Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Houston Flooding Proves We Need A New New Deal" video.

It will cost a lot to replace the drainage. And this is a one time event. "Creating jobs" does not mean a strong economy. The economic illiteracy of Kyle is amazing. No wonder Justice Democrats is not going anywhere.
2
Ok, now how do you do it without shutting down economic flow? We have problems because in some areas it is so busy you can't just shut it down to improve it.
2
Every state needs the federal government to bail them out because the federal government has become too large. Texas is just getting the money that they deserve.
1
Pete Lind, you have some good information, but I also disagree in what you said "Actually nearly all those most flooded states are running deficit budgets collecting less taxes than they use . Only Texas has a surplus and not even that is big when for every dollar they collect as taxes they spend 95 cent ." A lot of states run deficits. It is a problem in our country. It isn't just flood states. "Federal governments Flood Insurance system is in 25 billion debt and 25 % of all money paid out goes to 1 % of the flood victims" Which is a problem which is why I do not support federal programs. These need to be ran by the states. "1968 federal government founded flood insurance and original idea was to either move houses that get flooded or build them higher up ... that has nearly never happened ." That isn't up to the federal government, that is up to the states and local communities. "Its California and NY area that keeps bailing red states out ." That is simply not true. "You cut federal taxes then local and state taxes go up ." I have no problem with that and neither do people in those states. You can see how your money is being spent by the government the more local it is. "Politicians still want to get their salaries no matter how bad the state economy is like in Kansan and Kentucky that both are near bankruptcy" You point to those states but ignore states like CA and Connecticut and inner cities that are just as bad with leftists economic policies. " trickle down economic does not work no matter how many times you try it and than blame left when it fails." "Trickle down economics" is not an economic term. It is a political phrase use by politicians and economic illiterates. Now which one are you? Again, you point to KS and Kentucky, rural states with limited resources to begin with, but ignore CA which has an actual city that is bankrupt.
1
"States that get flooded year after year after year ... have had plenty of time to collect taxes to infrastructure it has not been illegal but republicans priority has been tax cuts to rich people ." States are not getting flooding year after year. Also, the whole "tax the rich" argument is weak. That is very vague and ignores many variables in the economy. And pushing to repair this infrastructure takes more than just throwing money at it. You need engineers and skilled workers to be able to do it which we lack. And we have to negotiate prices with contractors. Just "taxing the rich" and throwing money at it does not solve it. "Most flood walls in USA has been build round US civil war ... thats why they dont work at all now ." Now what is your suggestion in fixing the problem? You are going to have to design a way around major cities that are established. You can't just shut down the city. "FDR and IKE are last president that spend federal money on major projects" FDR created a depression. Also, after WWII federal spending was 14% of GDP, now it is 20%. Defense spending in 1960 was 10% of GDP, now it is less than 4%. The federal government is growing. "Its not federal government thats prevented infrastructure investments it its politicians in state and local level ." The federal government is taking too much tax revenue. "Its like state and local politician are morons or is it just a scam to get federal money ?" Or they have many barriers to go over and can't just snap their fingers and have things done. "Same thing has happen to interstates that was planned to get up keep from fuel taxes that have not been adjusted to inflation since Carter was president ... 18 cent per gallon is too little it should be 54-72 cent per gallon ... wont happen when republicans are insanely stupid ." 3/4 of funding for roads is state and local. Also, how about the government builds a proper freeway at the beginning that does not fall apart so easily. Maybe Democrats are stupid?
1
liquidminds, conservatives are very helpful. They do so with charities as opposed to holding a gun to people's head and forcing them to pay up. There is also a level of responsibility here. These people can get insurance. Continuing to bail out failure, which is what leftists do, is not a way to build a successful society.
1
Charmiskit, defense spending is around 4% of GDP. Healthcare is 1/6 of our GDP. The math doesn't add up.
1
Nonofya, looking at GDP is important as that is the entire economy. Defense spending is all government and because of the constitution it is all federal. Education spending is around 4% of GDP as well which is federal, state and local. If you include private it is much higher. Defense spending is constitution, so having it being a large portion of the federal budget is a must as a lot of federal spending isn't constitutional.
1
" You saying that the military spending is federal and constitutional is not a defense for how ridiculously high it is and what a waste of money that is" It is less than 4% of GDP, that is not high. Also, we spend more on federal social welfare programs which are not Constitutional. The Constitution is the standard for how government is ran in this country. Defense spending is Constitutional, welfare programs are not at the federal level. So yes, defense spending is not that high. "The thing is that there is a federal budget and those funds can be allocated to all sorts of things. How do you justify 28-47% of that going to the military. " Again, it is Constitutional. That is the standard. How do you justify the federal government spending money on other programs? I can get into detail on the many things that are good that the military do, but all I have to say is that it is Constitutional. And yes, we have to use GDP here as it is the universal standard here. You may want the federal government to spend more on education. But when you look at percent of GDP the nation already spends more on education than military. That is because there is only one source of funding for defense, that is the federal government. There are multiple sources for education funding. That is why the federal government does not spend so much money on it. Also, again, the Constitution does not demand it. My standard is the Constitution. Infrastructure comes from many state and local programs. At this point if you want less money going to the military then you should push for lower federal taxes to allow more money to stay with the states. So do you support lower taxes on everyone?
1
Around 70% of firefighters are volunteer.
1
William, is it cheaper? Floods like these do not happen every year. In this case it is cheaper to just let it happen, repair what you want and move one. Also, one problem we have is lack of workers. Like in healthcare where we lack doctors and nurses, here we lack engineers and skilled workers. So it isn't cheap at that point.
1
steelersdadkb, inner city schools receive a lot of money. How about instead of rewarding failure we can reward success and society can improve. We can also call out the people living in inner cities. Why are there so many single mothers?
1
A lot of funding goes to inner city schools. They receive more funding then other schools.
1
Cisco Blue, socialism does not create more engineers and technicians. The problem with Kyle's idea is that we do not have the skilled workers to create more infrastructure in a timely manner. Just throwing money at it does not mean we will get qualified workers. That is why socialism on the large scale never works.
1
Jack Ban, MLK Jr was a preacher and activist, not an economist. In the big picture at the very least his ideas on capitalism is no better than mine. Also, MLK Jr was against abortion, so are you against abortion as well?
1
BlueUncia, getting them from other countries will cost us more money. Also, they do not understand our situation as a whole as in our culture. That does play a role. A problem that engineers run into is that they can't adopt to the culture in designing something. We simply need to push more people in the US to become engineers. We do that by stop rewarding failure.
