Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[Geeto67]

Try not jumping to conclusions like you always do. If you need me to explain something to you, just ask. Ill be happy to break it down for you.

 

It's your message, I read it, I interpreted it, if you think I got it wrong it's on you to explain it. Unless you don't want to take personal responsibility for your statements.

 

It's not on the reader to read into your statements only the way you intended. The world is a diverse place with diverse thinkers, you can't expect them all to think like you.

[RedRocket1647545505]

And all I hear is you inferring that this is always going to be the logical outcome, that we shouldn't even try, and that there is no value. It's a very cynical outlook, and honestly it's worthless to the conversation.

 

Everyone here agrees that the cost of care is the issue, and supporting that care can incur crippling debt to a lot of families. To try and solve this problem by denying treatment is the tail wagging the dog, It may partially solve short term problems but at much greater long term costs that don't always justify the decision.

 

No, what's worthless to the conversation is you constantly throwing your opinion around as fact. Life and Death isn't all rainbows and lollypops. Somethings just can't be fixed. We know the outcomes. We know how they're going to play out. And yet we spend extreme amounts of money to get the same result.

 

Now, I'm not arguing that our healthcare may cost more for the same thing than another country, and I agree that needs fixed. But if we're on the subject of cutting costs, then shouldn't we look at ALL of the reasons it costs so much?

[oh8sti]

I sleep great at night because I expect very little out of anyone other than myself and those closest to me. I came in here to post about it because it was interesting that this was a huge deal 48hours ago, but now, it's a not. Why the change of heart? Lock trump up if you think there's a case! Don't just talk, do it. But, locking him up is also something I don't care about haha! Trump is a terrible, shitty person that shouldn't be in public office. That just tells you how shitty the clintons are. That's hard to come to terms with, I understsnd that.

 

You are smarter than that. You don't need to find validation in the government or bullshit politics. You can offer your family and friends more than that. You will never get ahead in life if you can't focus on the things you have control over.

[Geeto67]

No, what's worthless to the conversation is you constantly throwing your opinion around as fact.

 

I throw my opinion around as opinion. When it's fact I usually identify it. Don't confuse that you don't agree with what I say with how I say it, esp when I often try to match the tone of some of the more conservative members here. Is it that that I don't write like some snarky faggoty liberal what's throwing you? This place has a real double standard when it comes to political viewpoints.

 

Life and Death isn't all rainbows and lollypops. Somethings just can't be fixed.

no shit

 

We know the outcomes. We know how they're going to play out. And yet we spend extreme amounts of money to get the same result.

 

nothing is certain. It's all odds. We know the odds, we guess the outcomes. Some people throw extreme amounts of money at care, some don't and just pull the plug. At current we have freedom of choice in the matter, but it is often a choice wrought with emotion. It is also a choice that, to steal a line from Adam Smith, carries the invisible hand of unintended social benefits of individual self-interested actions. What you are suggesting is to limit that choice as a method of curbing a cost issue. I simply don't agree that position yields an optimal result, and would rather look at other factors. I'm not ruling it out - but I think it is a bit insensitive to people on top of being less than optimal.

 

Now, I'm not arguing that our healthcare may cost more for the same thing than another country, and I agree that needs fixed. But if we're on the subject of cutting costs, then shouldn't we look at ALL of the reasons it costs so much?

 

I agree in looking at all reasons. Where you and I disagree is that removing people's choice from the equation is the optimal solution. I agree it will have an effect, I just think there is a better way.

[Geeto67]

I sleep great at night because I expect very little out of anyone other than myself and those closest to me.

I have no truck with any of that.

 

I came in here to post about it because it was interesting that this was a huge deal 48hours ago, but now, it's a not. Why the change of heart?

I don't think the "Size" of the deal has changed, you just don't consume the type of media that is still talking about it. There are at least two items devoted to something related to this on every major new's outlet's website (to be fair I only checked NYT, WaPo, WSJ, and my google news feed, so maybe fox and breitbart aren't talking about it).

 

Lock trump up if you think there's a case! Don't just talk, do it. But, locking him up is also something

 

Nobody is locking anybody up here for the same reason nobody locked Hillary up. There isn't a case. The current ugliness of the left mirroring the past ugliness of the right doesn't really change anything about the situation. It's counter productive. No one side is better or worse than the others when it comes to this kind of behavior, so to pick a side in it is kinda futile. There are a lot of people throwing the word treason around right now regarding Trump, and they are just as ignorant as the people who were the Clinton treasonous during the election (BTW, it's stupid because treason in almost all cases requires the country to be at war).

