I know the cost of producing food growing up in a farming community. Subsidizes are not necessary at the federal level. I find it ironic, though, that you are pushing subsidizes while supporting FDR. FDR literally killed off crops and livestock during the great depression.
"More money in hands of people locally. Again, my argument holds weight
because the basic need of food is greatly subsidized by the federal
government."
Food is produces in mass quantities. There are no reasons for subsidizes. There are other basic needs as well such as shelter that is harder to obtain.
"Yes it is your money, mine too, but we elect people to decide what to do
with our money in the federal government just like we do with the state
governments. Presuming you are okay with a republic, then this
shouldn't be an issue and is once again constitutional."
We the people only have 2 senators and a handful of representatives from our state. I can't vote for Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders, so why should they pass policies that effect the economy domestically? The answer is that they can't. The federal government represents us to other foreign nations, they are not supposed to be involved in domestic policies outside the bounds of the constitution. I don't like it if a politician like Nancy Pelosi passes a law, takes my tax dollars, and spends it on the other side of the country. That is literally stealing from me. At the state level the state takes my money and invests it in my state when I can benefit from it more. I can also see if I am getting my money's worth or if my money is being wasted and vote out the politicians that spent my money. I can't vote out the federal politicians that I felt wasted my money.
"Their current powers over commerce are not minterpreted"
Yes they are
"FDR threatened to expand the size of the Supreme Court,'"
Which is corruption in itself. He used it to convince judges to change their ruling on things they already deemed to be unconstitutional. That is a problem.
"The Congress is allowed to make any law that does not violate the constitution."
I agree
"Creating and running a health agency is within their power "
No it isn't. That is not listed anywhere in the constitution. There is an entire section listed in the constitution on what Congress can do for your information.
"Why? Because once again, the Health agency does not deprive states the rights to run their own health agencies. "
Yes it does because it takes more tax dollars meaning less at the state and local level.
"The FDA created basic protocols and standards that are set in stone. "
Which shouldn't be the case. Why do we need an FDA? The answer is that we don't. Take the department of education for example. While we have one all 50 states set their own standards. As is 4 states don't follow CCSS and NGSS and several states are starting to reconsider using CCSS. That makes the department of ed a waste of money just like the FDA.
"You are calling Federal Income Tax unconstitutional.."
I am not. I am saying it is not the best approach and used to be unconstitutional for a reason.
"The courts have interpreted car insurance as something that state
government can force all their citizens to have or face hefty fines and
even prison. Why? Because for the welfare of people in accident they
need those who caused the accident to have insurance so their property
isn't destroyed with no compensation. Again, Constitutional."
I agree, because it is a state law. It follows the 10th amendment. Obamacare is a federal law thus it violates the 10th amendment. I am not arguing that state and local governments can't force people to buy something. I am arguing that the federal government can't. It is clear that you did not read what I wrote.
You clearly need to study the constitution more. Your problem is that you don't question anything. You just assume that what the government does is constitutional an twist words around until you can justify government's actions. Kelo vs New City of London clearly violated the 5th amendment, but you twisted words around until you can justify it. The Patriot Act violates the 4th amendment but the SC ruled it didn't. The constitution is pretty clear, all you have to do is read it.
1
-
"Their view that it was a 5th amendment violation"
And they were wrong, end of story.
"The Constitution sys the majority of the court will make the rulings"
Actually no it doesn't but thanks for showing again you don't know what the constitution says.
I can easily end there, and should, but I will continue.
"The federal government subsidizes american farms because Congress decided too"
Which is not covered anywhere in Article I, thus it violates the constitution.
"Once again, its not a 10th amendment violation "
Yes it is because this is not a federal government issue.
"I understand the historical framework of the Constitution and agree with your argument that the Constiution sets the standard.."
No you don't.
"Hence why amendments have been passed and expanded the powers"
Which is one thing. If they want to pass amendments saying that the US government can subsidizes farms then fine. They never did though.
"You need 2/3rds of the House and Senate to agree and then 3/4's of the states to agree to it"
I agree, which was never done in farm subsidizes.
"BECAUSE BEFORE YOU WERE BORN AND WHEN THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED YOUR
STATE AGREED TO MAKE A COMPACT WITH THE OTHER STATES IN THE FORM OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! FIRST THROUGH THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND
FINALLY THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EVERY STATE IS BOUND TOO TODAY
BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE ONE HAD ITS CITIZENS CHOOSE TO JOIN THE COMPACT AND
BECOME SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTION IN THE PAST."
I agree, what are you getting at here?
"IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU LIKE AND DO NOT LIKE MATE. YOU HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND THAT PART. YOUR STATE MADE A COMPACT WITH EVERY OTHER STATE
TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS CONGRESS
TO ALLOCATE WHATEVER MONEY THEY HAVE TO WHATEVER THEY WANT. YOU AS A
CITIZEN OF YOUR STATE GET A PIECE OF THAT REPRESENTATION AND BY
DEFINITION HAVE A SAY IN WHERE THAT MONEY GOES. LETS SAY YOU ARE FROM
FLORIDA. YOU WOULD BE A FLORIDIAN, YOU HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM FLORIDA
THAT ARE IN CONGRESS THAT FIGHT FOR YOUR INTERESTS, BUT YOU ARE STILL
AN AMERICAN. A GEORGIAN IS AMERICAN. A NEW YORKER IS AMERICAN. WE ARE
PART OF A COMPACT THAT MAKES US AMERICAN. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD."
What I don't like is the constitution being violated. I was showing to you why the federal government was not supposed to get involved in domestic policies such as farm subsidizes. Money from one citizen, say Maryland, has money going to CA in farm subsidizes. That person in Maryland now doesn't see if their money is being spent well or in a a way they like. The representatives in CA will love it, but that person in Maryland can't vote for any of them. That is why the constitution was designed to have strict limitations on government and more powers to the states. The more local the government is the more one can see if their money is spent well and if their government is working for them. Also, they have more control of the government.
The founding fathers ran into the same problem on what the federal government should and shouldn't do. Policies were proposed that would benefit one state at the expense of the other. That is why they came up with the 10th amendment. Every state get representation his the 2 senators and whatever representatives. But the powers of the federal government and congress were limited. Basically limited down to foreign affairs and seeing that every state gets along. Not take money and spend it to benefit other states.
""You can't claim the commerce clause has been misinterpreted. "
Yes I can.
" You don't have that authority,"
So I should just bow down and not question? You do know how this country was developed?
" ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DEAL WITH IT."
Wow, that is a pretty sad way to think about. Yep, don't question. Just bow down and deal with it.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;
Clearly you didn't read this part if you think the fed only manages
affairs with foreign nations. You can't give me a lesson on this I study
this.
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;"
Yes, there are some domestic policies they deal with that are clearly listed in the constitution. And you can't give me a lesson on this, I study this and take a test on it to ensure I know what is in the constitution. You may study it, I actually get tested on it.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE
(If Congress deems it necessary to have a Department of Health, they can
make it mate. Its existence does not conflict with the state
governments ability to have its own Department of Health,
CONSTITUTIONAL)"
So if congress deemed it necessary to ban all cars, or create a nation wide curfew, would you agree? If congress felt like it was necessary to run all K-12 schools, would you agree? That is federal overreach at it's finest, and violates the constitution. They make create departments to ensure one state does not hurt another state in anyway, but that is it.
"It doesn't matter that Obamacare is federal law.. it doesn't force every citizen to get insurance."
If you don't buy insurance you get fined. That is forcing them to buy something.
"Have you even read the Affordabel Care Act?"
I have, clearly you haven't.
You are clearly a sad individual. You will excuse the government on anything. If the government spied on you or took your property away without just compensation, you would just say "well, they were allowed to". You really need to learn how to question the government and what the constitution says.
1
-
" You are a moron and have no clue how the constitution allows itself to
be interpreted. Everything is not enumerated in the Constitution because
the Constitution does not require every law to be attached to the
Constitution as an amendment. Do you not understand this?"
I understand you have no clue what you are talking about. The constitution is the standard. We have to stick to the standard. If we don't then it allows for the development of a government that is tyrannical.
"That any federal government power must be enumerated through amendments. "
Any power must be distinctly listed in the constitution. If not then it becomes a state issue, period.
"The necessary and proper clause for example. Or the Commerce Clause."
Both which have been misinterpreted.
"You argue that your money has the potential to be misused in the federal
government. You take the same risk by paying taxes to you state when
they spend part of your money in other districts. You make a fair and
reasonable point, but it is a systemic trait of how we run our
governments from the local, state, and then federal level."
At the state and local level I have a greater ability to see if I am getting my money's worth. I also have the greater ability to control the government at the state and local level. I can vote for all of the representatives in my city. I have met the governor of my state. I personally knew both candidates for sheriff. At the local level you have more control of the government to ensure that it remains the servants as opposed to the masters. You can also see if you are getting your money's worth in government spending.
"If you are being tested on this and giving these answers you are either a shit law student or an even shittier law school. "
If you can justify your opinion then you will do well.
"This entire time you have been misinterpreting how the Constitution and Congress have gotten their powers"
No I haven't.
"The first rule of being a lawyer, don't argue what the law should be, "
Not really.
" It does not matter if they should or should not, they have the Constitutional power to do so "
No they don't. Point to me where in the constitution it says they can. That is my point. You are saying they can just because some SC justices say so. I want you to point to me in the constitution they can.
"So if congress deemed it necessary to ban all cars, or create a nation
wide curfew, would you agree? If congress felt like it was necessary to
run all K-12 schools, would you agree? "
No, and no.
"
Yes the government can spy on you. Why can they? Because you don't have
explicit privacy rights to begin with and only have Prenumbra Privacy
rights through the 9th Amendment. If they took your property without
Just compensation its the fault of your state for not requiring just
compensation. Based on the Kelo decision it is possible for government
to do so. The state governments passed laws following Kelo requiring
themselve to pay you justly for your property... so no I am not worried
in the slightest. "
The government can't spy on your because it violates the 4th amendment. The government can't take your property without just compensation because that violates the 5th amendment.
I have a question for you, why don't you ever question any of these laws? And why don't you point to where in the constitution these laws are justified? Your only response is "the SC ruled it that way". And you move one without any questions. Why? Why don't you question it or read the constitution to see if those powers even exist?
"Once again. The Affordable Care Act does not require you to have insurance."
Yes it does, or you have to pay a fine. I will link the law to you. It is in sec. 1501.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Courtney, TYT will find anything to rip on Trump, they are bias. In fact the media is not reliable right now as it is mainly stationed in LA and NYC, very liberal leaning areas of the country. The media has become myopic to the rest of the country and was shocked when Trump won simply because the media as a whole is in a bubble. These polls are a part of that.
"Cenk actually predicted Trump would win way back in an appearance on MSNBC (or CNN) -- I forget which one. There were conservatives who predicted Trump would not win."
I know, but Cenk also did the whole loser Donald segment. But, I have to give credit where credit is due, Cenk was right when everyone else on that segment said Clinton would win.
"No, you're lying once more. And you have not clarified what you mean by
"the polls are not doing well." You gave a few examples. That is not
enough to say all polls are not doing well. And I am not "holding on" to
polls. I am saying I trust them more than you and Trump and that is the
logical thing to do."
Trump won, he won by saying what he is saying right now about the polls. It seems like he know something and is doing something right. The polls keep ripping on him all throughout the election and he won.
"Wait. So is this an admission that you wish to throw out the scientific method?"
Nope, just saying the polls are wrong. Even at that most polls are done through landlines and cell phone which is highly unreliable which is something you learn in statistics. And the questions are typically very vague. As a whole the situation is vague. TYT and other sources keep saying "the polls" but never get into details. If you read the methodology of these polls they hardly ever mention the age, location, occupation, income level and so on of those being polled. They simply list them as "adults". With that they are not reliable. When I write a paper to be published I have to give out all details on my experiments.
"You're being purposely vague here. They were pointing to polls that indicated that Trump would lose"
And the polls are vague.
" You're spitting on experts right now saying that they don't understand their own polls."
What "experts"? I am calling them out on vague polls that deceive people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"A bit revisionist history. Jim Crow laws lasted as long as they did because of inaction, not because of action."
All the Supreme Court had to do was rule them unconstitutional. To me this is another example of why we need state rights. If we need education reform we will be sitting around for years waiting for the federal government to take action when the states can do it quickly.
"Johnson sending the national guard to Ole Miss and Brown v Board of Education was federal power at its rawest form. "
No, it is enforcing the Constitution. Both the federal government and the states can enforce the Constitution if they need to.
"Again you can justify anything by the constitution just as you can justify anything by the bible."
Again, not comparable. The Constitution is the standard when it comes to law. The Bible is ideology for religious people and is not used at all in creating laws in this country.
"The Brown v Board deciision relied on the Equal Protection Clause"
Which is the 14th amendment.
" but again the actual execution of the law has to come from the federal government if the states are unwilling to."
Ok, now say the president abuses their power. The states, through Congress, can impeach him and remove him from office if they feel it is necessary. That is the states using the Constitution to control the federal government. It goes both ways.
"By making comments like this, I think you're speaking based off of
libertarian theory and not based off of the reality in the pre-civil
rights South. "
No, I am basing it off of reality.
"The passage of the civil rights acts specifically and directly put into
motion the end of unequal application of voter registration requirements
and de jure racial segregation."
Voting laws are created mainly by the states. If they create a law they can't discriminate based off of race via the 14th amendment. Thus the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary in that regards because a standard was already on the books. All the SC had to do was enforce it to see that voting laws were equal across all races.
" I think you need to study this a bit more and the surrounding circumstances. "
I have studied it. The standard was already on the book in the Constitution, all we had to do was enforce that.
"When you don't allow all your citizens living in your state basic
political rights, then that is not acting properly. I hardly think this
is a radical standard.