1
Nonofya, in order to have good infrastructure you need engineers and skilled workers to develop it. We don't because we are a country that rewards laziness. On Medicare for all there is a reason why the US leads the world in research and innovation of healthcare. If you rewards failure and laziness then we will fall behind in that. You talk about saving money but how do you do it when we lack skilled workers? How do you do it without lowering the quality? "Meanwhile the US spends anywhere between 28-48% of the GDP on the military " We spend less than 4% of our GDP. Please learn some facts.
1
"The spending for medicare for all would be cheaper than your alternative by a longshot." But with what quality? You are so concern about it being cheap you ignore the quality.
1
" And what do you think defunding education would do as Global Warming "Skeptic" here is suggesting? " People who pursue engineering degrees are not worries about cost. The payout in the end is high and any loans you get you can pay off easily. Thus cutting education is not an issue at that point. People simply do not want to work at pursuing those degrees. 6 of the top 10 highest earning degrees are engineering degrees. "4% of the GDP. Why are you using the GDP when it comes to budget spendings?!? Using the GDP you can make all other payments seem 6 times as small. What a dishonest way of framing it. That's like saying my taxes are super low when compared to the revenue of the business that employs me. Idiotic and purposefully dishonest. " Because defense spending is 100% federally funding. No private funding and no state and local funding. That is in the Constitution. Other programs such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. comes from various sources, state, local, federal, private, etc. You need a set standard to compare it too and GDP is. It is not a dishonest way of framing it, it is framing it on a set standard. When you look at education we spend more on education than defense compared to GDP when you look at local, state, federal and private. "Nationalpriorities shows a rough breakdown of the average tax dollar. 23.4% go DIRECTLY to the military. " Which is Constitutional and again, it is all federal. "The vast majority of innovations already are tax funded and come from the NIH(National Institute of Health). Hepatitis C medicine Sovaldi is a good example. Developed mostly with taxpayer money, one treatment now costs 84000$(price gouged). " I personally work in research and I have an NIH grant. Most research funded from government grants produce little work in terms of practicality. We are just carving out information in the universe where a private business will take that info and expand it to use. It is this, those grant dollars allow researchers to throw shit at the wall and see whats sticks. And from what sticks private companies take it and advanced. You look at one thing, Hepatitis C. Now look at the many successful things the private sector has developed. "So the most risky and innovative research is mostly tax funded," Not true. "The US spends more for the same medicine compared to Canada or any other country. There are several surveys that show that the US healthcare system ranks EXTREMELY low(sometimes lowest) in efficiency, equity and outcomes." While we spend a lot, saying your outcomes are poor is simply not true. You say "surveys" that do no statistical analysis and just go off of vague numbers. Here is a good book for you to read https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
1
"Actually that isn't necessarily true. Going into education or research generally doesn't pay that well." Yes it does. "Also the pay HIGHLY depends on what field of study you are pursuing. So something like programming will be overcrowded while other areas will be severely lacking in qualified people. " Computer engineers earn a lot. Again, those degrees earn a lot, money is not an issue. "Also why are we talking about higher degrees? Defunding EDUCATION makes it MUCH less likely for people to even reach the level of higher education. A less educated populus will lead to less innovation. That's just common sense." To start it is not "common sense" or we will not be having a discussion over it. Saying it is "common sense" is saying you have no way to defend you stance. What is and "educated popolus"? How do you achieve that? Do you achieve that by placing a bunch of students in a classroom like cattle and having a warm body lecture out of a book? Or do you push for on the field training and push people to teach themselves more? Just throwing money at something does not mean it will improve it. People who want to be educated will find a way. That is based on the individual person. There is a desire to have it funded. However, in the end, it is based on the individual person and if people do not want to be educated then we are wasting money at that point. "How are the engineers and skilled workers rewarded for their laziness now anyway? They can already go into crushing debt as you want them to and maybe pay it off later on. Yet you still say the engineers are shit. " I never said engineers are lazy. I am saying several people refuse to pursue challenging degrees. "Which is why when discussing federal spending bringing up non-federal-budget numbers is irrelevant. " No it is not. There is less desire for the federal government to spend on education and infrastructure because it comes from other sources. Defense spending comes from one source. "If you want to talk about percentage GDP cost we can do that though. Not on the issue of military spending, since as I pointed out that is irrelevant and just a way to justify the absurd military spending. The US people spend far more on healthcare than other nations going by GDP: " You saying the defense spending is "absurd" is simply our opinion. Compared to many other programs such as social welfare programs, it is low. Defense spending is constitutional, welfare programs at the federal level aren't. Also, on healthcare, we spend more because we do more testing than other nations. We are also willing to do new forms of care on people have rare conditions. We lead the world in research and innovation of healthcare for a reason and also lead the world in cancer survival rate. You get what you pay for. Also, another reason why healthcare is so expensive is because of the lack of a free market. We do not have a free market system in healthcare, we have many government barriers. The federal government also spends more on healthcare than it does no defense where that spending is not Constitutional. "More amazing yet, the quality of care they receive is in many cases worse than for countries that pay FAR less. ' That is not true. At the very least the quality is on par with other nations. Say it is "far less" is trying to exaggerate something that you cannot defend. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf "As I pointed out 75% of the cutting edge medical innovations came from NIH funding. " I explained that already to you where you are mistaken. "Just pasting a 190 page link without even the smallest summary. You really expect me to read that when I don't even know what your takeaway message and objections are? " Who is the lazy one? That book is written by two professors with all of their citations and methods listed. They run through the numbers. So you will rather go off of buzzwords and talking points as opposed to looking at the full picture objectively? Not to be rude but I cannot take you seriously if you refuse to look at things objectively.
1
" Dude your "arguments" are a joke. Just going "NAH-UH" or "UH-UH" is not a rebuttal. " Except I never said that. "Says the guy that just said ""Yes it does."", defended the position that certain areas will be lacking people by saying that computer engineers earn a lot and continues to defend his arguments by assertion" http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/majors-that-pay-you-back/bachelors "Yeah when the children aren't being taught proper reading, math or critical thinking skills, I am sure they will magically sort that all out by themselves! " K-12 education is ran and funded locally, as in 84% of funding is state and local. https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html "The point is that your method lowers the average and would achieve the opposite of having a educated populus. I can't believe I even have to spell this out. " What method? Following the Constitution is my method. Look how little the federal government funds education. "To be honest though I really don't care. The constitution isn't set in stone and can be changed. A simple comparison to other countries shows you how out of hand the US military spending is. If spending more than the next 13 countries combined, most of which are allies, isn't excessive, I don't know what is. " Two things 1. We do not spend more than the next 13 countries combine. Please learn basic facts. 2. Our GDP is comparable to those countries combine. So of course we spend more. I find it ironic how you look at GDP per capita for healthcare spending but do not do that for defense spending. Whatever fits your narrative. As far as taxes are concerned, I told you about how the only federal tax was the state tax for decades.
