ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

So these left leaning tech giants have co-opted the tax code to their benefit. What a surprise they are just as "selfish" as us meanie Republicans who want to keep our hard earned money instead of giving to to free loaders, corporations, and unaccountable bureaucrats.

Anyway that's not tax avoidance which is a crime that's using tax code. We don't have a flat tax instead there are millions of nuances in it and it's very variable. They did nothing illegal though.

Nobody is saying it's illegal. Just wrong on so many levels, when your country is literally suffering.

Even Belgium has healthcare.

Belgium!!!

@Scott

I answer the question in full if you read it but my ADHD maybe lost you.

a) dont believe the federal has the constitutional authority be be involved in schooling
b) It's became a disaster since involved, SATs plummuted, costs, etc
c)Philosophically I don't agree with them because they forciblely take fruits of labor from one and give to another.
d) States are free to do it though.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Keep electing democrat's we'll get to 70% taxes on McDonald's fry cook because they run out of rich people to tax when they all leave or quit the program.

I don't think even the most hardcore democrat seriously considers a 70% tax as part of their platform. That's the kind of nonsense that gets you obliterated in the primaries.

Even Bernie Sanders walked away from that one pretty fast in his interview on Fox News.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Nobody is saying it's illegal. Just wrong on so many levels, when your country is literally suffering.

Even Belgium has healthcare.

Belgium!!!

Yeah, but Belgium doesn't have hundreds of millions of people on two sides of the debate, living in across an entire continent.

If we want a better idea of how messy the debate gets, take the entire EU as a whole. Then ask everyone what healthcare program is best for everyone.

Yeah, that's the shenanigans we have in the USA.

Honestly, it feels like healthcare should be left to the states to implement whatever they feel is best, rather than force a federal mandate on everyone.

California can get its single-payer healthcare. And Texas can get all the private providers they want.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

If we want a better idea of how messy the debate gets, take the entire EU as a whole. Then ask everyone what healthcare program is best for everyone.

And the answer would be universal healthcare everytime.

I get it there are nuances to the discussion, but it matters not what the specifics are, just that you have healthcare that covers everyone to an extent.

Don't give me that crap that it's too expensive, the US is richer than many EU countries, whole or per capita.

It's time to join the rest of the civilised world.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Keep electing democrat's we'll get to 70% taxes on McDonald's fry cook because they run out of rich people to tax when they all leave or quit the program.

I don't think even the most hardcore democrat seriously considers a 70% tax as part of their platform. That's the kind of nonsense that gets you obliterated in the primaries.

Even Bernie Sanders walked away from that one pretty fast in his interview on Fox News.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Nobody is saying it's illegal. Just wrong on so many levels, when your country is literally suffering.

Even Belgium has healthcare.

Belgium!!!

Yeah, but Belgium doesn't have hundreds of millions of people on two sides of the debate, living in across an entire continent.

If we want a better idea of how messy the debate gets, take the entire EU as a whole. Then ask everyone what healthcare program is best for everyone.

Yeah, that's the shenanigans we have in the USA.

Honestly, it feels like healthcare should be left to the states to implement whatever they feel is best, rather than force a federal mandate on everyone.

California can get its single-payer healthcare. And Texas can get all the private providers they want.

This! The states are supposed to be Laboratories for Democracy not the Federal government which are supposed to be limited to enumerated powers (which why they listed them out) OFC this idea has been obliterated for last 70 years or so and everyone thinks feds are their sugar daddy for every possible program in the world and went from greatest creditor to greatest debtor nation and will go broke eventually

You can never compare huge USA to little Belgium or Sweden. We have very different cultures and expectations of what we expect from the Feds across state lines not to mention the enormously inefficient bureaucracy you create to run something like national health care along Belgium lines. You guys think VA is a disaster you seen nothing yet.

"

rojimboo wrote:

I get it there are nuances to the discussion, but it matters not what the specifics are, just that you have healthcare that covers everyone to an extent.

This is where we are going to diverge in our opinions. Every EU country has a different definition of what 'universal coverage' is.

It may not cover certain medical care, like dental or expensive surgery, migrants or foreigners etc...

Healthcare is also never free. It has to come and be funded by something else for it to work.

The UK and New Zealand is funded mostly through high taxes. Germany, France, and Switerzerland do it through compulsory private insurance (obamacare).

You see all of these different healthcares have their own downsides and upsides. And none of them can be applied unilaterally across the entire EU, which is what people want to do the United States.

It's not really about joining the civilized world, as it is figuring what is best for everyone in a large country.