"
If a state is denying Constitutional rights than that government is not working within the bounds of the Constitution. The only rights you have are listed in the Constitution. The standard you defined is not radical, I would agree. But in other comments you want the federal government to enforce educational standards and marriage laws both of which are
1. not rights
2. not listed in the constitution as the responsibility of the federal government
"And regarding the ACA, I guarantee you if the GOP repeal that thing and
leave people uncovered, they will pay politically next year."
Doubtful as most who will be uncover are poor to begin with and don't vote. Also, the Republicans are not defending many seats this upcoming mid term. If the economy is booming and if they do the repeal gradually they will be fine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra Not always. If someone is not there to produce to goods or services than it simply won't exist, period. Look at healthcare, we lack doctors, nurses, hospitals, surgeons, pharmacists, etc. We simply lack the skilled workers to keep up with demand. That is why under Obamacare healthcare insurance prices went up, supply is not keeping up with demand. Training doctors is difficult as not many are willing to do it. So no, supply does not always follow demand, especially when people refuse to work.
So people who are not work should not be working? Why not? Were do you think goods and services come from?
While wealth, to a point is subjective, it is what society perceives it to be worth. That is how prices are set. I may feel something is worth millions, but if no one else does than I can't sell it for that. I may view something to be worthless, but if society views it as being worth a lot than I will sell it as that. Thus, wealth is always created, period. If you don't create wealth the economy does not grow, period.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra" nope, that's only your idea. in the real world people work to get money, and they work more if they get more money, that's how capitalism works."
They work to get money because if they did not work they won't have money. If you just give them money they will not work as hard. That is why socialism never works.
"just imagine someone asking for a raise, do you expect an answer like "i can't pay you more, because then you'd work less", ridiculous"
That is different. There you are proving to an employer you are worth more so they give you more. You worked hard to earn that money. What you support is just giving money away. If an employer just gave someone a raise without them earning they won't be working harder. So your comparison is 100% completely incorrect.
" if you make it illegal for businesses to expand and multiply, yes. but you're not living in a command economy, do you?"
How can you expand as a business if people won't work? People won't be working as much because guess what? They have money now. People work to earn money. If you give them money they won't have a reason to work as much. If they are one of those that want to work to earn more than they are someone who is already working their way up to begin with. But in the end if you just give people money they will work less since they don't have a need to work. That is what you are failing to understand.
" are you implying that there was a market with exploding profit but without competition? do you think that is common for products that satisfy one's basic needs? and do you think that is a typical capitalistic market?
"
First off, a universal basic income is not capitalism. That is your major flaw. You are saying "under capitalism you will have this", and I agree, under capitalism people will work for one major reason, TO EARN MONEY. But if you are giving them money than guess what, THEY IS NO LONGER AN INCENTIVE TO WORK. So you will have less workers.
On colleges, there is plenty of competition. Issue is that the federal government artificially increased demand for colleges so they all had to raise prices.
But again, what you support is not capitalism. And yes, the same will happen with a universal basic income.
Let me ask you again, if the government is giving you money already, why work?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra
" you do realize that the economy would stay the same, companies would hire people to work and workers would get salaries on top of the basic income, right? you did get that, did you?"
Again, wrong. One of two things will happen.
1. People will work less, a portion of them at the very least meaning less productivity. They will work less because they don't have a reason to work because they are earning money. People work to earn money, but if they are already getting money they won't work as hard. Thus productivity will go down meaning prices will go up due to lack of supply.
OR
2. The least someone can earn in a year is $0. They simply just don't work. Now people will be earning $1000 a month (say that was the basic income). That means the price of everything will go up accordingly. If cost of living in an area was averaged out to be, say $1000 a month, it will now be $2000. Here is a reason why. Rent in my city is around $650 for a one bedroom. If people were given $1000 than the demand for one bedroom apartments will go up causing rent prices to go up. In the end we will be back to square one where rent will be approaching $1650 a month. The reason why is because everyone has an extra $1000 a month, not just those who earned it by creating wealth.
In both cases you have gained nothing which goes back to my original post of that this is dumb.
In the end the economy will not be staying the same.
Also, you were talking about price. Why are those people worth that much? For just being alive? That is now how the economy works. It goes back to what you have been saying the entire time, wealth is subjective. Something is only worth something if someone is willing to pay the price. A car is worth $10,000 if someone is willing to pay it. Someone gets paid money because they produce something that someone else values. But if we just give money away that will lower the value of the dollar, thus higher prices.
1
-
1
-
realCevra
" that's your unrealistic idea. in reality, again, people work when they are promised money, that's how capitalism works."
But yet we see it all across society, we have people who don't work because in doing so they earn money. If you are given money than why work? You have people who win the lottery and guess what? They quit their job. so no, my reality is not unrealistic as it happens all the time.
Plus, how capitalism works is the government NOT giving money away. Really, you need to learn what capitalism is. If you give money away people will have a less incentive to work. Let us go back to what you said
"people work when they are promised money"
But if they have money then why work? You may say "to earn more money". Ok, than why don't we have more girls selling their body for sex? You can become an escort and earn $200, at least a session. So why not do that? You can earn more money? So again, your simplistic view point is wrong again.
If you are given money you won't work as much. If you are someone who will than you are working your way up to begin with meaning you don't need a universal basic income. But, if people just want to work harder to earn more money than why are there not more women in the escort business? Or why are there not more people studying to be doctors? You earn a lot of money that way. So, you have an unrealistic idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra" they are earning a basic income."
Yeah, so they will work less.
"people earning more than a basic income today already don't work less hard,"
But if you were to give them an extra $1000 a month they will. If not then they are someone who is pushing to earn a high income, as in 6 figures.
"your idea does not fit with reality"
Uh, no, your idea does not fit reality. If people wanted more money they will push to get a job that pays a lot. They don't, so they are content with their income. If you give them extra money for just existing they will work less. If they earn $50,000 a year and you start paying them $10,000 a year, they will work less because they are content with $50,000 a year. Same as in how lottery winners quit their jobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra You said a circus clown what makes around $38,000 a year. So, say 10 years of schooling for a pharmacist they pay $140,000. They earn $120,000. Thus they pay off that loan in 1.17 years. Say they become a pharmacist at the age of 30. Thus, for simplicity, they pay off their schooling by the time they are 32. Thus for 33 years they earn $120,000 a year. That is $3,960,000.
Now a clown starts at 18 years old and works for 47 years. That is $1,824,000. That is less than half of a pharmacist. And with a pharmacist I am ignoring the fact they can work overtime, get a raise, maybe get done in six years (two years pre-pharm and four years pharmacy school) and so on. With a clown I am assuming they can physically do it for 47 years. So, again, list me "skilled" jobs that earn more than a doctor, or surgeon and so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra Yes, but other jobs have more opportunity. But let me ask you this, when a professor gets tenure why do many of them basically stop working, as in stop writing for grants to get even more money? The reason why is because they settled and are earning money by basically doing nothing.
Same with a basic income . You will have people who will settle and not work as hard.
I hope you got an impression of how immensely stupid your random chain of "thoughts" can become. Just to support one ridiculous idea after another, always moving the goal post trying to get a dead idea to work. Next time you should avoid that, you're wrong anyways. But, you said doctors were poor, and that giving people money for doing nothing won't hurt the incentive to work even though we have a lot of evidence for that. Again, why do many professors who get tenure end up working less? Because they are in a position to where they are guaranteed money and don't have to work. But again, you said doctors and lawyers don't earn a lot, and clowns are millionaires.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra Uh, you clearly don't understand economics. Let me simplify it for you.
Say you have $300, and you take $100 and just give it to someone to dig a hole in the desert. You have no purpose for that hole nor do you want it. You just did it. Now you have $200 and nothing was gained for you in spending that $100. You valued money less in that point. Now you have less to buy. There is still $300 out there as a whole, you just didn't gain anything from $100 of it.
Ok, now expand it to a business. Say they earn $100,000 in profits and they take $10,000 of that and just give it away and gained nothing in doing so. They valued money less and have not grown their business. They are not better off.
Now the government takes money from society and wastes it. You lowered the value of the dollar which means what it used to take $1 to produce now may take $1.50......that is how prices goes up. The same amount of money is there, it is just not worth as much That is why SS is losing money, the money being spent from it is not generating wealth. The money is not disappearing, it is losing value.
Again, you don't understand economics.
1
-
1
-
realCevra Nope, I never moved the goal posts. You did. I said the value of money will drop leading to higher prices. Your only argument now is that you are saying I moved the goal post. You have zero substance in your argument. You can't even defend the fact that SS is losing money.
You have no clue how money obtains value. If the government were to take your money and waste it you will have to demand more in order to pay your bills. You, as an individual now live a more expensive life. A business will have to raise prices in order to pay for that tax because now their business is more expensive to run..
Now if government were to spend that money to create things society wanted than fine, you will benefit. If government spent $100,000,000 to build a park the local community wanted, or a school to educate our kids, or clean up the streets than fine, society benefits and you are not worse off. But if the government were to spend that $100,000,000 to dig holes than you won't get that school for education. Either individuals will have to spend money themselves making their lives more expensive or raise taxes making government more expensive. But, as a whole you reduced the value of money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
realCevra" no, they have to pay the exact same thing for the roads, "
And they have less money. Roads may cost the same, but they could have paid less for it. Instead society had to fork out an extra $100,000,000 to pay for the roads. That means businesses have to raise prices, individuals have to demand a higher wage or cut expenses.
There is something wrong with you ability to count. Roads, in my example, cost $100,000,000. The people pay that much in taxes. The government gives that money away to people to do nothing. Thus society have to spend that much again in order to have roads. In order to afford that businesses have to raise prices to pay for the higher tax or toll. Individuals have to cut expenses to pay for the higher tax or toll. The value of money drops.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" i must've hit my head and forgot my graduations."
You mean forgot all of your classes or schooling? What do you mean by "graduations"?
". and you were the one who was trying to become a circus clown, right? "
Nope, you brought up clowns. But I can see character attacks are your motive. You bringing up clowns does show you lack of intelligence in economics. Anyway, you never gave me a source showing how much clowns make and what the job outlook is for them.
" a society with 2 people, later 3. whenever trades have to be conducted
over long distances of time, people have to use money. barter doesn't
work, because with barter you'd have to exchange on the spot. how do you
exchange 100 meals with 1 hut on the spot?"
Yes, as the economy expands to multiple people and multiple places than money is necessary. But you are talking about just two people on an island, that's it. No one else.
"i very well do"
Apparently you don't, I had to give it to you.
"textbook? this isn't school, you do know there's something called scientific papers and articles,"
Textbooks are written referencing scientific papers. So a textbook is sufficient. Or cite me a paper instead.
"but it does, the value of fiat money is set when it enters the money
base. fiat money has almost no intrinsical value, but that only denoted
the value of the material it uses to represent its value, usually dyed
paper"
It has value when it is invested.
"nope, you don't increase the money base by giving tax money to students,
the money base is the same, it just has different holders, didn't i
tell you that already?"
Increase the demand for college without increasing the supply. That money given to the students is used, for the most part, only on college which also limits its value.
" you did notice that your sentence make absolutely no sense? you're
basically saying that instead of being productive you're being
productive. hilarious"
No, I am not being productive because I have to do unnecessary work to get the same amount. But of course it makes no sense to you, you have no idea how textbooks are written.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The polls are deceptive. Here is the April poll listing Bernie on top and the trend
https://morningconsult.com/senate-rankings-april-2017/
Here are the top 10 by state
VT
VT
WY
WY
ME
ME
SD
HI
DE, OR (tie)
ND
Ok, now states by population
WY
VT
AL
ND
SD
DE
MT
RI
MI
NH
7 of those senators resides in states with small populations (VT, WY,
SD, DE, ND)
Now by demographics, percent white
VT 96%
ME 95%
NH 94%
WV 94%
IA 92%
ID 92%
WY 91%
MN 90%
ND 90%
Do some of those states look familiar?
Now to crime. States with the lowest crime rates
VT
ME
WY
NH
VA
KY
ID
UT
RI
MN
VT, ME and WY are the three states with the lowest amount of crime. VT
ME and WY are 1, 2 and 7 in terms of percentage of whites, and WY, VT
are the two smallest states by population. but yet the six most popular
senators reside VT, ME and WY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That's thinking with old school economics, if you look at countries that
have government provided health insurance, people save money and health
is generally better."
As is the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world as is. Other countries have problems as well such as rationing and lack of resources. They just make people wait. Also it is very hard, to almost impossible to compare countries to one another. The variables are too great. Those countries you are comparing us to typically have much smaller populations than the US. That plays a role. compare it like this, say you were to buy Subway sandwiches for 5 people. You can specialize all of them. Now say you were to do it for 200 people. You will just get a bunch of generic sandwiches and tell them to put their own mayo on. Same applies in a country like the US compare to Denmark. The US has 320+ million people, Denmark has a population smaller than most of our states. That is not a valid comparison. And population is just one of many variables.
"And yes I know that free public college wouldn't pay for med school, but it would set people on the right track to head there."
There are affordable 2 year and 4 year colleges that people can take their pre-med courses at. Money isn't the issue. It is the inability to do the job, or lack of desire to put in the work and take on the stress.
"Also, many people actually want to become doctors but can't do it because the education required is too expensive"
Or more likely can't handle it or refuse to put in the work needed. I, as a TA, see several pre-med students fail yearly. They are able to afford college and can't pass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
James Jamesbond
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/02/19/seattles-15-minimum-wage-jobs-down-unemployment-up-this-isnt-working-is-it/#1df370ff3712
You cited forbes and so did I.