1
" I did read the book and I am using arguments just as good as yours. So what's the problem?" What is wrong with the book? Give me quote from the book and tell me what is wrong. They cite all of their sources. "Oh right you've got that weird boner for the constitution and always differentiate between state and federal stuff for some odd reason. As if that is the core of the problem.... The US spends more on education for each student than any other nation and still marks relatively low in outcomes" The Constitution is the standard. Also, what is your standard for educational outcomes? Test scores or productivity? Do you want high test scores or do you want productivity? I want productivity where the US is in the top 5. "What's this? Looks like these 3 countries combined have a higher GDP than the US yet they only account for ~1/3 of the military spending. Geee it's almost as if the US has a gigantic military complex that is completely out of proportion and a gigantic waste of money.... " When you look at the idea that the US spends more than the next 8 nations combine, Japan on is not that list. Get rid of Japan and try again. "The difference is that military spending comes directly out of the budget aka something that can be easily allocated" Not really. Cutting defense spending means cutting those jobs. "So using some of that money that is wasted on the military and putting it towards healthcare actually helps the people as they've got more of their own money to spend for other shit. " Defense spending is 4% of GDP, healthcare is 16%. The math does not add up. "What's the positive of the high military spending and participating in unnecessary wars? " We do not go to unnecessary wars all the time. Defense is used to train other nations, develop connections with other nations, and push for peace. The idea that we are constantly going to war is simply not true. Also, since 1960 federal funding for defense has been dropping. "The reason I did talk about the GDP after you brought it up(!), was to show that using your own metric medicare for all actually is the best way to reduce the medical costs for the people and save further money. " It isn't unless you want lower quality. "It's weird though. You saying that me using the GDP to judge the medical costs is somehow unfair because it "fits my narrative". Does that mean that you agree that the medical costs in the US are far and beyond what they should be? " You are ignoring quality of healthcare as well. Again, read that book. There are other reasons why the US system is expensive. Also, cutting defense spending will not save money as it is only 4% of GDP.
1
"So even without taking Japan(which is among the top military spenders that equal the US budget), it doesn't look good. These four nations with higher combined GDP spend just over 50% of the US's military budget. What's your point? " Ok, I will do the math for you. GDP (in trillion dollars) China: 11.2 Russia: 1.2 Saudi Arabia: 0.646 France: 2.5 UK: 2.6 India: 2.25 Germany: 3.5 That is $23.896 trillion. Our GDP $18.6. Our defense spending is $610 billion, thus 3.2% of our GDP. For those other nations it is $601 billion, or 2.5%. That is a difference of 0.7%. That is not much. People on the left make the claim that we spend so much the military by trying to compare us to other countries. When you do you see that in reality the difference is not large. If other nations would fallow the NATO agreement it will be much closer in the difference, if not them spending higher. But making the statement of "The US spends more on defense than the next # of countries combine" Is being intellectually dishonest or being ignorant. You are trying to make it look like the US is spending a lot by exaggerating the situation by comparing us to just countries that people naturally see as being large. However, when you look at GDP you see the differences is not large. It is only a 0.7% difference. " Productivity is not a good indicator for education. Reading comprehension, math skills, knowledge etc is. But that wouldn't fit your agenda would it, so again you opt for something unrelated. ;o) " Productivity is the indicator. So you would rather have a lot of good test takers that produce nothing? Being able to repeat facts that one reads from a book, or being able to read a lot and giving your educated opinion is not a sign of intelligence. What is is producing. I rather have people producing than people who can just test well. " I thought you were against welfare spending?" Nope. I support giving people money who earn it through work. I do not support giving money away. I never said I was against welfare. Point to me where I said that. "What an incredibly stupid argument to make. You are fine with wasting money on military to keep them busy and employed but would be outraged if the same money went to employ and pay teachers. " Never said any of that. "I'll break this down easy enough that even you can understand this. If we've got 100 apples. 80 are military apples which are thrown in the garbage and 20 are healthcare apples which go to a person. A person needs 40 apples to bake some shit. In this case the person has to buy 20 more apples from his own money. Now if we have 70 military apples that are wasted and 30 healthcare apples that the person can use, he only needs to buy 10 extra apples. I know this is really advanced thinking and it's hard to follow but basically using some of that money that is wasted on the military for medicals lessens the burden on the people. And if it is in the form of medicare for all it lowers the cost. Meaning that in that example the person only needs 35 apples to bake some shit. " Ok, now here is where you analogy is wrong. First, you feel that defense spending is wasteful but never said why. Why is it wasteful? Next, defense spending as a percent of GDP is dropping. Federal healthcare spending has been rising during that same time while healthcare cost also rise. So already you idea of taking money from defense and transferring it to healthcare is already being done. Also, healthcare cannot be compared to the military. With healthcare you are dealing with workers who spend 8+ years in college. You have advanced equipment that is expensive. You have diseases that are evolving (unless you do not support evolution). With healthcare you lack doctors, nurses, medicine, facilities, equipment, etc. With defense we have a lot of people to pick from. The supply and quality of supply is vastly different. You are comparing apples and oranges. Using your analogy here is a problem. You say "take 10 apples from defense" to pay for someone's care. However, with medicare for all you are taking 10 apples from defense to pay for more than one person's care. You increase the demand as well which increases the supply. But again, the federal government (this does not include state and local) spends almost $1 trillion in healthcare, but only $610 billion in defense. So your apple analogy is wrong from the very beginning. "OK how many countries is the US bombing at the moment and do you even know why? " How many? Tell me? Compared to the 90s almost none. I was alive in the 90s and saw constant bombings. The rate is much lower. "And like when they trained the forces to fight ISIS and then they either joined them or handed over all the weapons. " That is not bad. We trained them so we know how they will act in certain situations. Also, when we give them weapons we know what they are capable of. Also, training other armies allows us to solve many conflicts off of the battlefield. But as a whole it is knowing your enemy. "Develop connections with other nations, and push for peace.... which is why all across the world America is seen as the most destabilizing factor and biggest threat to world peace. " Except we aren't. Why do you continue to make things up? "Utter bullshit. Having profit motive at every level doesn't increase the quality. " It does. The problem is that we do not have a free market system. We have a for profit system with many government barriers that allows for a monopoly. Reduce the influence of government in healthcare and you will see higher quality and lower prices. Increase the influence of government and you will see higher prices and/or lower quality. "I notice you didn't talk about how certain engineering areas make a lot less money and therefore paying back exorbitant debts actually is a real issue." It is not worth addressing as engineers earn a lot. They have no problem paying off debt. It is another thing you made up.