 

If there is one thing we can learn from all of this, it is that our government really doesn't have any control system to hold the executive office accountable for actions that clearly violate policy. There are a lot of laws, regs, and policies that forbid activities but don't have any enforcement teeth. And that isn't going to change when the group that has the power to make that change is also the same that would be most affected by it.

 

I don't care about haha! Trump is a terrible, shitty person that shouldn't be in public office. That just tells you how shitty the clintons are. That's hard to come to terms with, I understand that.

 

Again moral relativism. It's one thing to say everything sucks, it's another to say everything sucks but your team sucks more. If you pick a side, any argument that you make that the whole things sucks is immediately undermined because either it's all bad or it isn't. You seem to like saying it's all bullshit, but the liberal side is more bullshit. Well Shit is shit - whether it's soupy or has corn chunks in it isn't really impactful to the discussion beyond that.

 

You are smarter than that. You don't need to find validation in the government or bullshit politics. You can offer your family and friends more than that. You will never get ahead in life if you can't focus on the things you have control over.

 

Not sure why this is here. I don't validate anything in my life through politics - it's a hobby. I enjoy it because there is a lot of philosophy and theory that gets put into practice. As far as getting ahead I went from a stoner teenager painting storefront signs to an attorney working for a major multinational corporation in a department that works with government agencies and regulation, and along the way I have done some pretty cool things. I think I'm all set on the life advice about getting ahead, thanks.

[BStowers023]

And that isn't going to change when the group that has the power to make that change is also the same that would be most affected by it.

 

Yet, somehow you think it's logical to make the Govt even larger giving it more power and taking more power away from the people?

[Geeto67]

Yet, somehow you think it's logical to make the Govt even larger giving it more power and taking more power away from the people?

 

You have no literal idea what I think is logical or not - you talk in absolute statements like it's all this or all that and nothing else. It seems to be more important to you to take morally superior pot shots than to actually know the things you support or discuss actual political theory. You hold a simple view of government because it is all you are capable of understanding.

 

You advocate free market yet you haven't the first fucking clue where it comes from or what it actually says or even the multitude of theories behind how it works. Up until this post I am convinced you didn't know Socialist Free Market were three words used consecutively in the same sentence let alone an entire field of economic theory/philosophy.

 

Your entire experience with government is limited to a couple of years you spent in the military (thank you for your service BTW) and nothing else, except maybe the DMV line and the gigantic pain in the ass it is to get any kind of veterans benefits. It's a pretty small world view on something that is larger than all of us and has been around, evolving, for 100s of years.

 

You have a paranoid conspiracy theorist level distrust of any news media that isn't fed to you through facebook, and you can't seem to name any news source you read outside of FB. And while there is a ton of information about the basics of government, the constitution, US history, etc...you literally consume none of it.

 

I would say that maybe some part of you should kinda feel ashamed of this but really this makes you probably on par with the average conservative who has bought a "macho" image of conservatism without any real understand of what that means, how it would implement, what the real issues or, or if it is even a good idea. You think you are impartial because you occasionally take pot shots at the republican party because they aren't you particular brand of crazy.

 

All is not lost Mr. Stowers, you can overcome your ignorance to your own political position through knowledge. Here is your summer reading list, feel free to continue to ignore it at your own peril:

 

Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies

Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Jeremey Bentham, A short review of the Declaration

Jeremey Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

Jeremey Bentham, Defense of Usury

Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously

Ronald Dworkin, Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution

Ronald Dworkin, Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate

John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

 

There are more....so many more that can be added here, but this just about covers pretty much all of the nonsense "libertarian" catch phrases you seem to mutter without regard to actual context. You talk about lowest common denominator, well these are all books that I am pretty certain the majority of people working in the legislature, all of whom are smarter than you in the areas of legislation and government, have read and adopted in part or whole. They frequently appear on high school and college level political science reading lists.

[zeitgeist57]

[BStowers023]

Are you done bashing me Mr. Kerry?

 

Kerry, here are few simple questions I have for you. I hope you can answer them because you are an intelligent guy and these questions should be very easy for you.

 

What are the negatives to a flat income tax?

Do you think our laws should be based off of the Constitution?

Do you think the Government or the people are responsible for their lives and well-being?

Are the wealthy people in this country responsible for the poor people in this country?

Do you think that socialism can spiral out of control and be devastating to our country and it's values?

 

 

Here's the big one.

Do you truly think your view is the only correct view?

 

Please answer those simple questions, Kerry. You can ask me some questions to if you'd like. Keep them simple though, I'm ignorant

[Geeto67]

Are you done bashing me Mr. Kerry?