And again, this is why I think it's best to let the states decide, rather than make it a federal issue.

There isn't going to be a perfect one fit solution to people living on opposite sides of the continent.

People have always been covered here too. Big myth they havnt. First it was charity and Hippocratic oath. None died in streets even in 1800s with practically no govt. Then EMTALA came alon in the 1980s which says providers can not turn anyone away. What they want is Cadillac plan and someone else paying for them

"

RPGlitch wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

I get it there are nuances to the discussion, but it matters not what the specifics are, just that you have healthcare that covers everyone to an extent.

This is where we are going to diverge in our opinions. Every EU country has a different definition of what 'universal coverage' is.

It may not cover certain medical care, like dental or expensive surgery, migrants or foreigners etc...

Healthcare is also never free. It has to come and be funded by something else for it to work.

The UK and New Zealand is funded mostly through high taxes. Germany, France, and Switerzerland do it through compulsory private insurance (obamacare).

You see all of these different healthcares have their own downsides and upsides. And none of them can be applied unilaterally across the entire EU, which is what people want to do the United States.

It's not really about joining the civilized world, as it is figuring what is best for everyone in a large country.

And again, this is why I think it's best to let the states decide, rather than make it a federal issue.

There isn't going to be a perfect one fit solution to people living on opposite sides of the continent.

So make it compulsory at federal level, mandate universal healthcare, and leave the specifics to the state level.

BOOYAA

Next problem?

A "mandate" not as easy as it sounds either. I dont want a HC plan only an accidental indemnity plan on off chance I get struck by lightning. How about let people be free and not buy over priced products we don't need from a private company. You own HC stocks or something? they did very good under Obama gettting to forceably extract Aamericans wealth

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I don't particularly want to delve into your attempt to move the goalposts. Rojimbo (IIRC) was asking for things Trump did for the American people; the tax cuts helped the working and middle class substantially. This is a separate issue from whatever harm you may believe he has caused. Tax cuts are an obvious "pro" in the "pro/con" chart.

I mean, if we're going exclusively by the good policies do, and ignoring any side-effects, unintended consequences, tradeoffs, or opportunity costs, then yes, I agree. But by that standard, the Bush administration's handling of Katrina was masterful. By that standard, basically any policy that has any upside whatsoever is "good policy".

You cannot divorce a policy from its costs. The TCJA is obscenely expensive for what the average American gets out of it, because the bulk of its value goes to the super-rich and to corporations. You cannot divorce a policy from its opportunity costs, either - GAIN would have cost less than TCJA, and done a much better job of giving "the people" a tax cut. It's not hard to make the case that the TCJA is bad policy without even considering the effect it'll have on the debt, and just by considering what you could have done if you wanted to hand out that kind of cash to people. And once you consider that it's a blatant, obvious extension of the "starve the beast" mentality... Well, that argument gets a lot nastier. Because it's not just that it'll drive us into debt - it's that republicans will use it as an excuse to shred the social safety net. At which point it goes from "bad policy" to "abysmal, dangerous policy". It helps in the same way injecting someone with heroin helps - temporarily, and afterwards everything sucks a whole lot more.

Also, the "working class" (bottom 20%) got an average of 80 bucks from the tax cut.

"

Tens of millions of Americans will remember the extra refund money and appreciate it. As I said (via edit) earlier, any Democrat that mocks that will be eaten alive.

As has surely been pointed out... The Trump tax cuts aren't popular. That's a first for what is basically the government giving people money, but they polled like deep-fried tampons when it was passed and it hasn't gotten substantially better since. I guess it's too early to really call, seeing as we haven't had a full tax season with them in place, but the idea that democrats who mock them will be eaten alive just isn't true - they've been hammering these tax cuts as a boondoggle for the super-rich for quite some time.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'd like to point out that Aim_Deep did not directly answer your question. You essentially asked "Do you believe government should be involved in schools?" He answered "the federal government shouldnt be involved in public schools." This answer does not necessarily rule out the involvement of state and/or municipal government.

I also don't want the federal government involved in public schools. But I do want public schools.

We probably should ask again, though: Mr Deep, do you believe that public schools should exist in the United States, or not?

Paid for by whose stolen money?

I jest, but Aim_Deep's political philosophy of extremist "TAX IS THEFT SCHOOLS ARE EVIL" nonsense is less worth taking seriously in the way one might take string theory seriously and more worth taking seriously in the way one might take an infection of bubonic plague seriously - there's no good ideas there, but if you let it spread, things don't end well.