1
Why we do not have a free market system in healthcare is because of the payroll tax. With the payroll tax if a business pays a higher wage they have to pay higher taxes. But benefits such as insurance and stock options are tax free. So businesses pay their employees with healthcare insurance as opposed to a higher wage. If people were paid with a higher wage they can buy their own plan forcing companies to compete and they can buy a plan that suits them. That means women are not paying for Viagra and men are not paying for contraceptives. Also, you get on a plan at a young age you can keep it for life while changing jobs. No more pre-existing conditions. What will also happen is that insurance pays for only unplanned cases that are expensive, such as an accident. But for other things such as routine checkups, pregnancies, elective surgeries, can all be paid for out of pocket which forces providers to compete and lower prices, just like what happened with LASIK surgery which is not tied to insurance. However, what we have instead is that people are dependent on their employer for insurance. They get the plan their employers offer no matter if they want it or not. And if they switch jobs they have to switch plans. Also, since it is a form of payment healthcare insurance ends up covering everything that can be paid for out of pocket. Car insurance pays for if someone wrecks your car. But it does not pay for oil changes and tire rotations, both necessary for a safe car. Healthcare insurance should be the same way. However, we do not have a free market and have not had one for over 50 years.
1
" Actually that is how that works. You saying that it only is 0,7% difference is intentionally misleading since it says nothing about the base point. If the base point is 90% then it isn't even 1% difference however if it is 1,4% it's basically 50% difference. That's like saying going from 280ppm to 400ppm is negligible since that only is 0,012%. Nobody would ever do that. I'd ask for your money back on that supposed education. ;o) " There is a base point, that is 0%. Your comparison of 280 ppm to 400 ppm is flawed as you are looking at a percent difference between numbers that are not a percent. Looking at 2.5% and 3.2% is looking at percent. The difference is 0.7%. The difference between 400 ppm and 280 ppm is 120 ppm. If a country spends $0 on defense they spend 0% of their GDP on defense. I put the numbers in percentages and then compared them. My education is fine. I am currently a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. "Also talking about percentages of GDP kind of misses the point anyway. How many nations do you want to go to war with simultaneously? If you're spending more than the next 4 nations combined wouldn't that make you "safe" already? " Again with the "next # nations combined". That is misleading. Those nations are smaller than us. That is why you look at percent GDP. Also, defense is used for more than just going to war. Get that out of your mind. " Yeah you really should ask for a refund for your supposed education. I did the calculations for you earlier: 28,9 GDP compared to the US GDP with 18,6 Hint: That's not 22% higher " I used my numbers of around $23 trillion. Let me do the math. $18 trillion/$23 trillion=0.7826, so roughly 22% higher. I did the math quickly. I suggest you get an education as you seem to lack reading skills. "Did you just take the 601 figure that was arbitrarily chosen(military spending of several countries combined) and compared it to the 610 of the US? 601/610 = 0,983 = ~2% Those countries were chosen to see how many other country's defense spending it takes to get the same as the US. You can compare that to the US's spending since that number is utterly meaningless. If the next country had a $9 billion defense spending would that mean that the US spends 0% more on defense? xD " Ok, what? I took that $601 billion from the source I linked you. Also, you are the one making the claim that the US spends more than other nations combine. I am showing you how saying that is deceptive. Now you say was can't make that claim? " Actually no. The know-how can come from anywhere and it can increase the productivity. That is exactly what I tried to point out with my robot example. If the Chinese branch of a US company opens a factory with tons of robots in China, that counts as China's productivity sky-rocketing. Does that mean that their school system suddenly got better? " Their productivity will not skyrocket in terms of percent GDP per hour. They are unskilled workers. When you look at productivity per hour worked you see the US is near the top http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV Put it this way, a person can work very hard at McDonalds but produce very little in 8 hours. A person can work 1 hour and produce many times more than that McDonalds worker did in 8 hours. That is why you can't use your China example. "Again you completely undermine your own argument. If they pay for the kids to attend after school programs where they study more,... isn't that an educational program? -.- " Yes, but it is private. Our private schools in the US are great. Our university system is great as well where many people pay for it out of pocket. When people pay for it out of pocket the quality is higher as opposed to the government paying for it. "Aren't the South Korean kids much better equipped for the workforce and producing then? " Depends, according to the number they aren't, and they also have higher suicide rates. "I miss spoke and meant federal funding for education(last comment I said state) which you said is unconstitutional. " It is. Only 8% of funding for education is from the federal level. Most goes to Title I schools, not hiring teachers. Also, me wanting to follow a standard in how programs are funded does not mean I want to cut them. " Do I really have to spell out why unnecessary wars all across the world without an objective are wasteful? How is having military bases in countries that are US allies and no threat even close to them NOT wasteful? Those tanks the pentagon didn't want or need... sure sounds wasteful" You are avoiding it again. "Isn't that part of the freemarket though? If they don't like the insurance they get from their employer they can just go somewhere else or buy it themselves. Remember the magically freemarket fixes everything! " How can they go out and get insurance elsewhere? They will be paying double in the end. Their employer does not give them the option of either taking insurance from them or a higher wage. A form of payment is insurance. That is how employees are getting paid. They are working and get paid by insurance. If they get another plan they are also paying for that as well. The free market will be not to tax wages which will allow companies to pay employees how they please. They will pay with wages where people will buy the plan they want. I am paid with healthcare insurance. I can't afford other plans. I rather be paid with a higher salary to where I can buy my own plan. " What does that even mean? Before ObamaCare people could chose to be uninsured without consequence no? How wasn't that already your free market utopia? Why was the healthcare system still fucked? " I support the idea that people can go uninsured if they want. However, there are other factors as well such as the payroll tax. "If the insurance isn't good enough for you, you can always buy extra. " People can't afford to pay double. That is why socialism screws over the middle class. 90% of K-12 students attend public schools despite private being better. The reason why is because the middle class cannot afford to pay the high taxes for the socialist programs on top of paying for a private option. So they can't afford extra unless they are rich. Socialism benefits the rich and adds to income inequality because it brings the middle class down. "Oh how ironic that just before you said that I need to understand what insurance is you said ""My plan does not cover everyone."" -- Actually it does cover everybody that shares the same insurance as you. " To a point. My plan offers discounts to those who are healthy. But again, that is not insurance. Look up what insurance is. "The whole idea of insurance is balancing out the risks. The higher the amount of people the better the risk is distributed. " Not true. The idea of insurance is that the consumer pays for it planning for the worse. They may never use it. I have never used my car insurance and hope not to. That is because insurance is there for expensive, unplanned events. Car insurance covers car accidents, not oil changes. "Not what happened in other countries, plus big bad government can make that illegal. " In other countries they ration care. Also, the depend on us because we lead the world in research and innovation of healthcare. Other nations have lower quality and longer wait times. Also, if the government sets a price ceiling that lowers quality. Look up "rent control" and how it makes apartments worse. "There have been several studies that concluded that single payer healthcare system ends up saving ~$600 billion savings per year with better coverage and care. " What studies? List them. I gave you an entire book that you have yet to read. On your link it is from a bias source. Gerald Friedman's plan for healthcare will raise taxes on people that make just above what he makes. So he wants to raise taxes on others but not himself. Also, many states including Vermont and CA could not pass healthcare as it was too expensive. The idea that increasing demand without increasing supply will lower prices is economic illiteracy. Also, you are increasing demand of healthcare with the unhealthy in society. Also, in your link it does not provide tax rates or how money will be allocated. It gives numbers that are based off of nothing. "he Department of Veterans Affairs for instance which in 2016 alone cost $273 billion." The VA is a mess. Even at that that is still over $700 billion, more than defense. "Yes 1. Don't get involved if it's not necessary 2. Don't make them more dangerous by providing weapons and training 3. You can evaluate people's danger WITHOUT making them more dangerous." 1. you have to get involved, if not they will eventually attack you 2. you are not making them more dangerous as you know what they have and what they are capable of, a reason why we beat the British was because they did not plan for the weaponry we had (hunting rifles which are better in many ways) and how we attacked in a different manner then what other countries did. It is also why terrorists are so hard to fight as they are not predictable. 3. You evaluate them by interacting with them.