Michael Reich is known to support the min. wage. He is bias. His study if mainly projection and does not reveal anything yet. He also compared over unemployment when there are several factors that contribute to overall unemployment. The min. wage, as a whole, is low compared to the entire economy thus any negative results get lost in the statistical noise. When you look at target groups, such as teens, you seen a loss in jobs. Washington, for example, has one of the highest teenage unemployment rate and there is a trend with high min. wage and high teenage unemployment.
Another thing is that cost of living on those cities is high, thus it is a poor comparison to say that just because it works in cities of higher cost of living than it will work elsewhere.
Emeryville, CA the highest min. wage in the US. They are doing fine. They are also the home of Pixar who is their top employer. When you have a lot of workers earning $80,000 year at least than you can get away with a high min. wage. Emeryville's second largest employer is a pharmaceutical company.
In all there are several factors that control these outcomes. Reich, as usual, does not account for any of these.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The 14th amendments has it so everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. The government cannot discriminate which is why Jim Crow Laws were abolish and it was the amendment for Brown vs Board. People can, government can't.
"Now, care to explain how reporting on planned demonstrations by scientists constitutes a discussion of any aspect of science?"
They are discussing science and have in the past.
" And by the way, you have yet to indicate where the Constitution
prohibits the government from funding education and scientific research"
The Constitution lists what the role of the federal government is. If it does not list funding for science and education than it is not allowed to do it.
"what makes spending on defense constitutional "
Article I, section 8
"
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;"
", who on the political left has "poisoned science,""
At this point about all of them. Politics poisons a lot. The democrats are the ones who are actively involved in science, thus they have poisoned it. Plus, those same politicians are not scientists, so by your logic they should not be discussing it.
"which go against mainstream, peer-reviewed science,"
Read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". You will not hear a scientist say the same thing politicians are saying about climate change.
1
-
1. Yes it does. A law cannot be bias towards anyone.
" And by the way, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin in BOTH the
private and the public sector. "
And that is a wrong ruling as that should be a state issue involving private companies. But the SC has made incorrect rulings in the past. Look up Kelo vs City of New London.
2. They discussed science in the past and they are discussing funding in science. They are not economists either, so they should not be discussing that as well. Ana has a degree in journalism for example. Cenk has one in management.
3. In the constitution. It lists the role of congress and the presidency. So Article I and Article II.
4. "By that logic, the federal government is not allowed to fund the National Weather Service, the FDC or the CDC. "
National Weather Service can fall in line with the commerce clause as there is an interest in having weather across the country being known due to trade over state lines.. The FDC, to a degree can fall in line with the commerce clause to prevent certain food and drugs from going from one state to another that does not meet a standard. Same with the CDC to a degree.
5. " In other words, you can’t name any on the political left who have “poisoned science.”"
Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama. Remember. Sanders even admitted that he struggled in science classes.
" And by the way, how many on the left can be described as
anti-evolution, antivaxx, anti man-made global warming and anti stem
cell research? "
You keep pointing to the same things. One, evolution is what it is, a theory. Also, a Bush appointed judge in the Dover vs Penn trial ruled in favor of science over creationism. Very few are anti-vaxx and they are the radicals of the group (also, Bill Maher has been criticized for being anti-vaxx). They are not anti-man made global warming. They disagree to what degree man is playing a role in climate change. Scott Pruit even said that man is influencing climate. Also, Bush had a more environmental friendly home compared to Gore. And stem cell research was never banned. They did not want federal funds going to it.
Meanwhile the left is using science as an excuse to raise taxes and regulations and give money to special interest groups.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"A specially-designed psychiatric evaluation done by certified and listed
psychiatrists that gives you a PASS in order to buy a gun. If you fail
it, no gun for you, period. Failed records are not kept by the State,
only approved ones."
So a law abiding citizen with a minor red flag should have their rights removed? Why stop there? Why not monitor those individuals as well? Keep tabs on them, search their homes. Obviously they are too much of a threat to own a gun. They are surely too much of a threat to be left alone. Would you support that?
That aside, those test are not hard to fake. And you also deputize doctors to where any red flag, no matter how minor, will lead to them barring you from having a gun. No doctor wants to be responsible for allowing someone to own a gun and then they shoot up a place if that person had a red flag come up in their test.
"Also, official record of every gun transfer, anual or x-anual audits of
what you have, where you have it stored and a written test about
legality and proficiency training."
You don't want the government keeping track of the guns in the US. Also criminals won't follow that law and how would this law stop any of these shootings?
1
-
"Wow way to take what I proposed and run to the hills with it. The
details would have to be worked on, but a "minor red flag" like a
history of non-violent depression shouldn't bar you from owning a
defense weapon, imo, but a history of life-threats, violent and
impulsive behavior, alienation from reality, acute borderline
personalities, etc...... "
The problem with your proposal is how far are you willing to go? If your proposal were to be put into effect and another mass shooting happens, then what? Are you going to add more to it? That is why I said what I said. What you proposed may sound reasonable to you but in reality it is a doorway to more regulations.
Someone with even the slightest of autistic characteristics can be banned from owning a gun. But if that person were to still get a hold of one illegally, like Adam Lanza, then what is the next step? Keeping surveillance on them? Or even putting them behind bars? Where does it end?
" it's always "More Restrictions = Total Ban and Gun Grab from citizens"."
Because there is a great chance of it leading up to that. For example look up Washington state bill SB 5737, do you think that was a "sensible restriction"? You throw out that phrase "sensible restriction" which has no standard tied to it at all. What may be "sensible" to you may not be enough to others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Terri, I have several friends who are doctorate in the science field who lean right. As a whole, in academics they do lean left, but it also more or less depends on the department and where the university is at. In the midwest you will find more conservative professors, especially in the STEM fields and business fields, fields that do require more critical thinking and problem solving.
To answer you questions
Climate change: I despise the political left's stance on it. They misrepresent science to create more excuses to expand the government and create more taxes and regulations. We should continue doing research in it and progressing in technology, but we should get politics out of the issue. This is why I side with republicans. Under Bush funding for science research went up. The republican's stance is clear, they support science, they just want to leave it to the scientist. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, no republican wants to die poor. In order to generate wealth we need technology to advance, thus they support science.
EPA: Before the EPA air quality was improving The EPA is nothing more than added layers of bureaucracy and federal government overreach. We should really dismantle it.
Abortion: This is not really an issue involving science. If you want to go that route than once can say that life starts at conception. By definition a sack of cells are living. As a whole I don't have a stance abortion besides it should be a state law
Stem cell research: I support it and it is legal. All Bush said was that federal funds won't fund it. I support that as well but that is more of me supporting state rights.
If you really understood republicans you will see that they support science. If there really is an anti-science party it is the democrats for them politicizing it. Republicans say what they do to appeal to the religious fundamentalists that vote for them, just like Obama, in facing a tough re-election in 2008 said he supported gay marriage (even though he has never done anything for the gay community). He said that to appeal to the gay vote. That's politics. Navigate that and you will see many different things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+LTrotsky 21st Century A few things here:
1. The study says "What they found was that it did not have a big negative impact on those cities"
There was a negative impact though. That is the point, they admitted to the negative effect but never mentioned any positive effect. You have to realized that in the economy as large as the US is that $10 is small. That is why you can raise the min. wage and not see many negative effects because it all gets lost in the statistical noise. But if you were to raise it to $50/hr then it will have a larger role which is why no politician wants that.
When you look at groups effected by the min. wage the most, such as low skilled workers (teenagers for example) and businesses who pay low wages, you see higher prices and less hours. That is why teenage unemployment is going along with the min. wage.
2. You are looking at cities that already have a higher cost of living. The city with the highest min. wage is Emeryville, CA. It is home to Pixar, their largest employer. They have a lot of workers who earn at least $80,000/yr. They have a median income of $45,000 per household. Now compare that to my hometown which is mainly a rural area with a median household income of $29,000.
Those cities possess tech jobs that generate more wealth where rural areas don't. Just because is supposedly works in certain cities (which is debatable, San Fran. has extreme high cost of living) doesn't mean it will work elsewhere.
I can go on with the high cost of living. San Fran. has a home ownership rate of 36%, far below CA average of 55%, or the US rate of 63%. The cost of living is high there. A $10/hr wage is low compared to other areas of the country. It is like an obese person eating 10 pounds of candy a day and then eating 12 pounds a day a year later and seeing no weight gain. The situation was bleak to begin with.
Study more economics there. I will start with you own source you cited, they even admit there were negative results.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You compare a household with firearms to a household that doesn't have them."
With the same people, same income, same lifestyle and up bringing? Is all other variables held constant? No. I own 4 guns and I have yet to see one jump up out of the stand, load itself and shoot. Now does having a gun increase my chances of getting shot by one? By default yes. Just like driving a car increases my chance of getting a traffic ticket.
"So, either only people from households that are much more suicidal buy
guns, or maybe, just maybe, not having a gun you can quite effectively
use to end your life within few seconds in a household makes people
consider their situation more, thus preventing them from killing
themselves..."
There are several ways to end you life beyond owning a gun, Japan proves that.
"So, a bunch of gun violence is an outlier in statistics that are meant to show facts about gun violence?"
There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of gun violence, they throw the stats off for the entire country.
"You're not the standard of which we use to determine things."
You can say the same for millions of people in the country who avoid places of high gang activity.
1
-
"If you would have bothered to read the study, it says several times that they adjusted for demographic characteristics."
I have read the study and the study said itself, in the discussion section that there are a number of limitations such as the neighborhood a person is living in and that more research is needed. The strongest correlation is with suicides. Gun control advocates want to prevent gun murder and gun related crime which is not suicides. Suicides are a completely different issue that is not gun related. And suicides is self inflicted harm. I suggest you read your studies you cite more carefully.
"Yes, so can we assume that you don't feel that it's necessary for
Americans to have their guns to be able to end their lives? That we
could possibly take away guns from people who are sucidal and maybe
return them if and when they have gotten the help they deserve? So that
while they're contemplating suicide they'd have to plan for it to take
minutes and maybe cause much more pain instead of what time it takes to
pull a trigger and what they might feel when a bullet goes through their
brain?"
Suicide is a non-gun related issue. If you are wanting to ban guns to prevent suicides then why not push to put nets around bridges, or ban alcohol (been tried) or drugs (which is illegal) considering how that is the 2nd method for suicides.
At this point it is clear to me that you are more scared of the gun and want to flat out ban it. I have four guns as is. Three are rifles that sit in a stand and are completely harmless. One is a pistol that sits in my drawer by my bed loaded for in home protection. Now to you seems to be the scariest thing in the world. To me that is perfectly safe considering how guns just don't accidentally fire, it is in a holster, and tucked away. Any accidents happening with guns is pure negligence and is not gun related at all.
"There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of pollution, they throw the stats off for the entire country.
There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of wealth, they throw the stats off for the entire country.
There are areas in the country that have a very high amount of car accidents, they throw the stats off for the entire country."
I fully agree with what you said.....so whats your point?
"When were talking about the gun violence statistics of United States, it
means ALL THE GUN VIOLENCE in United States is taken into account.
You can't just decide to drop areas out to get a more favourable result."
In statistics you can. Let me throw an example here. Say a classroom with student takes a tests and 5 score 70 and 5 score 80. Now say you have another class that take the same test and 5 score 50 and 5 score 100. Both classes average out to be a 75. Does that mean both classes are equal? No. On class is more uniform where another class has students holding back the average. Let us say instead of 5 scoring 50 and 5 scoring 100 you have 7 scoring 90 and 3 scoring 40. What is the average? 75. Are the two classes equal? Based off of that stat yes. But in reality one class is more uniformed where the other has 3 weak students holding back the entire class. You can drop outliers.
"But i can't say it to the millions of people in the country who happen
to live in places of high gang activity and lack the means to move.
And i can't say that either of you are the standard of measurement.
No, that would be those statistics you want to fudge to your benefit so
much..."
People who live in those area have a right to defend themselves. Your source you cited even mentioned about people using guns for protection from home break ins. There are law abiding citizens who live in poor neighborhoods that have a gun for protection. What is wrong with that?
1
-
Now let me revisit your earlier comment and what you said.
1. "Oh look, how nice. There's been 5 mass shooting since Orlando..."
When you water down the standard of a mass shooting then of course the number will be high. This comes down to when you remove the areas of high crime in the US then the number drops a lot. Out of those 5 three are in places notorious for crime, Brooklyn, Oakland and Chicago. One is in Fresno thus 4 of the 5 are in states with very strict gun laws to begin with. And before you cry about how I just can't drop areas to get favorable results, consider the example I gave about the two classrooms.
"the presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio = 4.8)..."
I addressed how you can't even read your own sources.
".an almost threefold risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio = 2.7)..."
Again, your source stated several limitations such as the neighborhood where one lives. This goes with how you can remove areas of very high crime in the US and crime is very low. Remove the outliers and you get a more accurate representation of what is really going on.
"You do know that some people live and work in the "hood" and don't have the financial means to move?"
I agree, and they should have a gun to protect themselves. I don't live in the hood and even I have a gun for in home protection. Why do you want to take away their only form of protection? Do you want to take away the locks on their door as well?
"You do know that many, if not most of the guns in the hands of criminals
are from gun owners that kept them in their cars or unsecured in their
houses where they were then stolen from? That the large amount of guns
in civilian hands is the reason for large amount of guns in criminal
hands?"
That is negligence. You can't blame the gun for that.
"United States is 18th worse country in the world, when looking at
homicides done by firearms. There it is, in the middle of developing-
and third world countries."
Just don't single out gun homicides, look at overall homicide.
I know guns are scary to you, but just because you are scared of them doesn't mean you have to strip rights from others. I feel the ignorance you just spewed is scary but I will never push to have your freedom of speech taken away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathon, what popular vote? People have been voting for republicans the last three election cycles. Face it, people don't like Obamacare.