 

Kerry, here are few simple questions I have for you. I hope you can answer them because you are an intelligent guy and these questions should be very easy for you.

 

What are the negatives to a flat income tax?

Do you think our laws should be based off of the Constitution?

Do you think the Government or the people are responsible for their lives and well-being?

Are the wealthy people in this country responsible for the poor people in this country?

Do you think that socialism can spiral out of control and be devastating to our country and it's values?

 

 

Here's the big one.

Do you truly think your view is the only correct view?

 

Please answer those simple questions, Kerry. You can ask me some questions to if you'd like. Keep them simple though, I'm ignorant

 

If you think those are "Simple Questions" with simple one sentence answers then you are dumber than I give you credit for.

[SpaceGhost]

 

 

 

What are the negatives to a flat income tax?

 

Other than the largest employer in the US is our complicated tax code, and over night that would put millions of Americans out of work, sure seems like a peachy idea.

[Geeto67]

Other than the largest employer in the US is our complicated tax code, and over night that would put millions of Americans out of work, sure seems like a peachy idea.

 

don't waste your time with this joke...

 

...before that question could even be answered he would have to define income, define whether he wants the theoretical drawbacks with the general theory of a flat tax or whether he want's why it won't work in America, whether he considers a "modified" flat tax the same as the theoretical flat tax or not, and a variety of other items.

 

He is expecting a simple answer because he thinks this is a new proposal and not something that has been examined and debated for 100s of years. He also doesn't understand the difference between the face value of a dollar and the relative purchasing power of a dollar in the American economy or the progressively increasing spending power of a dollar vs the diminishing returns to quality of life as volume increases, all of which are crucial to this discussion.

 

Seriously, very learned men have written thousands of pages on a subject he thinks he is clever for summarizing in one sentence and expects a brief answer. It would be cute if it wasn't both ignorant and smug.

[TTQ B4U]

Easier said than done and proven not to work. Since Texas slashed family planning funding and defunded Planned Parenthood teen pregnancy has gone up 3.4% and teen abortions increased 3.1%. In one county alone abortion rose 191% in the two years following the funding cuts. Access to contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Abortion and teen pregnancy rates are currently at their lowest and access to contraception is a major contributor to that.

 

^^ all that is still the responsibility of people, not those around them. sex and sex ed is pretty basic stuff and if grown adults can't teach their kids about it deep enough to prevent such issues or adults themselves can't figure it out, then we have a problem that goes back the 200+ years sex education has been a part of our school system. That's sad really.

 

It's time we as a society hold people to better expectations that constantly having them blame others for their problems or to have other bail them out on poor life choices. YMMV, but I choose to encourage raising of the bar vs lowering it.

[TTQ B4U]

Thank you for proving my point by being your usual extremest self. In case you missed it: my point was that the healthcare issue is intertwined with other issues in this country and it is full of people with diverse opinions some of whom are obstinate and not committed to the open mindedness problem solving requires. People like you. Once you remove something from the table as a possible contributor (as you have) you are no longer interested in exploring all options or maximizing the benefit to Americans. There is a potential that "addressing it properly" might include 2A, but you'll never know because you refuse to have that discussion (and the NRA continues to block research in this area)

 

we can agree to disagree on how to handle things. unlike you, I'm willing to take a stand and hold people accountable and not let my rights and life get trampled on as the easy way out. if you want to reduce gun violence, then do something about the fucking shit areas of town and those guilty of killing each other. I won't apologize about not giving a crap about gang bangers killing each other when those involved do little to fix their own situation and do tons to increase the problems involved. time for them to stop playing victim and become more than rats and start being contributing members of society.

[Geeto67]

 

It's time we as a society hold people to better expectations

 

ok, how do you implement this?

 

I'm willing to take a stand and hold people accountable

 

how do you plan to "hold people accountable"?

[BStowers023]

I figured I'd get no answer. Kerry is too busy sending insults my way instead of answering questions. Some of these questions are asked during presidential debates, they might be worded differently, but very similarly based questions. So I guess we have been asking stupid questions to our leaders this whole time! Kerry, I don't dislike you, but man you have your head way too far up your ass. You, Ben and Greg are extremely smug and arrogant, especially you and everyone here can see that except you. You want to debate, but when a question is directed at you, you just throw out insults and you want everyone to just concede that you're right? K

[Geeto67]

I figured I'd get no answer. Kerry is too busy sending insults my way instead of answering questions.

what's the point of answering questions you don't have enough knowledge to understand the answer to?

 

Some of these questions are asked during presidential debates, they might be worded differently, but very similarly based questions. So I guess we have been asking stupid questions to our leaders this whole time!