1
Part 2 "Assuming they stay with the same company the whole time. If they weren't insured for years or after they were ill switched to a different insurance, what stops them from discriminating? " That is on them at that point. I have the same car insurance company. "What stops them from throwing them off insurance once they become too expensive? "Big bad government"? ;o) " If a company does that then no one will buy their plan. People do not buy bad products. The free market will take care of that. With the government being the only option they can kick you off if your chance of survival is too low as they did in the UK. " That's actually the whole idea of insurance. You pay for other people's expenses when they need it and they pay for yours when you need it." Then why don't car insurance pays for oil changes? Why doesn't home insurance pay for smoke detectors and fire extinguishers? Again, insurance is there for unplanned, expensive cases. " With insurance the healthy people pay for the sick. " Again, no. Car insurance will raise your rate if you are a bad driver or kick you off. " aka much worse care and you end up paying out of your own pocket, thus increasing what you have to pay. " Again, not true. LASIK surgery is paid for out of pocket and has become better and cheaper throughout the years. " Free market. They can always shop for a different employer. " It isn't that easy. You made an unnecessary factor in determining who to work for. It should be based on the area you live at and your income you earn from them. Saying "find a different employer" is asinine. The free market is allowing the employer and employee determine how they will get paid. The payroll tax limits that. You clearly do not understand what the free market is. "Most people I know of actually try to get insurance through their employer as it generally is cheaper& better. " No. In reality they do not have a choice. Also, the market progressed towards that because of the payroll tax. In a free market system buying your own plan will be cheaper and better. "Car insurance is interesting as it's mandatory." A couple things on that 1. It is a state law which follows the 10th amendment, thus constitutional. It is not a federal law 2. It is mandatory only to register a car and to drive in public. You can drive on private property without it and you do not need to own a car. It is not mandatory for everyone like healthcare insurance is. It is also not a form of payment like healthcare insurance is. Employers do not pay with car insurance. But again, why doesn't car insurance cover oil changes? Why doesn't it cover tire changes? Why doesn't it cover brake repairs? Isn't it just supposed to be a piggy bank where the good drivers with good cars pay for the bad drivers with bad cars?
1
"How is it misleading though? If you spend as much as the next 4 countries combined you'd think you are able to whoop their asses. So looking at GDP is quite irrelevant here." Looking at GDP is relevant. Larger country, more people, larger GDP. So it makes sense to have more money going towards defense compared to countries with smaller GDPs. We spend more on education than those countries combine as well. That is why you look at percent GDP. The rest of your comment on defense spending is incoherent. I will give you another chance to explain what you are trying to say. Until then, I will move away from it as it seems like you have no idea what you are talking about. "Sure I can. When the US exported all their shit to China, did their productivity during that time sky-rocket or not? " Sky-rocket? No. Because those are low skilled jobs. They produce very little per person per hour. "What difference does it makes if it's publicly or privately funded? How does that effect the quality?? Do you think that the private schools in the US being decent might have something to do with proper funding? " Or maybe it has to do with the fact that when people pay for it out of their own pocket they demand better quality. It isn't always about funding. For example, you can pay me a lot of money to teach history. However, I will not do well because history is not my subject. You can pay me millions but the quality will be low. Now you can pay me a few thousand a year to teach physics which I will do well at because I have a physics degree and taught physics for that little in the past. Just throwing money at it does not mean you will get a better product. This is why socialism on the large scale does not work. "Something else you have to take into consideration when you talk about productivity is that it also depends on the infrastructure. South Korea is relatively young compared to the US. " The US is young compared to European countries. So I guess those countries should be kicking our ass in productivity according to you. The US is one of the youngest countries in the world. "How is it avoidance when I am literally spelling out how wasteful the military is? They are buying stuff that is collecting dust. The military is engaged in wars with no purpose or objective and dropping millions of dollars in bombs with no results. " You are stating your opinion. You disagree with the wars, does not mean they are wasteful or unnecessary. What evidence do you have that the stuff they buy collects dust? You are saying things without backing it up. " Look for a different employer. Isn't that the whole idea of the free market? That certainly is the excuse I hear from the people that pray to the free market when it comes to workers not being paid a living wage. If they don't like it, look for a different employer. Alright, let's apply this excuse here. " You clearly did not read what I wrote. When finding a job the agreement between you and your employer in how you are paid should be without barriers. However, the payroll tax creates the barrier to where the employer offers healthcare insurance as a form of payment whether you like it or not. You talk about finding another job for a higher wage. That is strictly a wage, not insurance. When people find jobs they want to be paid with a wage as money is the universal resource in trade. Healthcare insurance isn't. But as a whole, what you are discussing is not the free market as the payroll tax places barriers in the negotiation process between employer and employee payment. Also, when you pay for your own insurance you can change jobs without the fear of losing your insurance. You can pursue jobs that pay a higher wage without losing your insurance. "As I pointed out I know several people that only want to get insurance through their employer since that is A LOT cheaper for them. " With our current system, yes. However, in a free market system it will be a lot cheaper and better. And you can change jobs without fear of losing your insurance. " Oh right you are one of those. Cutting taxes and still expecting society to function properly... -.- " A couple things. One, what makes you think that cutting taxes will harm society? Right now you are just parroting leftist talking points. There is more to the economy than just taxes. Next, I never said cut taxes. I said remove the payroll tax. .You can substitute with an increase in the income tax. We need taxes, but to me we need to keep the tax code as simplified as possible. In doing so you limit barriers in the market. Why do we need the payroll tax? Why don't we just eliminate it and raise the income tax? Do you know what the income tax was before 1913 at the federal level? 