Yes, the polls have been wrong. One poll had Clinton winning Michigan by almost 8%. Also, many polls such as on the issues of healthcare and gun control have been wrong when compared to election results. Gallup said that 87% of people want background checks on guns. Meanwhile such laws failed in Maine and passed in NV by only 0.45% with many sheriff departments in NV saying they won't enforce it. Also, what polls are you citing with your numbers? Here is Pennsylvania
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html#polls
Almost all of them had Clinton winning, some by large margins.
"I know exactly how the electoral college works"
You clearly don't and you clearly don't understand the history of this country and why the electoral college exists. It was to give power to the states because the federal government is made up of the states. The states and the federal government keep each other in check. That is why besides treason and the draft the federal government basically has no power over individual citizens according to the constitution. That is why there was no federal individual income taxes.
"Do you understand what this means? I'm going to bet, you don't even understand the mathematical difference. "
I have a math minor, I worked as a math tutor, I am a doctorate candidate in physical chemistry. But you are the ones that are making up polling data.
Look at the numbers for the states. Clinton got over 60% of CA's votes which is over 8.7 million. Trump got over 67% of Wyoming's vote which is only 174,000. You see the difference?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sidney, the democrats bailed out the banks. And who is pushing for privatization of schools?
"1% of Americans are holding 40% of it's total wealth..."
And a home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. When you understand what wealth is you realize that the wealth inequality is natural.
"Trillions of dollars sitting in foreign tax havens"
Because of our high taxes.
"The super rich are ruining the country's prosperity for the rest of us"
Nope, more like the federal government with all of its power.
"Just opportunity"
You have that, it requires work.
" and bribery is legal in Washington, "
Because it has the power to sell. So do you want that same government running your healthcare and college education? Why do you feel that will end corruption?
"Furthermore, I find it incredible you think sanders is a hypocrite while
supporting the guy claiming to be "for the working class" who's never
worked a day in his life..."
He has worked a lot more than Bernie. Also, I didn't vote for Trump, I voted for Gary Johnson. But, again, why do you want this corrupt federal government to control your healthcare, college education, and more of your money with higher taxes?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Damacles9, all a corporation can do is offer you a product and/or a job. The government can force you to do things you don't want. With that said, yes you can vote for them, but at the federal level how many members of Congress can you vote for? Now compared that to the state and local level. You say "we can vote for government" when in reality, at the federal level, you can only vote for a select few of the representatives. You have no say who comes from other states.
" why did the Founding Fathers even bother with a Federal Government"
Because it was to keep the states (not the people) united. It was to give citizens rights to control governments and handle foreign affairs. If you look at the design of the Constitution it placed strict limitations on the federal government and gave powers to the states. Look at taxes. The only federal taxes at the time were taxes on imports and exports, and a tax on the states, not individuals. The federal government had very limited powers over individual citizens beyond treason and selective service. What it was is that the citizens controlled the states and local government, and the states controlled the federal government. The federal government was made up of the states, the states and local government were made up of the people.
It is like this. You have cells that make up tissues, and tissues make up organs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bart, there are a lot of things people don't care about now. That is why we need government. At the same time we have to be able to control government which is why we have a Constitution. It placed limitations on all governments. Changes in domestic issues were to be done at the state and local level.
Now issue by issue
Protecting the environment.: Prior to the EPA air quality was improving. This can be handled at the state level. Also, I have been given many charts that showed as productivity went up wages remained stagnate. That trend started in the early 70s. While there are several factors there the EPA was created around that time (along with OSHA).
Voting rights for women.: Which was changed via the Constitution because women pay taxes as well and are affected by the government thus they too should have a say
Healthcare.: This is also an issue, but if the government were to have a say or be involved it would be at the state level.
Other social insurance: Same with healthcare
Universal education: Public education has been ran and funded at the state level for centuries. The Department of Ed was not created until the late 1970s. Did education cease to exist before that? No. Also, the federal government did not get deeply involved until 1965 when it started to give out loan. After that college tuition went up. On Bernie's own cite he said
"In 1965, average tuition at a four-year public university was just $243 and many of the best colleges"
Kind of ironic he picked 1965.....or is it considering that was the year the federal government decided to get involved in financing college education as much as it does. Also, with government education that can lead to indoctrination when you don't control government. There is that fear as well which is why it was left up to the states.
Illegal immigration: Was already considered
Votings rights for Blacks.
Citizenship for Blacks.
Not being property
All were changed in the Constitution sticking to the idea of having people have the rights to control government, same as with women voting.
"None of these things were even considered by anyone back in the late 18th century."
Some were.
"The Founding Fathers knew that new issues would arise in the future
(which is now the present and the past). That is why they introduced
Amendments."
But are cumbersome to pass.
"
The fact they did not mention any of the things that I listed above is meaningless - they simply did not know about them. "
I am sure they did in a lot of ways. It came down to which level of government should be running it, if at all. As with education, if we were to have it than the states should manage it. It comes back to the states provided for the citizens and the citizens ran the states. Where the federal government provided for the states and the states ran the federal government. The federal government wasn't supposed to be involved with providing education to the citizens. As I said, if they did there will be fear of indoctrination or control. The more local government is the more control you have over it.
Before the Revolution the colonies were paying less taxes than the British. The fact was that they wanted control. Not a centralized government but a government they can control, thus more local government.
"BTW - "General Welfare" is in the Constitution. "
Yes, general welfare. They were to promote it, not promise or guarantee it. I can encourage my students to study physics and do well. I can't take the tests for them. The federal government can encourage states to offer education to their citizens, they can't offer it to them though. That is what is meant by "promote general welfare". You have to read the whole thing.
"The Constitution is a living, breathing thing. It is quite different from, say, the Ten Comandments."
What does the ten commandments have to do with anything?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Where?"
I gave you data to show that criminals, as in those with records, are not buying guns at gun shows.
"When I make quantifiable claims, you could and should ask for quantifiable evidence. I am not exempt."
I agree, how will background checks lower gun crime? That requires numbers. As of right now you are simply giving talking points. Background checks exist so it shouldn't be too hard. Or it could be that you are just making things up.
"I have to ask again: define background checks as used these 95% you claimed."
Let us start with you, what background checks do you want? Background checks from that number are FBI background checks. Ever been through an FBI check? It brings up something as small as a DUI. But what are you looking for?
"It can be reduced by making gun registration mandatory, and the private
sale of guns illegal. Again, only licensed sellers should be able to
sell weapons. So that they can do background checks. Because not all who
buy guns should be able to easily do so."
A gun register means the government can track guns easier, something you don't want. Before you think that is not going to happen SB 5737 was passed in Washington in 2013 which allowed just that. I was later retracted and changed. But the idea of the government randomly searching people's homes who own guns is not out of the norm. But I bet you will support that considering it could lower crime. You know what else will lower crime? Allowing the government to randomly search people's homes. Doing so would have stopped Holmes from shooting up that theater and almost blowing up his apartment. Jaycee Lee Dugard would have been found earlier and not 18 years later. Do you support that? Do you support the government randomly searching people's homes? Please answer that question.
Also, background checks still exist. If you are a felon you can't own a gun. Beyond that who else should not own guns in your opinion?
"Still irrelevant."
No it isn't. Lack of experience will make people scared of guns despite how safe they are.
"So, anything short of systematic mass murder carried out by the
government against its own populace, guns are useless against tyranny.
Agreed. When do you expect that to happen?"
Guns are not useless in tyranny. What happened after the Boston Massacre? A war. The colonies won. We try to take peaceful routes to settle disputes, but violence should be an option, a last resort but an option.
"Nope. It's pretty relevant considering the power and capacity of modern arms, and the modern political environment we live in."
I will link you to a video on that. There were 'assault weapons" during that time. Also, do you support changing freedom of speech because of the internet? Please answer that as well.
"It's something that is fun and that people would like to do, which has
no practical purpose, and is potentially incredibly dangerous to
yourself and others. Very comparable."
There are a lot of things that are impractical. Having sex with numerous people is impractical and can lead to STDs, do you want to regulate that as well? Make this country safe by banning anything that you deem to be unsafe? We can all just live in a rubber room. In the end gun ownership is a right, so it isn't comparable.
1. Banning full autos and rifles won't lower gun crimes, that is the point.
2. 100 round drums are notorious for jamming up, that is why the military does not use it. In the movie theater shooting it jammed up on him actually leading to potentially less deaths. Magazines are quick and easy to reload which is why magazine limits don't work. This is especially true if the shooter is the only one with a gun. Ex: VaTech shooter.
3. Ok, what?
The US does not have a mass shooting everyday. If you remove gangs and drug related shootings, which are isolated, then it comes down to 4. Even with those shootings it still isn't everyday. Other countries do have light gun laws and other countries do have crime. This is not a gun problem but a crime problem. Even at that the US crime problem exists in isolated areas such as the inner city.
1
-
1
-
He is not popular. Of the poll of approval ratings of senators here is the trend for the top 10 highest rated
Here are the top 10 by state
VT
VT
WY
WY
ME
ME
SD
HI
DE, OR (tie)
ND
Ok, now states by population
WY
VT
AL
ND
SD
DE
MT
RI
MI
NH
7 of those senators resides in states with small populations (VT, WY,
SD, DE, ND)
Now by demographics, percent white
VT 96%
ME 95%
NH 94%
WV 94%
IA 92%
ID 92%
WY 91%
MN 90%
ND 90%
Do some of those states look familiar?
Now to crime. States with the lowest crime rates
VT
ME
WY
NH
VA
KY
ID
UT
RI
MN
VT, ME and WY are the three states with the lowest amount of crime. VT
ME and WY are 1, 2 and 7 in terms of percentage of whites, and WY, VT
are the two smallest states by population. but yet the six most popular
senators reside VT, ME and WY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jack Albrecht A recession is a recession, it happens naturally in an evolving economy. How we recover is key. Under FDR recovery was slow. This whole "there is no demand" is completely false, there is always demand. The pure fact is that you can't consume what you don't produce.
People demand better goods and services and businesses push to produce it at an affordable price when there is competition. But in the end if there is no production, or if the supply of money becomes greater than the supply of goods and services than prices go up which hurts the economy.
"There is also a lack of demand because there are fewer good paying jobs
because the US has been massively outsourcing for 20+ years, as well as
automation issues."
Automation drives up productivity which drives down prices. That is why disposable income has been growing for decades now. This whole "fewer good paying jobs" is a foolish thought. Jobs are easy to create, wealth isn't. Plus, what is a "good paying job"?
Where does Bernie expect to get that 300 billion? And plus, how will the states raise the money to pay for the 1/3 of it? And how does he plan on fixing the issue of us lacking classroom sizes and professors along with other resources?
Other countries don't have a good as a university system as the US does. While I hate comparing countries it is really clear the US has the best university system in the world.
"Towns are already paying the $15 dollars and hour, they just aren't
paying it in wages. We're paying for it in food stamps, CHIP and
subsidies to help someone making a non-living wage survive. "
Not true. Small towns have lower prices due to lack of resources and people working jobs there such as agriculture, a job that does not produce that much money as opposed to Pixar (which is located in Emeryville, CA, city with the highest min. wage). Consider how rent is around $200, gas is around $2.20/gal, food is cheap, utilities are cheap, doctors are cheap, etc. in small towns the cost of living is low. And if there are people living off of those welfare programs it is because the federal min. wage has contributed to the rising cost and less jobs in those areas. The simple fact is that they can't afford higher wages. The min. wage kills small towns. I have witnessed it personally. There are other factors as well but the min. wage does not help.
You have not been in very many small towns have you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jack Albrecht
1. Where do I lack understanding of economics? A recession is a recession, period.
2. Ok, how do you increase demand? Explain? I told you that it always exist. But to you it doesn't. So how do you increase it?
3. I read what you said Sanders' proposed. Sanders' proposed the states pay for 1/3 of college. Where is the state going to get the money? I understand that Sanders wants to tax wallstreet, but who is the state going to tax?
4. While excellent universities exist in other countries, in the US we have the best system in the world. We push for more professor/student relation, smaller classes and more activities. Universities in other countries are actually better suited for those doing graduate studies where the US has far more universities that are better suited for undergrad studies.
5. I grew up in a small town as well. Neighboring towns of around 520 and at times smaller. Seems like you lack understanding of small towns.
6. There is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage. It raises prices and kills jobs. Even Paul Krugman in his own textbook states the flaws of price floors such as the min. wage.
"It is a fair but debatable statement that a full time job that doesn't pay a living (poverty or above) wage shouldn't exist."
One, the term "living wage" is subjective and thus means nothing. Two, it is fair to say that if a person can't develop skills to earn enough then they shouldn't be around.
The pure fact is that there are jobs that simply don't produce much. So if that job goes away then what? A person goes from having a job to nothing, thus they are now earning $0.
" Such jobs implicitly put the remaining costs onto society, through
increased health costs, increased public assistance, increased crime,
etc. "
Nope, those problems can be tied to the federal government.
"I've seen your other comments as well. I don't see this conversation
going anywhere but in circles until you come out of your bubble."
What bubble? You have a mindset that we can simply raise the min. wage and that somehow businesses are not going to counter? Businesses will cut hours and raise prices, that is a fact, it happens. When NY raised the min. wage McDonalds fired several employees. Seattle averages 14 employees per restaurant with their high min. wage, the national average is 17. People simply hire less. It seems like you need to get out of your bubble.
One last question. So when the $15/hr min. wage kills jobs, that in your mind are not worthy of being around because they can't pay a "living wage", what do you now do to those unemployed individuals? Those jobs don't exist? Do they go off of welfare? Or does another company, as in a corporation (considering they will be the only ones who can afford the higher wage, Walmart pushed for a min. wage increase).comes in and hires them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"First of all, the cutting hours thing is an imaginary problem. You can't
possibly believe people will start working way less than 40 hours
across the board."
Yes they will because their employers will cut those hours. Also only around 2 percent of workers work full time and are on min. wage.
"Secondly, you can still get another part time job and make a living"
How, if hours are cut? Plus I don't know if you worked more than one job but scheduling is a nightmare.
"If someone wants to work two part time jobs, and two business wants to hire them, why should we stand in the way of that? "
I agree, but it isn't that easy.
"You're a conservative"
Nope, I am a moderate.
"The problem is that currently people are working full time jobs and still not making a living"
Yeah, but they are not the ones earning the min. wage.
" The 15 dollars minimum wage solves that problem"
No it doesn't.
"What you are suggesting, making it so that someone working 4 hours per
week has to be payed just as much as someone working 40, all that does
is effectively ban part time jobs."
No it doesn't. It removes the ability of employers of hurting worker's weekly pay by cutting hours. If you raise the min. wage to $15/hr and someone is now only working 10 hours a week, what have you accomplished? Nothing. You said so yourself that there are workers working full time that are poor. Now there will be even less workers working full time. Sure they will be making more per hour, but they will be making the same per week. So what have you accomplished?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan, the reason why you did not go is because you are a fake. You told you about the video and there were plenty there that would have disagreed with you and called you a fake like you did me. Instead you stayed in an echo chamber.
"If you want a actual debate with people who understand science, may want
to pick a channel that actually deals with science, such as potholer. "
Then why do you go to TYT or Secular Talk? They do not deal with science? Also, potholer, while respectable in some ways is a fake himself. There is a reason why he only attacks people like Steven Crowder and young earth theorist. They are easy targets. He studied a little geology and feels he has an in depth understanding of science. But he was challenged on his channel. Someone asked him about the video entitled
"Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax"
Here as potholer's response
"I'm interested to know why you are confused. This guy is an expert in
electron tunneling in semiconductors, he has never published or even
studied climatology in his life. If he said you can catch herpes from
eating margarine would you believe him, simply because he's a Nobel
laureate? People seem to have this belief that as soon as someone wins a
Nobel prize he must be an expert in every branch of science he's never
studied, and I don't know where they get that idea."
He does not address the content of the video to the person asking about it. Instead he
1. Pulled a logical fallacy saying that Ivar Giaever does not study climatology (neither does potholer has he does not hold a graduate degree in it nor has any published research, irony) even though he does study science
2. He deflected by pulling out some radical, meaning example of "If he said you can catch herpes from
eating margarine would you believe him, simply because he's a Nobel
laureate?"
Well, why should we trust potholer? What makes him the expert? Ivar has a track record of studying science for a living. Climate science is a broad field that involves all fields of science. I have not seen potholer show that understands advanced quantum mechanics which is relevant in how the ecosystem works.
But I digress. What you have just shown is that
1. You refuse to leave your echo chamber
2. You contradicted yourself. You said one should have a debate about science with people who understand science that actually deals with science. Then why do you go to Secular Talk and discuss science?
"You can, especially if its due to conditions that are treatable with medication or through treatment but were not given"
You can't because the 40,000 are
1. generally poor
2. less healthy (poor people have higher rates of obesity and diabetes)
3. less responsible (poor people have higher rates of unwanted pregnancies and are less educated)
And nothing indicates that they will seek out healthcare even if they had access to it. K-12 education is free for everyone and it is shown that with a high school diploma you have a higher probability of earning more. But around 12% of the natural born country lack a high school diploma.
"That doesn't really make any difference, the HIV pandemic was a massive
issue with healthcare and it only hit a few million in the US. Again,
you aren't going to have issues that are usually affecting 50-70% of the
population, if you need a number like that."
0.01% was noise. The HIV epidemic was such because HIV is such a deadly virus and it was new at the time. There were myths going around such as it can be spread by kissing. Now that we know there is a very low chance of it being spread as in around 1% by a sexual encounter (depending on many factors, even if they are infected it is still around 1%), and more is known about it makes it no longer an epidemic. You have to put it in perspective. But again, 0.01% is noise and as I shown you with another source it is impossible to cover everyone. Other countries with single payer do not cover everyone. People still die due to shortcomings in their healthcare systems. No system is ideal.
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=jbel
"Don't use terms you don't understand"
I fully understand what noise is. If you think 0.01% is not noise than you need to take a statistic course.
"How so? It covered more people, we dropped to a record low in uninsured,
how is that a bad thing? Is it bad just because it was done federally? "
Saying it covered more people is deceptive. With what quality? That is something you have to consider. Like single payer. You may say that it gives everyone healthcare, but you never say the quality. You are leaving out very important details. We can put all homeless people in a home. But if means you have 10 people living in a studio, is that a success?
"we dropped to a record low in uninsured,"
You force people to buy it. That is how it was done. That is a very low bar for success.
Obamacare was passed on the idea of lowering healthcare cost. But under it healthcare premiums went up. Now before you say "well they went up slower" you have to remember that we were in a recession. Nothing went up in price. In reality healthcare premiums should have remained stagnate in a recession like almost everything else, but it still went up.
"It compounded our problems? What does that even mean? Are you saying healthcare got worse? Is that why more people received treatment and far less people were uninsured?"
Again with the insured. People were dropped from their insurance and others saw their premiums go up higher than ever. There is a reason why people voted against democrats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"These studies are on global warming as a general subject, so it's normal
that a large part of them would not draw a conclusion on the CAUSE."
As someone who reads and publishes papers myself I will say that the vast majority of scientists do not come up with a conclusion, and those that do do so in a vague manner. The reason why is because nothing is science is certain, and science is driven off of doubt an skepticism. Anyone who drifts from that is no longer doing science but instead is doing doctrine.
"As a scientist working in chemistry in europe, I "BELIEVE" that we can
asses that most of us will still agree on man-made climate change, as
when it comes to CAUSE, studies go overwhelmingly in it's favor (97%
compared to 3% from the statistics above) after peer-review"
As someone who studies physical chemistry I will say that man is having an influence on the climate. The issue is to what degree? We cannot say. And is it even bad? We cannot accurately measure the influence the climate change will have on the environment. Consider this, we do not even know the physics behind photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is taught in grade school, but the actual physics of it, at the quantum level, is still in debate.
The other issue with climate change is that it is a vague issue. It involves many fields in science. A biologist has their viewpoints and their research, but lacks understanding of physics. Using the photosynthesis example, a biologist understands that to a point, but they do not understand the quantum mechanical side of it. It is safe to say that almost every biologist in my university does not even know what a quantum coherence is. But a physicists is not out in the field studying patterns in plants and living organism for example.
Climate change is a very vague and complex issue. Anyone who starts to give high certainty on the issue is either ignorant on the topic or bias. We do not know how the environment is going to react. We can make predictions but we do not know. Evolution itself is a complex topic (and is why it is a grad level course).
So, as a scientist myself, I will say that the issue on climate change is not settled, and anyone who says it is is bias.
1
-
1
-
"Theories and the consensus behind them form from the collection of the
vague conclusions when the evidence from enough published studies point
into a direction (to take the photoshyntesis exemple, studies pointed to
a global understanding that it exist and globally how it works and is
thus taught in schools).
That's how we have a base for further studies, but of course the science
behind it is not settled. And it is when enough studies find that
previous ones where lacking that the theory and thus the consensus
behind it is debated or approved further with modifications according to
the studies following the baseline found."
I agree, when it comes to climate change we are lacking a lot as the environment is complex. Sticking to photosynthesis (I pick this because my friend gave a talk on this and this is his research project that is very interesting) we do not understand the quantum nature of it and as we look deeper in it is it unclear how energy can reach a reaction center at a high probability in a short time scale (femtosecond) with so much noise involved. If we expand that to all of nature than the evolution process is complex. What makes people think the environment cannot involve?
"The effect climate change will have on the environment: here I find you
overly skeptical, we do have temperature trend data, true alarmistic go
too far with the effects it could have in the future, but we can still
corelate that to what we have nowadays (warmer sea, level rising for
exemple) "
I do not deny the data, and very few do. The questions remain. How much is man playing a role, and is it even bad? But few are denying the data as the data is there. What it all means is the question.
"The effect climate change will have on the environment: here I find you
overly skeptical, we do have temperature trend data, true alarmistic go
too far with the effects it could have in the future, but we can still
corelate that to what we have nowadays (warmer sea, level rising for
exemple)
"
I agree 100% to that. I am not suggesting that it is a non-issue. It is, and we should keep looking into it. But we have to stop the fear mongering. In reality climate change has been discussed for decades. Simply looking at movies like Waterworld and Mad Max, the issue existed. In the early 90s there was a kid show called Dinosaurs that talked about the issue of pollution and climate change and how evil businesses were doing it, it was the episode called "Changing Nature". That was 23 years ago. That is a problem I have, the constant fear mongering which stirs up emotions and does away with logic and reasoning.
" And is it even bad? Economicaly, yes"
In some ways. Forcing people to lose their jobs is also bad economically. That is why this is such a touchy subject as taxes are going to up and jobs will be lost.
"That's trust between scientists of different fields"
Eh, I beg to differ at times. For the most part yes. But I will admit there has been some disagreement with biologist and o-chemists vs the physical scientists. Rutherford is science is either physics or stamp collecting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"it seems beyond obvious that liberal states and people fare better in life across numerous statistical categories."
No data shows that as that is a very vague conclusion.
" States that vote Democratic are empirically more well-off than
Republican states in terms of their GDP, per-capita income, even disease
rates and domestic violence rates.."
Again, nothing says that is true.
"most of the nation's scientists live or work in blue states, damn near
every highly creative musician or artist or filmmaker or novelist does
as well(or do you think art is for queers?), and finally...the most
successful and cutting-edge businesses in this nation, the ones that
will be what allows America to thrive in the future, are overwhelmingly
located in blue states."
For several reasons beyond politics. Also, they are mainly the only ones that can afford to live there. Look at CA, they have the highest Gini coefficient in the US. The second highest is NY.
"And...when you look at demographic trends, young people are leaving red states by droves."
Again, nothing shows that is the case.
"If this nation was split in two today...one side conservative the other
liberal, it is simply an objective empirical fact that on day one...the
liberal side would be a potent world-power with an emphasis on culture,
creativity, human rights for all, secularism, technological progress,
the importance of education and critical thinking skills, laws based on
empathy and ethics...and would be on par with many Nordic countries. "
Not really. Nothing points to that being true.
"So....can we stop with the nonsense about how blue states are "running into the ground" or whatever meme people use?"
"Blue states" have major problems.
" Do you care at all what objective statistical evidence, both sociological and economic, show empirically to be the case? "
Many do. But in reality liberals tend not to. They tend to go off of emotions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Carl Smith On question 1: The reason why is because of the payroll tax. Paying with benefits such as stock options, a company car, and healthcare insurance is tax free. With a payroll tax if a business wants to give a higher wage they will have to pay a higher tax.
So what you get is people getting a generic plan that they don't need, like women getting a plan that pays for viagra. Or a business refusing to pay for contraceptives.....sound familiar? Also, people have a harder time switching jobs because that will mean switching plans and they might not get it due to pre-existing conditions.....again, sound familiar?
A better option would be for people to get a higher wage and buy a plan they want. Making insurance companies compete which will lower the price and have it so they develop plans that cater to their consumers. That will make insurance better.
Question 2: Healthcare costs are high because of lack of competition. If insurance companies had to compete they will lower prices causing doctors to lower prices. Also, some forms of care don't need insurance. I get physicals and STD check up yearly because it is, in my mind, the right thing to do. My insurance pays for it. I could, instead have healthcare providers compete to where they will provide a better service at a lower price.
There is a place for insurance, as in expensive surgery or emergencies. Just like car insurance covers an accident. But it doesn't cover an oil change.
LASIK is not tied to insurance at all. It has become better and cheaper throughout the years.
We have to bring back competition in healthcare. The payroll tax killed it. Once again showing how the federal government breaks everything it touches.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Michael P You didn't explain how Social Security works because the fact is that it doesn't. It is running out of money.
If college education is "free" is will be worse off for several reasons. As is we are short handed professors, we have large classroom sizes and lack resources for all students. If you make it "free" you will increase enrollment. So how you are going to make up for the fact that we lack professors, classrooms, resources etc. already? I work for a university and I see it first had that we have too many students and not enough resources. This is why when college loans came tuition went up, it made up the difference for lack of resources. Demand for college went up but supply stayed the same.
People right now are fine on social security, but in the future it will go bankrupt. This is predictable under major socialist programs, the resources run out. I don't care about now, I care about the future. On poverty-poverty as a whole was dropping, as I said social security had nothing to do with it.
I have researched Sanders' plans, they are not specific. Give me any one of his economic policies and I will actually break them down and how who they simply won't work. The best was when he was debating Douglas Holtz-Eakin on the min. wage and Bernie was harping on Walmart and nothing but Walmart. But when Douglas start getting into more specifics and tried to steer Bernie away from Walmart he refused to acknowledge the question and went back to Walmart. He had zero specifics. If you break down his arguments you see that he has no clue what he is talking about.
Give me any economic policy of Bernie Sanders and I will break it down showing how ignorant he is.
And I read your comment on Social Security, you simply said "it works" without specifics. It is running out of money, that is not a sign of it working.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Michael P Redistribution of the wealth did not come after the war. Nobody paid those high taxes. In 1967 there were 155 individuals earning over $200,000 that year that paid zero income tax. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 came about which introduced the alternative minimum tax that exists today.
What happen after the war is that the entire world was rebuilding except for us. Now decades later the socialist policies put in place along with the progressive federal income tax are all coming back to bite us in the butt.
After Glass Steagall we still had recessions. We had at least 7. Recessions happen, you just never notice because when the federal politicians sit back and do nothing we recover fast. When they panic and do what Obama did recently or FDR did in the past and spend like crazy, increase taxes and regulations the recovery is slow. Noticed how when Glass-Steagall was passed we had the slowest recovery ever?
"So the possibility of maybe getting laid off from your job is a good enough reason to deny all the other people a livable wage?"
It happens. Plus refrain from using the phrase "livable wage" as it is subjective and means nothing.
Jobs overseas will happen. Granted the federal government is speeding up the process which is not good, but it will happen. Technology and innovation and progress replaces jobs. The tractor replaced many farm workers. Computers replace many jobs. If you want jobs then remove technology. Wealth is key though, not jobs.
Workers always demand a higher wage, but we can't artificially raise them. And no, corporations simply can't afford them. Plus most people are employed by small businesses, so corporations is not the only issue. You need to stop focusing all your attention on them.
" But so far there is no evidence suggesting that higher wages creates a worse situation than we are in already."
Artificially high wages do, even Paul Krugman admits that.
"Nothing about giving people more money makes the country worse."
Tell that to the people in Zimbabwe.
" If you find excuses to not give people higher minimum wages, free
education and affordable or free healthcare, you are basically saying
"fuck you im doing fine. "
No, I want high quality at an affordable price, you just want an affordable price.
"You keep saying "due to the federal government" college is more
expensive, but you need to make a correlation other than just saying it."
Look at the college loans they give out. That drove up the cost.
"And the involvement, until you can prove otherwise, has not cost you more on your tax returns. "
Everything the federal government touches break, that is a fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Michael P You have to look at how the market evolves. As a healthy market evolves things get better and cheaper. Computers, cell phones, cars (before cash for clunkers), LASIK surgery and so on have all gotten better and gotten cheaper. They are also areas of the market where the federal government has not touched.
The federal government touched college tuition with college loans. Tuition is going up despite more colleges and universities being open and more online courses being available. With college loans you remove the buyer/seller negotiation. The student pulls out a loan and the university jacks up the prices. They have no resistance because the buyer is not spending their money directly, they are paying by a guaranteed loan.
On healthcare, in the 40s if an employer were to pay an employee higher wages they will have to pay higher taxes. To avoid that they paid by healthcare benefits, 100% tax free. A better option for the employee would be to get a higher wage and buy their own insurance. Buying their own insurance would mean a longer time on one thus removing the part of pre-existing conditions. Also they can negotiate insurance prices and get a plan that works for them, so no more women paying for viagra or men paying for contraceptives.....does some of this sound familiar?
Instead the employee has either the choice of paying out of pocket for healthcare and thus earning less or getting it from their job. They get it from their job and as a result they get a generic plan that insurance companies know they have a guaranteed customer, thus prices go up. And when that employee goes to another job they are denied insurance due to being older and a pre-existing condition being present. The federal government removed competition and negotiation which led to price increases.
Federal welfare is a disaster. What it does is that it says to one group of people, the rich that they are earning too much based off of nothing. So they tax them more. The poor, according to the government says they are earning too little, once again based off of nothing. So they take from those who actually work and develop wealth and give to those that don't. That devalues money. As a result those who actually work demand more money and get it. That is why we are seeing income inequality grow. The top 10% earned 40% of the income but paid 70% of taxes. They are doing not only work for themselves but work for 30% of people in the US. They will demand more and get it making them richer and the poor worse off.
1
-
+Michael P Those things are not regulated by the government, not at all. You may split hairs and talk about honest advertising, but that covers everything. But they are not regulated by the government at all and are not subsidized by the government at all. If you can't get the fact right than we can't even get to opinions yet.
"People need student loans to get through school"
Says who?
". Partly because our wages have stagnated because employers stopped giving raises"
I showed you why they don't give many raises, plus with decreasing prices we have more disposable income. You never factor that in.
" the wealth gap increased and the top ten percent took more of the wealth, "
There is always a wealth gap in a healthy economy. Wealth does not equal income.
"I hear your theories on healthcare. Show me an example of this happening and working right now."
I showed you. LASIK is not touched by the government at all, or insurance companies. It is strictly buyer/seller negotiation. LASIK has improved and gotten cheaper. Healthcare has gotten more expensive.
"My business thrives when middle and working class families make more money and are able to save more money."
But if your customers were to get more money you will not have enough supply thus you will have to raise prices.
"when they stopped getting wage increases"
Stop with the wage increase. I told you how you are wrong on that already. Are you even reading what I write?
"It is not "based off nothing""
It is though. The market determines what someone is worth, not some figure head called the government.
I agree, the middle class is struggling in some ways, you can blame the federal government for that. It has been getting it's hands in more and more things every year, things are not getting better, but you want more of it?
" the ten percent getting richer does not benefit me as much as the bottom 10 percent getting richer, let alone the bottom 90."
That is not true. Where do you think all you technology and innovation comes from? That middle to lower class guy in his home or that guy in the 10% (the 10% is over $350,000 a years BTW, not millionaires).
"A tax on Wall Street would do this country some good."
And what do you do when that runs out of money?
"Some more socialism without the excess of greed could do some good."
We have socialism, those pushing for more now are refusing to work and demand more which creates income inequality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Glen, we don't have the money. Even at that we also lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, class rooms, equipment, time and so on. How do you expect to provide tuition free college when we lack resources? You, like Bernie and his other supporters, are stuck looking at dollars. You are not looking at the real goods and services that need to be available in order for these programs to work.
So no, we can't afford tuition free college unless we lower the quality of it. Just like K-12 public education where we have building falling apart, low quality of teachers and so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You pew research link did not lead me to anything.
"pay around 50% of income taxes but again you are attempting to extrapolate quantity
for percentage rather than individual taxes which is what everyone is
referring too. Is that to hard of a concept for you to understand?"
What are you referring to? To be honest I am not understanding what you are saying. The fact is that the rich do pay most of the federal income taxes in the US. Is that "fair"? Why not push for a flat tax? Or what I support, a tax on the states at the federal level? It seems like you want to just raise taxes on the rich because you feel they don't pay enough for some arbitrary reason.
"How is that another discussion? That is major issue in taxes and why so
many people are able to escape taxes. The reality is, there should be no
way for corporations to escape taxes, and that means the rich people
running them should not be able to escape either."
Pre-1913, minus a few years of a temporary tax, no individual or corporation paid any federal taxes. Why should corporations pay federal taxes to begin with? You seem like you just want to tax them but failed to give a reason why.
" If individually every person except for the person making a trillion dollars paid 100% taxes,"
Who is expecting a 100% tax anyone?
" and the person making 1 trillion dollars pays 1% taxes, the 1 person quantity wise has paid more taxes overall however
this is where your failure in critical thinking comes in which makes me
doubt your "degree" that you claim to have. Each individual in taxes
pays far more % wise compared to the person making a trillion dollars."
Well you are suggesting that everyone pays a 100% tax rate which no one is suggesting for anyone. Say we have a flat tax of 20%. What percent does everyone pay? 20%. That's it. I really don't know where you are getting at with this 100% tax rate. What I suggested at the federal level was either a tax on the states or a flat tax. But, what we have now is the that top 10% earn 40% of the income but pay 70% of the taxes. If it were really fair the top 10% will pay only 40% of the taxes since they earn only 40% of the income.
Also, for that one person to have that $1 trillion they most likely produced something that the vast majority of the 100 wanted and were willing to pay for. That is how they got their money.
"It doesn't matter what the person did, the point is taxes are suppose to be fair,"
I agree. So the top 10% should only be paying for 40% of the federal taxes.
" Does a doctor get lower taxes for saving lives?"
No, but they shouldn't be taxed more which they are now.
"The fact that you keep saying this is so shocking, Bernie isn't saying
everything can be free. What he is saying is rich do not pay their fair
share,"
But, in reality the rich pay more than their fair share.
" Someone making 50k should not pay more taxes(Percentage wise) than someone making 50 million"
Which I agree. In fact the opposite is happening.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here are the top 10 by state
VT
VT
WY
WY
ME
ME
SD
HI
DE, OR (tie)
ND
Ok, now states by population
WY
VT
AL
ND
SD
DE
MT
RI
MI
NH
7 of those senators resides in states with small populations (VT, WY,
SD, DE, ND)
Now by demographics, percent white
VT 96%
ME 95%
NH 94%
WV 94%
IA 92%
ID 92%
WY 91%
MN 90%
ND 90%
Do some of those states look familiar?
Now to crime. States with the lowest crime rates
VT
ME
WY
NH
VA
KY
ID
UT
RI
MN
VT, ME and WY are the three states with the lowest amount of crime. VT
ME and WY are 1, 2 and 7 in terms of percentage of whites, and WY, VT
are the two smallest states by population. but yet the six most popular
senators reside VT, ME and WY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sdrawkcabgnipytmi
Politicians don't influence international journals, I never said they did. What I am saying is that scientists say one thing and politicians say something completely different.
Journals I read are PCCP, RSC, JPC A,B,C and Let, (mostly B since it is more directed towards my research), Biochemistry, Chem. Phys., JACS, those are the ones off of the top of my head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To expand and to give you an example of what I mean by 100% being covered but the quality being low, but 90% being covered by the quality is high, I will use a topic I know very well, education. I work in education and I teach at the college level.
We can offer college education to all. In order to do so we will have to expand classroom sizes, offer more online courses, hire lower quality professors and TAs, create a less personal environment with students and instructors and peers and so on. Is that a high quality education? No. But everyone has it.
Or, we can have a system where less have access, such as say 70% (using a low number). But the quality is high so the vast majority of that 70% are highly educated and skilled now. That grows the economy and society better. Sure you have 30% who are no going to do well, but some of them can break through if one of the 70% offers to charities, offers to help them in some way or so on. But just because we provide something to more people does not mean that is a success. Holding society back by regressing them to the norm is no a win.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Angel Castillo, you are right in some ways, but the democrats are worse. But on the military that is
1. constitutional
2. serves everyone
3. they train those workers and are discipline
On education, if you think you need the government to educate you than you are clearly not educated yourself.
"And also the government works FOR the people and BY the people."
And I totally agree. Now how do we do that? To me we do it by keeping government as local as possible which is what Trump wants. The more local government is the more you can see if it is serving you and remaining the servants as opposed to the masters. You have more control of local governments. At the federal level I bet you complain about Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Now can you vote for them? No (or at the very very least only one). I don't like Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders, and I can't vote for them, so I don't want them running my life.
The founding fathers set up state rights for a reason and a Constitution to limit government. There is a desire to have government, but we must control it. You, like all liberals, are complaining about what Trump and the Republicans are doing. Well, you created this with Obamacare, now you are getting a taste of our own medicine. Republican said keep healthcare as a state issue. You did not listen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Angel Castillo, the military is for the purpose. There is always conflict with other countries. We are in a position where we solve conflict off of the battlefield without violence. Thinking that we just go to war displays ignorance on what is really going on.
"second I never said that government should be in charge of our everyday life"
I know, but you do want it to be in charge of many components of it.
"but they have control over the funding that is necessary to improve programs,"
If they are going to pick up the tab they are going to control it, period. That means they control you unless you control the government. Also, the federal government has a long history of breaking everything it touches.
"Third, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are already an embarrassment within their own party"
But they keep winning and you can't vote for them. So what's your point? Also, on top of that, you typically can't write other representatives. I was going to write Bernie Sanders an email but I could not because I did not live in his district. So much for controlling the government and government of the people and for the people.
"which later somehow they backtrack on because "reasons" even though they
have full control of the Senate and House of Representatives as well
with the Executive Branch (President)"
Remember Obama's first term?
"Last, most liberals are progressives so for you to say that in a negative tone is surprising,"
They are "progressives".
"because you sound like a person who does his/her research but somehow it
always ends with Democrats are the only ones that have fucked up, how
about denounce both the Democratic and Republican parties"
I do denounce both, democrats are just more extreme now. They have become irrational and over emotional. They deny facts and act like the over emotional religious right used to act a couple decades ago. It is pathetic.
In 1994 Bill Clinton and Herman Cain had a discussion on Bill's healthcare law. Clinton ran through numbers with Cain and has logic behind his argument. While I agreed with Cain in the end, I respected Bill. Now here we are 23 years later and when Bernie Sanders was approached with the same question by a small business owner he said "it is 2017, you should pay for their healthcare". No numbers, no concern for her if she could afford it, nothing. Just do it or fail, that was his mentality. And that is the mentality of the left. Their mentality is they will pass laws and if you can't work with them you will fail and live off of the government. And their only argument against Trump was that he is a racist and sexist with no actual proof.
The left has become too radical. They need to act like Bill Clinton acted or they will continue to lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ZoommaiR, it is a flawed study. Here is a short analysis I wrote on it.
I took the time to read the study. At the start they display their bias
with this
"Trump’s lack of support among people
of color and his popularity among white subgroups with less tolerant
attitudes (such as whites
without college degrees)"
Just because you do not have a college degree does not mean you have a
"less tolerant attitude". They make that claim but do not link any
psychological or sociological study to it.
"Moreover, Trump’s call for law and order in the context of discussing
urban
unrest"
How is this race related? Urban is not a race.
"While previous work has shown that racial attitudes predict support for
Donald Trump"
Again, none listed. As someone who writes peer reviewed work in
academics this is a perfect time to list such work.
"Given the unusually racialized nature of Trump’s campaign"
How was his campaign racialized?
"Given his clear racial and ethno-nationalist appeals—for example, about
President Obama’s country of origin, his support for a Muslim ban, the
state of the African American community, and negative comments about
Mexicans"
I agree, Trump pushing the birther idea was asinine, but not racist.
There wasn't a Muslim ban. The "state of the African American community"
is nothing on him. And his "negative comments about Mexicans" were
towards illegal immigrants.
The fact they used only 764 people makes for a small sample size. They
failed to include the ages, income level, education attainment (even
though they mentioned it as a variable in the introduction),
geographical location, etc. of the people sampled.
This is coming from mainly the first half of the "study". I find this
to be bias and poorly done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SomeRandon
Money out of politics: Money in politics is nothing more than a symptom of a disease. That disease is the federal government having too much power that we cannot control. Limit the powers of the federal government, give more powers to the states, and create more checks and balances with that process. Also, if the federal government is so corrupt, why do you want it to run your education and healthcare?
Universal health care: This is simply not possible due to our lack of doctors, nurses, surgeons, researchers, etc. If you want more healthcare for people then push for more people to become doctors and nurses. Do not reward failure by increasing the min. wage. People want high quality healthcare to as many people as possible. Understanding reality does not make one stupid.
Raise the min. wage: This has never benefited anyone
Affordable education: People support this, but we also have to keep the quality high. Placing 500+ students in one room and placing a warm body in front of them to lecture things straight out of a textbook is not an education. But that is what you leftists are pushing for.
The big issue, though, is that you are strawmanning. You feel that if we do not support your stance then we are against education and healthcare and hate poor people. That is simply not true. The reality is that we understand that you just can't magically creating these things out of thin air. We have a waiting list for organs for example. Does is that because they are just sitting there in the freezer and the government just needs a law to distribute them? Or maybe we just lack them? Which is it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pinkies Out, here is the problem. We do not have a free market system. In a free market system people can negotiate prices. Now you may say with healthcare we do not that ability to shop around when something extreme happens, and I will agree. Healthcare is inelastic with demand at times. But that is what insurance is for.
With insurance we lack a free market system. Why? Because of the payroll tax. Well over half of the country, as in over 60%, receive their healthcare through their employer. Why? Because paying with benefit is a tax free way to pay employees where a higher wage means a higher tax thanks to the payroll tax. Because of that people rely on their employer for healthcare insurance and since insurance is a form of payment insurance has become healthcare. Instead of allowing people to earn a higher wage, shop for a plan that suits them that only pays for expensive, unplanned events like an accident, healthcare insurance pays for all of healthcare.
Certain things should be paid for out of pocket as it can be planned. Eye exams, pregnancies, routine checkups, etc. If insurance did not cover that insurance prices will drop. Also, if people paid for those things out of pocket the price will drop. LASIK is a prime example in that happening.
If people bought their own plans then insurance companies will have to compete and people can get plans they want. That will lower prices even more. Fact is we do not have any of that. Insurance is a form of payment at at job, thus it becomes healthcare. The consumer does not see the cost of healthcare, only the insurance companies do. The consumer cannot choose their plans as the employer does. Thus healthcare providers and insurance companies can just jack up the prices as no one is there to stop them.
Now those on the left will say government can stop that, but providers will just lower quality as now the people are dependent on the government for healthcare. The dependency goes from business to government.
Giving the people negotiating power is key. They don't have it which leads to high cost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fl00fydragon,
1. People like the interpersonal connection. Also, education is expanding. College enrollment is going up. There is an increased demand for tutors, professors, administration, etc. There will always be a need for secretaries. In retail there will always be a need for workers there. If I need my car fix I will go to a mechanic and consult them. In many fields there will always be a need for people. If a computer replaces someone at the checkout aisle in a store than that person who could have worked there will go off to another job. They can stock shelves making the store look more attractive, or work at another company as a secretary.
There will always be jobs.
2. I looked at monopolies, they were created by government. If a monopoly is created in the free market and survives then they simply offered great goods/services and jobs. If not people would eventually change the situation either by someone creating another company or by people moving. That has always happened.
What goes on in Europe is actually the free market. They have lower corporate taxes and they give more freedom to the businesses.
You bring up the outside force. The outside force is another company and the consumers deciding how to change. Again, Amazon challenged Walmart. Netflix challenged Blockbuster. Pepsi challenge Coke. Government creates monopolies, the free market prevents them.
3. What experts? You have not provided any.
a) If they are alive they are paid a "living wage".
b) I should be using "labor force participation rate"
By the definition in FRED
"The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. The labor force participation rate is teh labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population"
Sorry for the confusion. Under Obama it was dropping. Now we are seeing a slight increase.
Again, learn basic facts.
c) Huh?
I answered all your points. You cannot get basic facts correct.
To answer your question I will say that there will always be jobs. That is the reality. If we ever get to a system where computers replaced every worker than we are essentially living in a utopia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"PS., if small companies can't handle the min wage increase, I don't care. Those businesses had margins too low and would have failed from any number of things, "
You are literally supporting large corporations when you say that. Many businesses work on thin profit margins where larger businesses have more resources to do with less until the market stabilizes.
For example, a small diner will have no choice but to close down. A owner of say 11 McDonalds in a city can shut down 3 of them and thus still have 8.
This brings me to my next point. The idea that if you raise the min. wage that nothing will change is correct to a degree, but it isn't that simple. You are assuming that prices across the board, including the price of labor, will just increase evenly, you use the example of a nurse for that. However, it isn't that simple. If the min. wage gets doubled nurses wages are not going to double. They may go up 50%, but not 100%. Also, many companies will offset the cost by cutting hours as I showed you with the McDonalds example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To add
"Our study has several limitations. We examined three expansion states,
and the results are largely driven by the largest (New York), so our
results may not be generalizable to other states"
"The mortality data set did not allow us to control for individual-level
characteristics other than race, sex, and age (e.g., socioeconomic
status or health status with respect to specific chronic diseases). We
had to impute values for small subsamples after stratification according
to county, race, sex, and age, although the results were robust with
different imputation approaches."
"Most important, our analysis is a nonrandomized design and cannot definitively show causality. "
"Alternatively, states may choose to expand Medicaid when their economies
are thriving, and economic prosperity broadly improves coverage and
access, which could produce a spurious association between eligibility
expansions and health"
Again, read your own source. They even admit flaws. There are many factors that play a role in life expectancy beyond healthcare.
" and it would thus take extraordinary evidence to convince a rational individual of the opposie"
And I am waiting for that evidence. Having access to high quality healthcare will mean higher life expectancy, I would agree. But you are leaving out the quality. And also, just because the government offers healthcare coverage does not mean it will be of high quality.
Again, think about this. There are many moving parts and anyone who is intelligent, such as the writers of that paper you gave me, understand that. That is why they said "may" and expressed their limitations in their data.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Money is speech. As long as there is no quid pro quo there is nothing illegal about it. People can support candidates either by rallying for them, posting signs, wearing buttons, dedicating an entire youtube channel to them, or by donating money. Yes, rich people have more to give, but certain media outlets, like TYT, have more air time and a larger following to advertise to.
If you ban money in politics because of campaign donations then you go down the route of forcing CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, and even TYT and the Daily Wire to give equal air time to each candidate because they are large networks and should not influence elections like that. That is also a violation of free speech.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"They are "semi-pro" for a reason. If you are familiar with it, then you would know that they are not on the same level"
Some players are talented at that level. There are also some D-II athletes who get a chance in training camps who are talented. The point is that there is a lot of talent out there and if the current NFL players want to quit than fine, others will replace them easily.
"The stars sell the merch., not simple "players"."
And how many stars are there? And how many will be willing to quit? In the Texans incident only one was a pro bowler from what I saw. Only one of the ten, and where does his jersey sell rank?
"The owners are NOTHING without the players, that's a fact. "
Not true. I listed owners who have investments outside of the NFL. And the fact remains that if those players want to quit they will find new ones. The NFL does not seem to be missing a beat with Kaepernick being gone.
"And again, if you're "so familiar" with semi pro ball, of any kind, then you should know that the stadiums never sell out, and the fan base is thin, kind of akin to a handful of locals at the local bar.........."
So? The NFL makes money off of TV contracts. Just having that label of NFL increases sales by a lot.
"And as long as the owners are making a fortune selling merch,"
They make the majority of their money off of TV contracts.
Fact is the owners will be fine, the players won't. Without the NFL the players will have no where to go. There is not organization as large and organized as the NFL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
imnodog, when you understand what wealth is you realize it is not a major issue. The 1% own their wealth through shares of their company. Bezos owns most of Amazon. He is not hoarding homes, food, water, oil, etc. He owns most of the shares of Amazon. In reality those shares of Amazon are worthless to a poor person in Ethiopia as they are in a position in needing food and water now. If you were to give that person in Ethiopia shares of Amazon they would be wealthier on paper, but they are not investors. They don't have time to invest it, generate, income, and then buy things.
This is why these numbers are deceptive. There is a lot to them. But go ahead, take Bezos shares of Amazon and give it to poor people in Ethiopia. Give them those slips of paper. They have zero understanding of investment. But go ahead and do it. You will make them wealthier on paper, but are you really making them better off?
1
-
1
-
imnodog, shares are worth something only to investors. Shares are worth a lot to me and you and others who can invest. But to someone in Ethiopia they are worthless. It is not food, water, oil, etc. They are nothing more than slips or paper or numbers on a screen.
If you sell shares and get the money that does not increase the amount of food, water, oil, homes, etc. in society. So even if you sell your shares and give the money away to feed the hungry you did not solve anything. Someone still has to produce that food. Someone still has to deliver it. And in the long run you really need to educate those people so they can feed themselves. It isn't as easy as "give them the money". The resources and knowledge is not there.
What makes these companies valuable is that they provide long term benefits towards society. They give people jobs, they produce goods and services for people to consume. That is why those shares are worth a lot. If you just took all the shares of Amazon and sold it for money you essentially destroy Amazon. That means no more jobs, no more wealth create. If you give that money to someone who is poor they will not invest it.
This is why the whole wealth inequality talking point is very deceptive. It isn't that simple. You can't just sell shares, get money and then feed the hungry. You have to understand why those shares are so valuable to begin with. You also have to understand that someone still has to produce the food and you have to look at long term investment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
imnodog, no, I am taking conversation down to where it needs to go. You started with a political, appeal to emotion talking point. That talking point is empty as it requires a lot of details which I am providing. Is there wealth inequality? Yes. Now what does it mean.
On your first paragraph. The bank will have enough money for me as I don't have much in the bank. However, it won't have enough for everyone as it is required to loan out the money and hold onto only around 10%. This creates what is called the "inverted pyramid". Now a bank can retain more money through other banks or the Fed if needed, but that will only occur during dire economic times. That is where the Fed becomes the lender of last resort. So there is a lot to it.
Next, to say that money has no value is true to a degree. But you have to realize where it obtains its value. It obtains it by being invested in the market. When it is invested in a way to generate wealth and value in the market then the money increases in value. A reason why people become rich is because they invest their money wisely to generate wealth. Many don't thus they do not become rich. Investors can take that money and buy shares of a company to have that money grow by shares increasing in value. It is a form of investment where I put my money in a bank to collect interest. In the end, though, it is not food, water, oil, etc. It is just money on a screen. I will agree with you on that. But in our nation and in our monetary system it has value. However, in Ethiopia for one person, or even a group of people it doesn't. And giving money to a homeless person on the US does not increase value of money as they are poor with money. Harsh reality is they are poor for a reason.
"no one is saying people should give shares to the poor, you brought it
up as an example only. I only made an argument before about selling
shares to show you how they have value, no one is making that argument
though."
Fine, then why complain about wealth inequality? That is where most of their wealth in the 1% comes from. To add in the US a home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. A home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Now are they starving to death? Are they in terrible shape? No. They are fine. That is why there is no "revolution" on this wealth inequality issue. The vast majority do not care to be like the Walton family and own half of Walmart. That is why the Walton family is so wealthy.
So unless you demand to give up their shares, what is your point in bringing up wealth inequality, especially in relation to hunger?
"sure, they pay most of their work force minimum wage and provide people
with goods that their workforce probably can't pay to have themselves."
This is a different topic but Walmart pays above the min. wage. Many jobs pay the min. wage are small businesses. Why don't you attack them? Why attack Walmart? Why aren't you attacking Hy Vee or Raleys? They are both retail stores as well. Even at that they still gave people jobs and offer a convenient way for others to buy goods. You complaining about them paying a wage you deem to be too low is you literally saying "if they don't pay higher they should not be hiring at all". So if a company does not pay enough, according to you, should they just not hire people? Never mind the fact that they cannot afford higher wages. They offered people a job that could not find work anywhere else. You see that as a problem?
"Now I don't know much about shares and investments, but I'm pretty sure
people buy/sell stocks all the time. You give monetary value to own a
little bit of something, that's how stocks work, correct? So people sell
shares all the time, how is Amazon still standing?"
That to is a whole different discussion in itself. However, it again comes down to what I mentioned earlier. Shares are not food, oil, homes, etc. They are a form of investment where the market and the people involve value it.
"no it ain't"
It is. This is why there isn't an uprising on the streets. This is why Bernie's "revolution" never took off. This is why OWS died off. It isn't a big deal. Most people just want to mind their own business. They have their families, homes, cars, careers, etc. Just because Bezos is rich does not mean others are suffering. In fact he became wealthy by making other lives' easier.
"no one is arguing to sell shares, they're probably arguing to tax the rich more..."
The rich are already paying the vast majority of taxes. And why tax them more? What do you gain?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I make a claim, you should refute my claim, not refute something I am not claiming."
I am refuting your claim. The discussion is wealth inequality. I am showing you why wealth inequality exists, why it isn't a major issue, and how you can't compare it to world hunger.
"you didn't understand what I said, I don't care how much money you got
in the bank, the bank does not have the money to pay everyone because
the money isn't real, it's just digits on the screen..."
A bank is required to, by law, hold a certain about of currency. It is around 10% of the deposits. This is mandated by the Fed. The idea is what is called the "inverted pyramid" where banks loan out funds to people to invest in the economy and keep it running. But it has funds for those who want cash.
"I never said money has no value, I said money isn't real. The value of it is
real. you have some reading comprehension issues. My example using
money is only to show that something that ins't real can have value,
just like stocks..."
If you want to say that then fine. But at that point you have to understand what money is and why it exist which is another topic in itself.
"such a simple way of looking at things. People who become rich
are outliers. in reality if you are born rich chances are you will die
rich, if you are born poor chances are you will die poor. there aren't
many people who are born poor becoming rich. This is because the
capitalist system isn't fair or just. A poor individual has no money to
invest, no education to progress..."
This is another topic that has a lot to it. For example, you have the nature vs nurture argument. Being born poor or rich can influence your future lifestyle. Being raised a certain way contributes to that, or your genetic makeup. Capitalism has little to do with that. You are, again, taking a complex issue and limiting it down to an appeal to emotion talking point. In this case it is capitalism and how it isn't "fair".
"okay, let me try to write this in a simple way; stocks have value, the rich have stocks therefore they have wealth. this doesn't mean I think we should give stocks to the poor.."
Ok, than what's your point in complaining about wealth inequality?
"homes are tangible things, money and stocks aren't... A very wealthy
person does not have 60% of their wealth in their homes, your using a
bad example."
I agree a wealthy person does not have 60% of their value tied into their home, they have it in stocks. Are you now seeing where wealth inequality comes from?
"lol, did you just say the Walton family is so wealthy because the vast
majority of people do not care to be like the Walton family?"
Do you want to run a major business like Walmart? I sure don't. I know many that don't.
"no one is asking people to give up their shares, they're asking to raise taxes."
What's the difference?
"it seems 42% of workers get paid less than $15.00 US an hour."
Ok, and? To start, I do not believe that stat. Next, how many work part time? How many have a spouse who is well off? How many are kids who live with parents? What is the cost of living where they reside? I am technically in that 42%, I am fine. Again, you can't just throw vague statements out there.
"no it ain't. you made a claim that Amazon would be worthless if people
sell their shares, I'm only pointing out people do that on a daily
basis."
I was referring to Jeff Bezos giving it to a homeless person who then sells it for pennies on the dollars. There is a difference between free buying and selling and giving it away. You support the latter. You literally said you want to tax them more which is taking their money. This is not an argument against taxes, it is an argument in how you see someone you see as wealthy and wanting to tax them more when they have shares, not income.
"most people in the US aren't in their worst of the worst, they can get
by on the little they get so they become complacent. This isn't true for
the rest of the world though."
Globally is a completely different situation that is even more complex. How do you tackle the situation in Chad with multiple religions, languages and cultures? Look the diversity there. Their literacy rate is less than 50%.
"proportionally they pay the least."
Again, more to it than that. Many of the rich pay 50% of their income in taxes.
"lol, you have written way to much to say that is a long answer,
I'll take that as a none answer, and this will be my last answer to you.
You're not an honest player here for me to continue to waste my time
on.
"
This is a complex issue and you wanted a discussion. I gave you one. To simplify this issue with simple talking points is very dangerous.
"that's just your bias showing through. peace out."
So poor people all made intelligent decisions with their money but ran into bad luck? That is not true. Why do around 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joshua, using old textbooks is not a problem. Most topics have not change that drastically. As for teachers purchasing supplies, that happens in every job. I have to buy materials for my job. You work at a job you have to buy certain clothes at times. That's life. Buying a car to get to work is arguably buying supplies for work.
As for you teaching your kids, great. Do it. Push them to succeed. You point to physics, calculus, etc. Those are advanced courses. They typically have the best students and thus the bests supplies that don't get destroyed. And a lot of schools don't offer those advanced courses where one can take them in college if they want where people are required to buy their own materials.
I support teachers, but in the end it is a part time job compared to most jobs on the market. You become a teacher with the desire to teach, not to become rich. Also, a harsh reality people have to understand is that a K-12 education is really not that valuable. You learn the very basics. As I mentioned earlier, topics like physics, calculus, etc. are taught in college. They offer remedial courses.
I am a substitute teacher. I studied education in grad school for a year and understand the issue. I inspired to be a teacher at one point but realized my talents are needed elsewhere. I teach at a university and see the product the K-12 education produces. When I left high school I lacked a lot of skills, but I was taught basic things. I had college to help be progress and remedial courses if needed.
In my opinion the K-12 education needs to be approached differently, and there is not real clear answer in how though. But in the very end a teacher becomes a teacher for their desire to teach and serve the community. They don't do it for the money. I find this strike to be disturbing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Get Social,
1. We have background checks already. And what type of guns will you ban? People are pushing for the AR 15 when a Ruger mini 14 is essentially the same gun. Also, in VA Tech around 30 people were killed with hand guns in that shooting.
As for the UK if you look at the murder rate of the US and the UK the murder rate in the US is 5 times higher. However, if you remove all gun murders from the equation only from the US the US still has a murder rate that is twice as high as the UK. What does that mean? That shows a difference in culture where we have more murders in general for various reasons besides guns. You can't just look at gun laws and murder rates as many factors play in murder rates.
2. I don't blame the kids for being emotional, but they should be seeing a counselor, not the media. As for you saying "tragedies like this happening much too often" what do you base that off of? John Lott did a study where he compared mass shootings in the US to other countries and found that in countries like Norway, Finland and France have more deaths due to mass shootings and a higher rate of mass shootings. He had the US at 12th and 11th in those rankings. How did he come up with that? Well, he factor in population and he looked at mass shootings (that he defined as 4 or more deaths) where the only crime was the shooting. That means if there was a shooting that involved gangs where four people were killed he ruled those out. Why? Because gang activity is illegal and the shooting was targeting people. That is an issue of gangs and comparing a gang shooting, which are isolated and a different topic, to a shooting like what occurred in Florida is not a fair comparison. This shooter was not targeting a particular group but instead was targeting people without discrimination. Does that mean we do not have a problem? No. What it means is that it is not as severe as what others make it out to be.
"What I find to be more sickening is how there are people that refuse to
see the obvious and are treating the kids like nuisances or enemies to
their precious guns."
It is not treating them as enemies but instead calling them out for their lack of respect and inability to have an intelligent, and progressive conversation. This is why nothing will get passed. When one side calls you a child murderer for not agreeing with them you cannot take them seriously. I don't support the murder of anyone, Rubio feels the same way as does the NRA. If you want to have an intellectual conversation you have to treat the other side with respect and be willing to talk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Megan, my "hypothetical question" is something that is logical and is connected to the issue at hand as it involves the business that was involved and the employee. You placed my family in that situation which is appealing to emotions. My question is making you look at the perspective of the business looking at that one employee. A hypothetical question would be "Say your dad ran that business and that truck driver, a few weeks later, cost that company millions?". I would not as that as that is a loaded question and unnecessary and deflects.
"as you're willing to let a stranger die for the sake of a companies bottom line"
People die. Sorry, that happens. If that is surprising to you than you are going to live a hard life. Also, no, I do not support just letting an employee die for a companies bottom line. I want companies to take actions to protect workers. My job does and so do others. The job my dad works at does. They require him to take a shower for one hour before he leaves work due to the lead in the air. They pay for it, but that is what they do to protect him. In the end, though, there lies responsibility on the employee and that is what you have to realize.
"It's only what works for you and your emotions, not the companies best interest you claim to care about."
What emotions? I am coming at this from a rational view. I am putting emotions aside, looking at both parties involved, and going with experience.
"You had no issue if the worker (unknown worker) lost his life, so long as the company didn't lose millions"
Again, who is at fault? Businesses take actions to protect workers, but their lies responsibilities on the workers as well. You have no concern about the business and feel they are completely to blame. I am saying that in this case the truck driver was inexperienced. He should have read a weather report and stopped at a truck stop overnight. They give truck drivers reading material on these things.
"I asked that question to prove you only cared about the companies bottom
line when it's convenient for you. If you truly cared about a companies
bottom line like you claimed, your views would be consistent regardless
of who had to die if it meant a company saved millions."
I told you that if my "love ones" were involved I would want them to do what will keep them alive, but also realize and understand that they will lose their job and they put themselves in that situation. You see the difference? I support the firing of this employee. You don't. I understand how businesses work and why. It is great this man is alive, but he has to realize his actions cost him his job.
I work with class 4 lasers. If I did something to put my life or others in danger I will be fired. If I did something to risk my life, and had to do a hard shut down of the laser which will cost the university hundreds of thousands of dollars, I will walk away unharmed but will be fired as well.
"Just admit you're fine with sacrificing someone elses loved one, just
not someone you care about for the sake of a companies bottom line. "
You are making things up. I never said sacrifice. I said that if you are an employee and you put yourself in a position to cost the company millions and/or are a risk, you will be fired. It does not have to be life or death either.
Why do you hate businesses so much?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zee Risek, stocks are not income. I cannot take stocks and buy bread with it. I can sell it to a buyer and gain income, but now that runs the risk for the buyer of that stock growing or shrinking. If Jeff Bezos were to sell off all of his stocks for, say $100 a piece, there is no guarantee that it would be worth that in 5 years. A new CEO could ruin the value of that company or another company could take over.
As for Zuckerberg, he pays his bills from his company. All of his assets are tied into his company. But as a whole the value of a company differs greatly than the value of money.
"By not paying their fair share of taxes, the tax burden is then put on the poor and middle class, thus causing poverty."
Most of the poor don't pay taxes at all. Also, the reason why stock options are taxed differently is because they differ from income. It is a part of a company that grows, creates jobs and wealth. Taxing it higher can, arguably, lower job creation and wealth creation. That is why businesses can write off business expenses. Now I am all for a simplified tax code federally of a flat income tax and a consumption tax. That will eliminate that issue. Also, define "fair share".
You are complaining about the structure of our tax code and financial system where I can alleviate by creating a federal flat tax and a consumption tax. Or go back to taxing the states based on population like we had pre 1913.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Drake, I have been around football for over 15 years from the youth level on to the professional. There are many benefits to football. Simple point, if a person wants to play it and they understand the risk than why stop them?
There are many activities that people do that are worse for you, and so what? You only live once. Enjoy life. I enjoyed football and I am still active in it as a non-player.
On your points:
1. Many athletes do multiple sports. However, some don't. I did football and track. I was unique as I ran middle distance in track but was a lineman in football. My agility was not great so I did not play basketball. I did not play baseball as I was scared of the ball (baseball is very dangerous as well). Soccer was the same excuse as basketball. So football was my sport. I loved it.
2. We don't need sports for that. Why not just ban sports all together and make everyone exercise for no reason?
3. ". In other words, aside from the quarterbacks, football is about sheer brute strength, weight, and speed"
Not true at all, especially with the emphasis on targeting. I officiate football at the HS and NCAA level. With targeting players are being taught to lower their target zone and reposition themselves quickly. There is a lot of mobility involved that is amazing to see first hand. When you see a division one prospect make and amazing, one handed sideline catch you will know. There is a lot of hand eye coordination and agility.
4. There is a lot of things that make people "a man". I never heard a parent bring this up.
What is great about football is this
1. Almost anyone can play it. You can be big and large and play line. Small and quick and play tail back. Be slow at foot but have a nice arm and play QB. Or have a strong leg and be a kicker. It requires players of different attributes all playing at once.
2. It is a game of amazing strategy. With basketball you can win with one or two players. Put Lebron James on any team and they are a playoff team. You can't have that in football at the higher levels. You have 22 players on the field and you are looking for a lot. As an official I can read defenses and offenses and understand the concept of the game, how coaches coach, how players play, and why they do what they do. For example, if a corner lines up outside of a receiver what does that mean? He has inside help.
You have that other sports as well, but to me football has it more.
3. It is something else that brings diversity to our society. Not everyone wants to play basketball or soccer. Why do you want to take that away from others?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That is not an opinion, its just basic mathematics. "
No, it is incorrect mathematics. You are comparing an average in one variable to the minimum of another. The average life expectancy has grown in the US, but people still die as kids. Why? Because the average is the whole where the minimum is the minimum.
Let me give you some numbers. Here are five numbers
2, 2, 3, 4, 4
What is the average? 3 What is the minimum? 2
Ok, now you have,
1, 1, 10, 15, 18
What is the average? 9 What is the minimum? 1
In the second case you have a lower minimum but a higher average. Are you understanding this simple math lesson?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So, when children are doing something against being killed in heir own schools, that's out of fear. "
Yes, because statistically they will not be shot in schools. Shootings, and gun violence as a whole have been declining for over 20 years. It is living in fear thinking you are in danger going to school, and that danger is so great you have to march to change something.
"But when people who are gun nuts, carry guns it's an acceptance of reality? "
Yes, because while I don't carry my gun due to gun laws preventing me on campus, I am willing to leave my home and know my chances of being shot are very slim. That I can go my entire life and never experience a shooting. However, they can happen, and it is nice to have a safety net.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People do not understand healthcare because it is a complex system. It is 16% of our GDP and in other nations it is around 10% of their's. In comparison in the US education is around 5%, defense is around 4%, housing is around 5%, and so on. Just by the size in our economy one can see how complex it is.
Now consider also the workers in healthcare go to school for years. Around 4 years of undergrad, and then med school of some kind (pharmacy, nursing, etc.), then residency. Add in that in healthcare you are dealing with evolving diseases and a complex human body we know very little about. It is not easy to deal with.
When I hear people, on both sides, talk about healthcare it is annoying as they over simplify it. But it is really annoying hearing the left do it as they feel we can just go to universal healthcare and things would be all better. And their argument is "other countries do it" while ignoring how they do it, what results they have ,their issues they face, and how the system actually works.
I use a "free" healthcare system in the US through my university. It is OK but not great. I use one I have to pay for off campus. It is much better. More personal and catered to me. The "free" one isn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1