 

yes, and? Presidential debates are a toe dip in to the political position of any one candidate. They are about as deep as a saucer of milk and about twice as wide.

 

Kerry, I don't dislike you, but man you have your head way too far up your ass. You, Ben and Greg are extremely smug and arrogant, especially you and everyone here can see that except you. You want to debate, but when a question is directed at you, you just throw out insults and you want everyone to just concede that you're right? K

 

I don't dislike you either (p.s. you have a sweet ass ). Don't confuse a difference of opinion with being smug. There are many times where the confidence of your opinion (such as your question asking earlier) conveys the same. But beyond that the truly maddening part is in discussing this stuff your knowledge runs out and you just start making stuff up or just completely incredulous about it.

 

Remember a while back when I said that "poor people pay more for everything" and how little you believed it? well part of that is based on the economic practice of measuring the relative dollar value in terms of a quantity of something. You can see this in practice at supermarkets where the price tag has the price for the unit and then in smaller print it tells you the monetary value per weight (usually in ounces). When you expand this technique to the greater world (as many economists do) you start to see things like the dollar value of 1 sq/ft of housing (how the real estate market measures value), the dollar value of 1 mile of transportation, etc....and when you look at it from a per unit perspective - maybe someone poorer than you is paying overall less rent than you are, but in terms of 1sq foot of his apartment vs 1 sq/ft of yours, your sq/ft has more intrinsic value (also you probably have more of them which is why your overall rent is higher). Remember how not open minded you were to this practice which is literally how every industry does it's accounting? how can I expect to have a conversation about the flat tax, where the value per unit of cost of living is essential, with someone who is not only ignorant of the concept but unwilling to understand it?

 

 

In terms of the flat tax, there are countries that have implemented highly modified versions of it (a pure flat income tax exists only in theory) to some degree of success (most of the eastern bloc including russia), but not without bringing about different problems. It doesn't mean it will work for the US because of a variety of factors, and that is assuming we can agree on things like public benefits being excluded as income, or capital gains being included, and the value of charging a different rate for capital gains.

[TTQ B4U]

Seriously, very learned men have written thousands of pages on a subject he thinks he is clever for summarizing in one sentence and expects a brief answer. It would be cute if it wasn't both ignorant and smug.

 

I think he's just asking you to keep your paragraphs to a few sentences because this is CR and a message board not a college thesis. When surfing CR many just want to chill and chat not bust a nut getting into the weeds.

[greg1647545532]

What are the negatives to a flat income tax?

 

Other than the largest employer in the US is our complicated tax code, and over night that would put millions of Americans out of work, sure seems like a peachy idea.

 

As Kerry points out, a flat income tax wouldn't do shit to simplify the tax code. Graduated income taxes aren't complicated. "Hey, your first 'A' dollars of income are taxed at 'X' percent, the next 'B' dollars are taxed at 'Y' percent, etc." You could print the entire thing on a 3x5 index card, it's an excel formula that anyone can write in about 3 minutes, yadda yadda.

 

The reason the tax code is so complicated is this -- what is "income?" A flat tax of x% on your income does not get any simpler when there are volumes upon volumes of regulation defining what counts as income. A flat tax does not close any loopholes.

 

Frankly, proposing a flat tax is one of the silliest things in politics.

 

Do you want to close loopholes and simplify the tax code? Great, no problem -- step 1, fix politics, get rid of special interests, reform campaign finance laws, etc etc etc. Simple, let's get right on that and we'll be done by lunch tomorrow.

 

Beyond that, at current federal spending levels, the flat tax would have to be something like 30% in order to balance the budget. In other words, most people would see a huge increase in their tax bills, and the very richest would see a slight decrease.

 

Flat tax proponents will argue two things now -- one, the federal government should be much smaller, say, whatever we can pay for with a 14% flat tax or whatever number they happen to like today. Which, sure, fine, you can want that all you want, but in the meanwhile the federal government isn't that small, and lobbying for a flat tax before doing the massive cuts necessary to shrink the government is putting the cart before the horse. Or two, they'll argue that cutting taxes will boost the economy so much that the government will actually yield more revenues, which, I mean, it's 2017, if you still believe in the fantasy of supply side economics and the magic of the Laffer curve then I don't even know what to say. Go move to Kansas.

 

 

That's the problem with a flat tax in a nutshell. With no other changes, it's going to lead to either increased taxes on you, me, and pretty much everyone who really can't afford that right now, or it's going to result in massive deficits and borrowing on a scale we haven't seen since WWII. And why? Because it's "fair?"