0% as it was unconstitutional to have one. The states were taxed based on population. Very simple. " I am curious did you have a look at how much your premiums would be? Do they compare to what your employer is paying the insurance companies? " Again, we do not have a free market system in healthcare. So looking now is meaningless. If we had a free market system I, and everyone else, will force companies to compete which will drive down prices. The reason why premiums are high is because of the lack of a free market system. You are not understanding that, so let me explain like this Premiums are high because we do not have a free market system in healthcare. "The middle class in America already is pretty much dead. The bottom 90% of the country make an average of 33 000$. They aren't going to upgrade regardless. " Ok, one, I want a citation for that. According to this around 30% of households earn less than $35,000 a year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/ Next, that does not tell the whole story. Benefits, such as healthcare insurance paid for by the employers, does not count as income. You have to factor in cost of living. How many of those people who earn little are young with no children and have roommates. I earn $23,000 a year myself. That is actually high for a graduate student. I have my own apartment, car, three meals a day, etc. You have to stop throwing numbers out there without putting them in proper perspective. "The single payer care in other countries actually is excellent despite what FOX so-called News would make you believe. And even in those countries there are plenty of privately ensured people. " It isn't excellent. It isn't awful, but it isn't excellent either. Again, I point you to this book https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Also, just because it works there does not mean it will work in the US. We have different cultures, economies, barriers, etc. "It depends on how you implement it, but you can have all basic procedures are paid by the normal single payer " What will you include as "basic"? Open heart surgery? MRIs? Kidney replacements? We lack organs by the way, how do you solve that problem? "Yeah and health insurance pays for surgeries etc. Is a doctors visit considered an oil change? Are you saying they shouldn't be covered by insurance?" A doctor visit should be paid for out of pocket as a routine checkup is just that, routine. Just like oil changes are routine. You can shop around and find a doctor that offers a lower price. That is the free market. With insurance you remove that process to where some doctors might not take your plan. You do not pay thus you do not negotiate. The price goes up. Also, doctor visits are not unplanned like an accident is. "What do they ration? If you've got cancer in another country you get treatment almost immediately. What happens in the US? The insurance looks through your papers and decides if they are going to pay for it or not(that's a death panel for you). " The US has the highest cancer survival rate in the world. Other countries have longer wait times and ration their care due to limited resources. If they feel you are not in danger they will make you wait even though what could seem like a minor problem can be major. That is how you have people with headaches ending up dying because they have to wait months for MRIs. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woman-dies-tumour-migraine-edinburgh-stephanie-dickson-a7555711.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486789/Natasha-16-complained-headaches-She-died-13-doctors-failed-diagnose-brain-tumour.html "Lower quality also is nonsense. The quality of care in America only applies *IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT*. How many people are uninsured because they can't afford it? How many people just get the very basic insurance that doesn't cover shit? Meanwhile in those other countries all the same people would get proper treatment. " No country covers everyone because they lack resources. In other countries they ration care through government force. Also, many can afford care in the US. How many can't? Very little. No system is ideal, and I admit that the US system has problems. But the evidence shows that a free market system will be better. Yes, some people will suffer and die. But people suffer and die in a single payer system as well. If you deny that than you are living in a fantasy land. Right now I feel you are as you think single payer will magically cover everyone when it doesn't. Also, on elective procedures, what is an "elective procedure"? Say I need knee surgery. It isn't life threatening, but I need it to simply move around better. I have two jobs that require me to move around a lot. Holding off on knee surgery can hinder my productivity and also can make my knees worse over time to where surgery cannot fix it. Now expand to across an entire nation. To me that is not "elective" but necessary. If I can afford it why should I wait?
1
Part 2 "Again we just have to look at other countries. They don't charge 10$ for a box of tissues because the government doesn't allow that. Medication is FAR cheaper because of collective bargaining and price control. The quality isn't lowered the least bit by that. " The quality is lower. "Rofl. ""What studies? List them."" ""On your link it is from a bias source."" So you only accept sources from millionaires or what? xD " You said "studies". You only posted on study. Also, it was from a source that has pushed for single payer for years. "The risk pool wasn't big enough and it was set up to fail." CA is bigger than most European nations you point at. That seems pretty big to me. "I already explained that demand does not really rise. " It does. Say you have a system where only 7 out of 10 people can afford it because that system only has enough resources for 7 people. Now the government give the other three people money. Meanwhile, the system only has enough resources for 7 people as of now. What will happen? Prices will go up or quality will go down to "cover" the other three people. You even said so yourself that not everyone is insured. "The lowered prices come from saving on administration(where A LOT of money is currently wasted), there not being an absurd profit motive on every level and collective bargaining" What bargaining? Do you thing the federal government can bargain? Why don't they bargain tuition? Also, I said bargaining in the free market a lot and gave you an example in LASIK. Also, that administration cost is not a waste. A lot is used to lower prices such as in fraud prevention. And profit motive leads to growth. 1. There is always disagreement with nations. We settle most conflict off of the battle field due to our connections. Also, having the strength we have deters other nations from attacking us. As for the 9/11 attack, I agree, it was a bad war. That is why Jeb Bush did not win. People do not realize that republicans never started wars except for the Bush family. You had wars under FDR and LBJ. 2. Germans did well against Russia. Hitler made a mistake and did not keep pushing for Moscow. However, Germany had weaponry that other nations did not expect or plan for which led to them losing to Germany Terrorists are hard to fight. They are disorganized and unpredictable. They have radical beliefs.
1
Daniel, how is the Netherlands number 1 in quality? What do you base that off of?
1
Daniel, the WHO was criticized so much that it has not release a ranking in about 20 years. It compared the US to countries like Malta and San Marino. I have never read the University of Leiden's study. Also, that university is not top in the world in any ranking. But, it is strong. Also, from experience, the US system is great if you want to go that route as well. Working with many nursing and med students they do not want single payer.
1
"What you did when you compared the 601 number for 8 countries combined(!!) military spending with that of the US 610 is meaningless. If I instead said the US only has more military spending than the next 2 countries combined, it would sound much more favorable to your side no?" No it wouldn't as it is a poor comparison. The US spends a lot because it has a large economy, that is the point. "Not realizing that the 601 number for the 8 countries combined is somewhat arbitrary as it can change depending on how the actual numbers play out. How is the 2% number the least bit relevant when it comes to the claim that the US spends MORE than the next 8 countries combined? Is your defense that is only 2% MORE than the next 8 COUNTRIES (actually it's 9) combined? " It was 7 countries. You are missing my point. The point is that saying "the US spends more than # of countries combine in defense" is a poor statement as our GDP is much larger than them. That is similar to saying an MLB team is a combine weight that is much higher than a class of 30 third graders, thus the MLB players are overweight. Or maybe it is that that MLB team are full grown men who are athletes. You can't just go around and make any comparison you want. You have to use the proper numbers. So when I look at the combine GDP of those countries and look at defense spending, I see that the spending difference is less than 1%. And you idea that the military is there to invade other countries or handle threats is foolish. That is not the only role in defense. It is there for many reasons. We are becoming very civil as a world and you can see that as defense spending as a percent of GDP is dropping world wide. Your viewpoint on the military is asinine. "When I talked about people making a certain amount of money you used the more favorable household numbers. Interesting. " I question that data http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/ Typing in $34,000 puts one in the 41 percentile. Thus 59% earn less than that, not 90%. Also, you have to include several other variables there such as household income and cost of living. Again, throwing out numbers does not mean anything. "Since 1980-2012 the bottom 90% had their real incomes GO DOWN by 6%, while average income went UP 24%. The top 0,01% had an income growth of +431%. Before that income growth was very similar for all levels. " A few things there. One, goods and services are getting better and cheaper. So to say their income is going down is simply not true. Look up "Hockey Stick of Human Prosperity". Next, I can show the calculation if you want, but I showed how the CEO of Walmart was earning around $20 an employee in the late 80s and is now earning around $10 a employee. So while the rich are earning more, they have more they are responsible for. For example, a guy can employ say 100 employees and earn $100,000 (using simple numbers). But then ten years later can employ 200 employees but earn only $150,000. So they employ twice as much but are not paid twice as much. Also, look up "Skilled Biased Technological Change". "If you really want to know why people can't afford shit, that's why. " Cars are better, we have smart phones, smart TVs, high speed internet, etc. "Reaganomics fucked the country" We had strong economic growth under Reagan. Why blame Reagan? I can easily blame FDR. ". Deregulations and tax cuts only for the rich screwed over the bottom 90% of the country. " What deregulations and what tax cuts? "Yeah I am sure those sick people don't care if they get healthy again or not. They only REALLY care about that if they paid for it themselves! The same goes for education." When you pay for it out of pocket you are more aggressive in what happens meaning you get better quality. " After WW2 when Europe was in rubbles and the US still had all its infrastructure standing, what happened? " The US is still young. "Pentagon never has been audited. 1 trillion dollars are unaccounted for and billions are lost all the time. " I support auditing the Pentagon. However, why do you want the federal government, who clearly waste money, to run our healthcare system? Will you be anger if a federal healthcare system lost that much money as well and was never audited?
1
Daniel, in Colorado, a left leaning state that Bernie won in the primaries, 80% voted against single payer. Republicans won running on the idea of having less government involved in healthcare. Saying that 61% want it is simply not true. The WHO has a poor ranking. It has San Marino in the top 5. That country has a small population to where we can fit the entire population in one of our NFL stadiums with room to spare. Its economy is ran off of tourism and being a tax haven. It is a small population that attracts people with money. It will be successful at anything because of that. Is that a valid comparison to the US of 320+ million people? What you are doing is similar to comparing the small, private school for rich kids to an over crowded inner city school. That comparison is not valid.
1
Daniel, if the people are so easily persuaded like that than maybe they do not want single payer healthcare. My problem with WHO has not been disproven, you are comparing small, rich countries to massive ones. School for the Talented and Gifted located in Dallas is ranked high in the US. Is it fair to compare that school, with around 250 students, that are hand picked by the school, to Abraham Lincoln High School, a school with over 1700 students, in the inner city, with a lot of crime and low income students? It is fair to compare those two schools? Because you are doing the same for countries. "Oh and still the gallup poll does say that 61 % want single payer." So? The voting results showed people do not want it. But keep holding on to your polls while people vote in the opposite direction.
1
Daniel, if Bernie is so well liked than why did he lose? Why did the people he supported lose? Why did some of the policies (like single payer in healthcare) lose? Face it, Bernie lost. I really hope democrats run in him 2020 because seeing Bernie get destroyed will really shut up Bernie supporters. However, considering how ignorant they are they will make up some excuse.
1
Daniel, Bernie was not a democrat so it is no surprise they did not support him. The RNC did not support Trump but he still won. And no, there was no rigging. They had rules in place. How about Bernie actually register as a democrat as opposed to being an independent and than switching when it suits him. CA would not be able to afford single payer just like Vermont couldn't. As for support, the guy who killed single payer in Vermont was re-elected and I do not see any outcry from CA.
1
"Oh wow perhaps you don't realize your fuck-up after all. What sounds worse? If I say the US spends more than the next 2 countries or the next 8 countries combined? It's the latter. " Both statements are meaningless. You need to compare them in the proper way. That is why I look at their combine GDP and the GDP of the US. When you do that you see the differences are minute. You are comparing the US to countries that are vastly smaller than it. And you comparison is one to one. How much they spend and how much the US spends. You have to look at percent GDP. When you do that the US is not number one in defense spending, it is number four. The US spends so much on defense overall because it has the highest GDP in the world. If you look at education spending the US spends more than a lot of countries combine as well. But again, that is because we have the highest GDP in the world. But according to you we can't look at it like that. So the US, according to your standards, is spending too much on education as well as we spend more than a lot of countries combine. So by your standards you support cutting education. "Again I have to suggest that you ask for your money back on your supposed education(which I am questioning more and more). If you actually had any sort of real education you wouldn't be surprised when you type in 34k$ that you aren't being told that you are part of the bottom 90%. Basically the ~30% above you and the ~60% below you average out. This really is just about getting an average and percentages, nothing advanced... " Uh no, that is how much people earn. So again, I question the data you are collecting. Here is a leftist source that says around 25% of the population earn more than $50,000 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012.html "You can check the numbers if you want, I had a look at the official numbers at some point and they do check out. " I checked the out again and here is what I found. The source you linked me has it listed as "household inocme". I first used "household income" and you said I can't do that. However, you source did just that. Next, reading the UC Berkeley source they linked, I see nothing that indicates that 90% earn $34,000 or less. However, I used this link from the Berkeley source https://www.irs.gov/statistics/filing-season-statistics I looked at all three sets from 2013 and I totaled the number of returns of those who earned $40,000 or less. I had around 57% earning $40,000 or less. You should check your numbers again. "They are using several deflators such as the consumer price index which shows you how much buying power you actually have." Where is that mentioned in your source? I read your source, have you? "is a convenient way to excuse away how people are being exploited. At first glance it all sounds great. Life expectancy being higher, people not dying from cancer, convenient life, etc. Except now we see that life expectancy is going down in the US, especially for the bottom percentiles. It changes very little about wealth inequality or different income growth. Also a lot of things such as internet now are considered essential, as you need them for your day to day life. " People who are well off financially have always done better. That is from nature and evolution itself. I am going to do better than some poor bum on the streets. That is life. However, the poor today are much better than the middle class, and even the rich in some ways, 50 years ago. Some factors you mentioned like life expectancy are simply on that individual. You have a higher rate of diabetes and obesity with the poor. They lead unhealthy life styles. You have higher rate of crime with the poor, particularly violent crime. Factor like that hinder their wealth. However, they are better off as a whole. To say they are not is simply lying or being ignorant. " I doubt the 1:10 ratio. However I'm not really interested in a cherry picked example anyway. Show me the general CEO to worker ratio actually going down." I can run through the numbers, but it will be cumbersome. But, in short, what it is about is enlarging the pie for all. While a CEO earns more today, they do so because the pie is much larger and more people are better off. Here is a source on that https://hbr.org/2017/02/why-we-need-to-stop-obsessing-over-ceo-pay-ratios Businesses are larger and produce more. So as a result the CEO earns more. However, society as a whole are much better off. "Because only the rich profited. Reagan killed the middle class. " Again, why? "His massive deregulations to such sectors as the banking system(which inevitably of course led to the bubble popping after such great growth...). Or cutting the taxes of the rich by almost 50%. " What deregulation? What tax cuts? You have to give me specific policies with names for me to counter you argument. You refusing to do so means you are hiding something. "Reaganomics aka supply side economics aka voodoo economics aka trickle down economics doesn't work. The rich don't share their wealth around when they get to keep more, they just hoard it. " A few things 1. "Trickle down economics" is not an economic term. It is a term used by politicians and economic illiterates. Now which one are you? 2. Why doesn't his ideas work? He had strong economic growth in his time. 3. Wealth and income are different, please learn it 4. The rich do not "hoard" anything. They invest. If they just stash their money what company they run will not grow. Also, saving money in banks allows banks to loan it out to people to buy houses and businesses. So no, the rich are not hoarding anything. The rich actually spend more than the middle class in many ways. " Because single payer system has been shown to be A LOT better and cost effective system all across world. " Not true https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Also, I am sticking to the US here. You said so yourself that the Pentagon was not audited and it wasted funds. What makes you think a US ran healthcare system, the same government that runs the Pentagon, will be any different? "I somehow doubt that they would ever let it be as wasteful as the military though." Why? Healthcare is a much larger and more complex market. I see it being more wasteful an corrupt. Now you are dealing with doctors who are very intelligent and have advanced degrees and know how to play the system.
1
"THere was an outcry in California and according to ALL calculations it would have SAVED MONEY. " I don't hear an outcry. Also, what calculations? I saw it will cost too much. "A single payer system is simply better. THats why those countries are in the top 20 as always." Top 20 in what? And based on what?
1
Very true. The problem we have is that people simply do not want to work hard enough to improve our infrastructure. Kyle, like most socialists, feel that we can just throw money at something and somehow it will be built.
1
Do we still build buildings like that? Do we still build the railway system like that? So you are saying we should rebuild our infrastructure using 1930s techniques? Also, if someone does not want to be trained then you can't train them.
1
Anon, you have to get people to work in order to build new things. We have a problem in this country of people not wanting to work. We have many on welfare that refuse to work but still collect a check. Walk around in inner cities, or in poorer communities. Welfare people could easily work at those places making them look better. Even just sweeping the sidewalks would help. It would boost moral and attract more people with money. However, people simply do not want to work.
1
"1out of 5 corporations dont pay taxes so what's the point in lowering it. Go watch Jimmy Dore my dude." Jimmy Dore is an economic illiterate. But besides that, the corporate tax should be $0 at the federal level. No reason for the federal government to drive corporations out of the country.
1
jfsfrnd, they are working now because they are forced to. Sorry, but many people in our society are lazy. Bernie Sanders won states in the primaries, that shows you how lazy people were.
1
jfsfrnd, I understand what you are saying. However, there comes a point where if you are a single mother should you be raising your kid? Also, we can force family members to help. Grandparents and siblings. And if needed we can take the kid away from the mother until they get their life in order. Sorry, but we have to punish bad decisions.
1
jfsfrnd, what is abuse? Not giving your child a proper place to live and an proper education can be seen as abuse. You do not have a right to your child thus it can be taken away like anything else you do not have rights to.
1
Chris, I have seen that chart. Here are a few things to consider. 1. In the mid 60s the payroll tax was increased meaning if a company paid higher wages then they paid a higher tax 2. in the 70s we had an increase in immigration leading to higher supply of workers 3. In the 70s we saw the creation of OSHA, the EPA and department of ed When you link me a chart you have to think about why that is happening. Also, you have to consider how increased productivity means better goods and services. Look at cars for example, they are much better and cheaper today then they were in the 70s. So overall, what is your point?
1
Mr. Fedora, look up the video "The Crowder-Potholer54 debate is on" Also, I never said he blocked me, and this is the first time I have seen you ask me that question.
1
Mr. Fedora, I posted two comments on that video. The one you are looking at is the more recent one. "And throughout the comment...where are his faults?" In the comment you looked at potholer54 never admitted that he was wrong when he said "prove" in his video. "You didn't even list a single source in THAT field to prove anything you were saying. " If you read the other comment thread you will see how potholer54 acted and how I acted. potholer54 tried to bait me when I would not take it. And I called him out based on what he said.
1
Mr. Fedora, you can find it yourself. It is there and has many replies to it.
1
Mr. Fedora, you can search my name. It starts out as "Potholer54 is a liar".
1
Also, how do you improve the infrastructure when we lack engineers and skilled workers to do it? Just throwing money at things does not improve it.
1