[TTQ B4U]

ok, how do you implement this?

 

start by clarifying the expectations and not bailing them out with other peoples money. for some reason we spend way too much time worrying about those that don't worry about themselves and trying to lesson the struggles of those that won't help themselves. it does a body good to put a little pressure on ones self to succeed. giving every kid a participation trophy or an endless number of mulligans isn't going to make anyone a stronger person.

 

how do you plan to "hold people accountable"?

 

put the onus on them to pay for their mistakes or put some effort and their own equity into the bailouts they do get.

[Geeto67]

I think he's just asking you to keep your paragraphs to a few sentences because this is CR and a message board not a college thesis. When surfing CR many just want to chill and chat not bust a nut getting into the weeds.

 

but I am just so excited to talk to people!!!!!!

 

 

I dunno, I subscribe to the xerox theory, the more you pair it down the less fidelity it retains. Plus I genuinely like to write. Like really like it. don't care that much for the others' reading it part (LOL).

[BStowers023]

Okay so your issues are with the tax loopholes not a flat tax. A graduated tax code isn't complicated and neither is a flat tax. And you guys keep putting words in my mouth. Did I ever say "implement right now without some progression"? Why shouldn't everyone pay into the system? Give me some good reasons without spouting off a 4 paragraph explanation as to why that's too complicated to answer.

[Geeto67]

start by clarifying the expectations and not bailing them out with other peoples money.

 

and how do you physically do this in practice?

 

for some reason we spend way too much time worrying about those that don't worry about themselves and trying to lesson the struggles of those that won't help themselves.

This is built on the notion that everyone who is poor is lazy. That is just not true, no matter how much you want to believe it. Lazy and level of wealth are not mutually exclusive.

 

it does a body good to put a little pressure on ones self to succeed. giving every kid a participation trophy or an endless number of mulligans isn't going to make anyone a stronger person.

 

Not a true statement either. But beside the point - has nothing to do with the actual implementation. What does the physical implementation of these concepts look like other than just cutting off public funding?

 

put the onus on them to pay for their mistakes or put some effort and their own equity into the bailouts they do get.

 

Pay for it how? How are they not paying now that they should be? how is that dollar amount collected?

 

You do understand that the majority of people receiving public assistance are employed and are often hard working, right? what more equity do you need?

[greg1647545532]

Okay so your issues are with the tax loopholes not a flat tax. A graduated tax code isn't complicated and neither is a flat tax. And you guys keep putting words in my mouth. Did I ever say "implement right now without some progression"? Why shouldn't everyone pay into the system? Give me some good reasons without spouting off a 4 paragraph explanation as to why that's too complicated to answer.

 

Let me ask you, have you ever googled your own question? "What's wrong with a flat tax?"

 

On the first page, there's a recent article from the (conservative) National Review, the (liberal) Washington Post, and 9 responses collated by US News both for and against.

 

I really can't say anything that they haven't already said, because I'm probably dumber and definitely less informed on tax politics than everyone who wrote one of those articles. I don't have any problem with a flat tax in theory, I just think that in practice, so much has to change before it's even feasible that it's not worth talking about up front. Make the changes required to make it practical first, then start collapsing the tax rates.

 

But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe the promise of a flat tax being implemented in the near future would energize us and motivate us to make big changes to our government. You're free to think that, and you're free to disagree with all of those opinions above who don't think it would work. But to ask, "What's wrong with a flat tax," as if nobody's ever considered it... I dunno man.

 

I don't want to come off as smug or arrogant, I really don't, and I apologize that I do sometimes come off that way. I try hard to engage in genuine debate here.

[Mallard]

^^ all that is still the responsibility of people, not those around them. sex and sex ed is pretty basic stuff and if grown adults can't teach their kids about it deep enough to prevent such issues or adults themselves can't figure it out, then we have a problem that goes back the 200+ years sex education has been a part of our school system. That's sad really.

 

It's time we as a society hold people to better expectations that constantly having them blame others for their problems or to have other bail them out on poor life choices. YMMV, but I choose to encourage raising of the bar vs lowering it.

Holding people accountable for their actions sounds great, but when it comes to sex and pregnancy it just doesn't work. That child will become the burden of the state and cost way more in the long run. To me this just sounds like more of the stereotypical Republican ideal of caring about the birth of a child but nothing about the quality of life (or medical care) it will have afterwards.

 

Access to contraception prevents unwanted pregnancy, prevents abortion, reduces to burden on the state (ultimately saving money), yet you're completely against it? To me, this is part of basic care that should be available to all and your employer shouldn't be able to fire you over your use of birth control.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk