TRUMP for Prez

How do you guys feel about the Trump admin's response to the covid-19 (coronavirus) outbreak? There was a lot of criticism on here about Obama's response to Ebola in 2015. Does Larry Kudlow's assertion that CV is contained here make you feel better or worse?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Whose Truth? She should not be making public decorations like a politician outside of court. That's what happens when you appoint a pure academic to the court instead of a judge.

Who are you referring to and what did she decorate?

Trump's non-response is unsurprising, since he just gutted the CDC and alienated scientists everywhere (which is an odd move for a known germophobe). He and his friends at Faux News will spin the market concerns as reactions to "Crazy Bernie" and the lapdogs will eat it up. Depending on timing, it could be a happy accident for Republicans in November. Republicans win when turnout is low, and this way they get that without all the usual suppression and gerrymandering tactics (although if silverhairs take the brunt of it, it might be a different story).

Originally Posted by pesos

Trump's non-response is unsurprising, since he just gutted the CDC and alienated scientists everywhere (which is an odd move for a known germophobe). He and his friends at Faux News will spin the market concerns as reactions to "Crazy Bernie" and the lapdogs will eat it up. Depending on timing, it could be a happy accident for Republicans in November. Republicans win when turnout is low, and this way they get that without all the usual suppression and gerrymandering tactics (although if silverhairs take the brunt of it, it might be a different story).

I agree that Bernie is crazy. See democrats and republicans can agree on something

You've got a lot of democrats agreeing with you on that one Doug :-)

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Caucus was interesting. Nobody burned any tires in my precinct and of the 6 available delegates to the county convention, Amy got 2, and each of Pete, Joe, Liz and Bernie got 1.

So as for working or not... I'm not sure how provision of a public good, like medical care, would encourage people not to work. It's not money in your pocket, and it's not food stamps that you can go sell for beer money. It's a benefit you really only need if you need it, like fire or police. Why is it so offensive to cover that last 10%? I've never heard of anyone only working for insurance and if they didn't have it they'd quit. If that were true, why don't "free" school, police and fire make people lazy in the same way?

Of the $90T (I haven't seen that, but I'll assume it's true), how much are we currently projected to spend over the next 10 years between privately funded healthcare, copays, premiums, employer tax breaks, medicare, medicaid, etc? What makes the last uninsured 10% so expensive to cover?

I bet if someone would have quietly said they were for not killing babies, a few bic lighters would have been produced.....

The last 10% are covered by the county system. You keep saying they are not covered, but they are.

I know all sorts of people who worked for the benefits. I took my job and stayed for it. My wife completely got out of her field of work after 12 years because she needed benefits so she went back to a certification program and switched careers over it.

Free school, fire and police are not items that go into your day to day living. You never really lived around poor people have you? You certainly must never have lived with the generational party families have you? While partying certainly does not make you an automatic free loader, a majority of free loaders are the generational party people. It is not like they are the cool kids. They just know of drugs and alcohol as the means to an existence. It is the high point of the family existence. I knew a bunch of them. They knew all the program weak points to get free stuff. All they inspired to was the next party and the local glory stories. It is a sad existence but it works for them. You have a lot of that in California, they just don't have a 100 year old house they can rent with some friends for next to nothing. Instead they are priced out of the market completely so they live under the overpasses in San Fran and Oakland.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Who are you referring to and what did she decorate?

she decorated her declarations.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Of the $90T (I haven't seen that, but I'll assume it's true), how much are we currently projected to spend over the next 10 years between privately funded healthcare, copays, premiums, employer tax breaks, medicare, medicaid, etc? What makes the last uninsured 10% so expensive to cover?

So you are advocating moving all healthcare away from corporations to the middle class through taxes? We all know that there are not that many "wealthy" people to pay that much money. Even if you could, the "wealthy" simply will not be "wealthy" in this country.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

So you are advocating moving all healthcare away from corporations to the middle class through taxes? We all know that there are not that many "wealthy" people to pay that much money. Even if you could, the "wealthy" simply will not be "wealthy" in this country.

Why is it reasonable for the middle class pay for the military, courts, SEC, fire and police, all of which benefit corporations?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Why is it reasonable for the middle class pay for the military, courts, SEC, fire and police, all of which benefit corporations?

You should ask that guy, who a page of posts back was arguing for corps to not pay taxes. We don't tax wealth, but we tax worker's earnings to protect it.

All the insurance argument go's away if you allow government insurance to increase your taxes if you want to be on it. Those can choose to keep there coverage. Then tax those who want free medicaid. Divide the costs of the 10% who are not insured, that want insurance, then tax them accordingly. they don't want the coverage, they don't pay the tax. They want the coverage, pay it. If its too expensive, call Bernie and have them cut the tax cost. Don't make me pay for their coverage. i already pay 10k a year from my family and 6k in deductible and my co pay etc etc. My responsibility. But to tax me another 10% to cover the 10% would cost me an additional 60k a year. Might as well gamble and just pay with no health coverage, or just not pay them. let them put me into collections, while the rest of the financial lenders ignore medical collections as standards to loan, and you will still be able to get loans on other things.

We now lend money to people who have medical collection bills new car loans, just last week, my long term, childhood friend. had an appendix removed, never paid the bill, just bought a new car. still owes, and will never pay it.

Originally Posted by fly135

You should ask that guy, who a page of posts back was arguing for corps to not pay taxes. We don't tax wealth, but we tax worker's earnings to protect it.

That was him.

Originally Posted by dougr

But to tax me another 10% to cover the 10% would cost me an additional 60k a year.

So you make $600K a year and are on WW complaining about having to pay more than $10K a year to insure your whole family?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Why is it reasonable for the middle class pay for the military, courts, SEC, fire and police, all of which benefit corporations?

They don't benefit corporations. They benefit individuals. Corporations have to pay for city services as well. Democrats are arguing that the police are not benefiting the public and are even trying to get rid of our immigration law enforcement. In some instances, people who have not paid for certain taxes, the fire department is ordered to NOT protect their home.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

They don't benefit corporations. They benefit individuals. Corporations have to pay for city services as well. Democrats are arguing that the police are not benefiting the public and are even trying to get rid of our immigration law enforcement. In some instances, people who have not paid for certain taxes, the fire department is ordered to NOT protect their home.

Really? No benefit to Chevron or Exxon to have US Navy in the Persian Gulf? Huh.

Cops don't arrest shoplifters at WalMart?

And good thing working class folks have such easy access to civil courts. Corporations definitely don't have an advantage there.

Originally Posted by dougr

All the insurance argument go's away if you allow government insurance to increase your taxes if you want to be on it. Those can choose to keep there coverage. Then tax those who want free medicaid. Divide the costs of the 10% who are not insured, that want insurance, then tax them accordingly. they don't want the coverage, they don't pay the tax. They want the coverage, pay it. If its too expensive, call Bernie and have them cut the tax cost. Don't make me pay for their coverage. i already pay 10k a year from my family and 6k in deductible and my co pay etc etc. My responsibility. But to tax me another 10% to cover the 10% would cost me an additional 60k a year. Might as well gamble and just pay with no health coverage, or just not pay them. let them put me into collections, while the rest of the financial lenders ignore medical collections as standards to loan, and you will still be able to get loans on other things.

We now lend money to people who have medical collection bills new car loans, just last week, my long term, childhood friend. had an appendix removed, never paid the bill, just bought a new car. still owes, and will never pay it.

We should do that with everything! Think of the cost savings! Rich folks can send their kids to private schools and let the poor figure out how to pay for their own "public schools" (gross!). Rich folks can create their own private security forces, and you poor peeps can tax yourselves for your police. Man the list goes on!

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Really? No benefit to Chevron or Exxon to have US Navy in the Persian Gulf? Huh.

Cops don't arrest shoplifters at WalMart?

And good thing working class folks have such easy access to civil courts. Corporations definitely don't have an advantage there.

How would a companies lawyer have any easier access to the courts than ones personal lawyer?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Really? No benefit to Chevron or Exxon to have US Navy in the Persian Gulf? Huh.

Cops don't arrest shoplifters at WalMart?

And good thing working class folks have such easy access to civil courts. Corporations definitely don't have an advantage there.

Is there no benefit to the public to have corporations? You democrats seem to think that mom and pop shop can set up world wide production facilities. What is your problem with corporations? Without corporations, you either have everything government owned in which case you the public would not get to retire through investments or you would be bowing to the Chinese as they combined the government into their corporation.

I would say it benefits the US worker to have the Navy in the Persian Gulf. Without steady supply of resources, the average American would be starving in the streets. You again need to ask, without Chevron or Exxon, what would you do for your survival?

Cops don't arrest shoplifters in California because they have determined they do not want to burden society with money crimes against businesses. Thus, we are in the middle of social decay where crooks are empowered. So, does that cop making the arrest at walmart really helping walmart who simply moves the cost of loss prevention to their costs to the consumer or does that arrest help keep the social order and protect the individual?

Access to the courts has always been to the benefit to the ones who write the law. Those are usually the lawyers to created a system that protects their living. Things are always made complex intentially that an average person can not possibly navigate them themselves. That is on all levels of government. Yet, you want more government control when the government purposefully makes laws that shut normal people out of being able to govern their lives.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

We should do that with everything! Think of the cost savings! Rich folks can send their kids to private schools and let the poor figure out how to pay for their own "public schools" (gross!). Rich folks can create their own private security forces, and you poor peeps can tax yourselves for your police. Man the list goes on!

Instead, democrats fully support illegal immigration so they can stack the labor force with 3rd grade educated serfs.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Is there no benefit to the public to have corporations? You democrats seem to think that mom and pop shop can set up world wide production facilities. What is your problem with corporations? Without corporations, you either have everything government owned in which case you the public would not get to retire through investments or you would be bowing to the Chinese as they combined the government into their corporation.

I would say it benefits the US worker to have the Navy in the Persian Gulf. Without steady supply of resources, the average American would be starving in the streets. You again need to ask, without Chevron or Exxon, what would you do for your survival?

Cops don't arrest shoplifters in California because they have determined they do not want to burden society with money crimes against businesses. Thus, we are in the middle of social decay where crooks are empowered. So, does that cop making the arrest at walmart really helping walmart who simply moves the cost of loss prevention to their costs to the consumer or does that arrest help keep the social order and protect the individual?

Access to the courts has always been to the benefit to the ones who write the law. Those are usually the lawyers to created a system that protects their living. Things are always made complex intentially that an average person can not possibly navigate them themselves. That is on all levels of government. Yet, you want more government control when the government purposefully makes laws that shut normal people out of being able to govern their lives.

Remember your argument here, Delta. I've asserted NO arguments AGAINST corporations. I was responding to your a In fact I've advocated (and you've responded to) posts suggesting that corporate taxes (and their associated tax breaks) be done away with. Specifically, let's unburden corps from medical insurance. How is that "anti corporation"?

Originally Posted by psudy

How would a companies lawyer have any easier access to the courts than ones personal lawyer?

resources. It's not access, it's exploitation of the system. A well funded litigant can outspend an underfunded one before trial (motion practice, discovery, depositions, etc), such that the underfunded litigants end up giving up.

But really that was in response to Delta's argument that corporations get no benefit from government. Go down to your favorite federal courthouse of choice and see who is suing whom on the civil side. It's not going to be middle class joes. It's going to be very wealthy people and corporations, because that's who can afford the process.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Remember your argument here, Delta. I've asserted NO arguments AGAINST corporations. I was responding to your a In fact I've advocated (and you've responded to) posts suggesting that corporate taxes (and their associated tax breaks) be done away with. Specifically, let's unburden corps from medical insurance. How is that "anti corporation"?

Can you point to me where I said corporate taxes should be removed?

I believe you are trying to move the bar. This discussion has everything you have just said about corporations or your assertion that our taxes and institutions are primarily used to support corporations. I am just showing you that they are not. You act like a corporation is none of the people and does nothing for the people of this country. You democrats demonize them like if you only got rid of corporations, the world would be a better place. However you want policies that specifically burden the middle class. You want to move corporate benefits for their workers. Workers who fought hard for the benefits, to give them up. Why do you want them to give it up? Because those workers are turning against the democrat party so you need a different victim class to champion.

I am saying that what we have works. You certainly do want to unburden corporations and put the tax burden on the middle class. This is what I have been arguing that you democrats really have been doing for years all while trying to act like corporations are the problem. They are not the problem and they are not the solution either. You just need a bad guy to tell the voting public that they being victimized by them. That way you will scare them into votes. In the mean time, you are actually advocating for corporations to put the burden on those same people through taxation.

That is why you have 2 billionaires and a multi millionaire communist running for president trying to tell us that if you vote for them, they will make those evil corporations pay their fair share. Ironically, if that was really their lifes work, they themselves would be living a modest middle class existence with pretty much zero wealth like the rest of us. It is all about power. For democrats, the more they can control our basic needs through taxation, they have us in their dangerous little hands. That is why you hate corporations. You can not get your little hands on them. If you treat them badly, their leaders move them out of your country thus removing your power.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

resources. It's not access, it's exploitation of the system. A well funded litigant can outspend an underfunded one before trial (motion practice, discovery, depositions, etc), such that the underfunded litigants end up giving up.

But really that was in response to Delta's argument that corporations get no benefit from government. Go down to your favorite federal courthouse of choice and see who is suing whom on the civil side. It's not going to be middle class joes. It's going to be very wealthy people and corporations, because that's who can afford the process.

And no matter what little power hungry system you set up, that will ALWAYS be the case. Quit trying to convince people that if they simply vote away their rights that the status quo will change. It will not.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Can you point to me where I said corporate taxes should be removed?

I believe you are trying to move the bar. This discussion has everything you have just said about corporations or your assertion that our taxes and institutions are primarily used to support corporations. I am just showing you that they are not. You act like a corporation is none of the people and does nothing for the people of this country. You democrats demonize them like if you only got rid of corporations, the world would be a better place. However you want policies that specifically burden the middle class. You want to move corporate benefits for their workers. Workers who fought hard for the benefits, to give them up. Why do you want them to give it up? Because those workers are turning against the democrat party so you need a different victim class to champion.

I am saying that what we have works. You certainly do want to unburden corporations and put the tax burden on the middle class. This is what I have been arguing that you democrats really have been doing for years all while trying to act like corporations are the problem. They are not the problem and they are not the solution either. You just need a bad guy to tell the voting public that they being victimized by them. That way you will scare them into votes. In the mean time, you are actually advocating for corporations to put the burden on those same people through taxation.

That is why you have 2 billionaires and a multi millionaire communist running for president trying to tell us that if you vote for them, they will make those evil corporations pay their fair share. Ironically, if that was really their lifes work, they themselves would be living a modest middle class existence with pretty much zero wealth like the rest of us. It is all about power. For democrats, the more they can control our basic needs through taxation, they have us in their dangerous little hands. That is why you hate corporations. You can not get your little hands on them. If you treat them badly, their leaders move them out of your country thus removing your power.

dude, please reread what you are responding to. I can't read a bunch of your stuff if it's off base because poor reading comprehension.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

And no matter what little power hungry system you set up, that will ALWAYS be the case. Quit trying to convince people that if they simply vote away their rights that the status quo will change. It will not.

So following along with this conversation, I was the one who suggested taking funding of healthcare away from employers (corporations). You responded that that would shift the burden from corporations to the middle class. I then responded that the middle class already fund lots of things that specifically benefit corporations (like courts). You now argue that "that will always be the case." So if it's always the case, do we agree?

I'm having a really hard time following your position, but if we agree, I'd love to give you a rare-for-this-thread socialist fist-bump.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

dude, please reread what you are responding to. I can't read a bunch of your stuff if it's off base because poor reading comprehension.

This is specifically what we are talking about:

Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Really? No benefit to Chevron or Exxon to have US Navy in the Persian Gulf? Huh.

Cops don't arrest shoplifters at WalMart?

And good thing working class folks have such easy access to civil courts. Corporations definitely don't have an advantage there.

Originally Posted by ralph

You know a fall safe way to avoid a "Purgery trap"? Not be a pathological liar. Lol, what's happened to conservatives these days, they used to stand for universal truths and morals. Trumps changed that.

You don't have to actually lie to the FBI to be caught. It turns out that they actually change the meaning of what you say and then charge you with the crime and threaten you with a lifetime in jail if you don't confess and take the plea for less time. That is the exact way it has been for generations at all levels.

Originally Posted by fly135

So you make $600K a year and are on WW complaining about having to pay more than $10K a year to insure your whole family?

I gross around 600 a year, I don't get to keep it, 50 % go's to the government. Then I cover all my business expenses and travel., etc etc and we do not get to expense anything, while being a 100% commission employee. No base, no salary, just what i earn. I basically have my own business, but am employed w2.

Not as pretty as it sounds, btw, not all the 10% are poor, many are self employed or service industry and choose not to have it. Obama care did not work, not because it was evil to offer health care. I am all for everyone having health care, I just am not for paying for everyone, while many choose not to buy insurance and cheat the system anyways. The poor get welfare, totally covered, same doctors we see, but better coverage, no fees, no co pay, etc etc.

When we had our 2nd daughter, the hospital just could not understand why we were not on wick, or welfare, we paid, same doctors. So there are failures within all the systems, but taking away choice did not work with obama care and will not moving forward.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

So following along with this conversation, I was the one who suggested taking funding of healthcare away from employers (corporations). You responded that that would shift the burden from corporations to the middle class. I then responded that the middle class already fund lots of things that specifically benefit corporations (like courts). You now argue that "that will always be the case." So if it's always the case, do we agree?

I'm having a really hard time following your position, but if we agree, I'd love to give you a rare-for-this-thread socialist fist-bump.

I don't believe we agree. You are trying to wrap this in one happy ending.

Point 1:

There will always be someone in power. There will always be inequity. If you burn down the corporations, the government is the next logical power broker with the added benefit that you will have ZERO place to go to address your grievences. There would be no higher authority. Right now the government can pass laws to contain the corporation. If the corporation does not like the law, they have the right to take the business else where and take the chance that they can survive the new market. So be it.

Point 2:

To the point that the middle class already funds things. Yes they do and it is a burden on the middle class. The cities that require more from the population, the access to basics of living go up to a point where your poor can not access the most basic living conditions. Regulation drives bottom line cost of living. You are not asking the middle class to take on an additional 50 trillion dollars in tax burden (I believe that was the cost of healthcare alone). The working poor will not pay that. The corporations will not pay that. The wealthy will not pay that. They will just simply move or not cash in. The middle class will pay that. Right now the cost of insurance comes off the top of profit. Profit is based on what they sell everywhere including off shore. You are going to ask a very narrow segment of society to fund for everyone. At least the employees of the corporations have skin in the game.

Delta you frequently have unique goal posts so I don't want to assume. Where does middle class fall as a percentile of income tax payers? 25th to 75th? 40th to 80th?

I guess I'm a little confused about this "the middle class pays all the taxes" argument, but I want to understand your point of view and maybe you see the middle class differently than I do?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Delta you frequently have unique goal posts so I don't want to assume. Where does middle class fall as a percentile of income tax payers? 25th to 75th? 40th to 80th?

I guess I'm a little confused about this "the middle class pays all the taxes" argument, but I want to understand your point of view and maybe you see the middle class differently than I do?

Shut the front door. You mean to tell me that the rich people that you democrats demonize actually do pay their fair share?

That chart is income tax and middle class depends on where it is defined. Narrow definition is the middle 1/5 of income earners. Loose definition is from the margin from the top 20% to the bottom 20%. of income.

https://money.cnn.com/infographic/ec...way/index.html



https://i.cdn.turner.com/money/infog...ass-income.png

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Delta you frequently have unique goal posts so I don't want to assume. Where does middle class fall as a percentile of income tax payers? 25th to 75th? 40th to 80th?

I guess I'm a little confused about this "the middle class pays all the taxes" argument, but I want to understand your point of view and maybe you see the middle class differently than I do?

Besides, middle class paying all taxes is a democrat argument. I figured I would use your words.

Middle class would be saddled with the tax burden because as you point out, the rich already pay more percentage of tax. They will simply move earnings to stock or if they still want to pay, they are not hit as hard. You really think you are getting an additional $50 Trillion out of the top 10% or so?

Didn't you democrats say that since Reagan gave away tax cuts for the rich that the rich have not been paying as much? Looks like that is a lie.



Looks like the Top peoples percentage has gone up.

Federal Government in 2017 took in 3.3 Trillion from taxes total. You want to shift $50 trillion (I assume over 10 years) to the tax payer. This was a estimate for healthcare for all. That is an additional 5 Trillion a year to the tax payer. One estimate for all of Bernies plans is $90 trillion over 10 years for 9 trillion a year.

48% of the taxes is from income taxes. That is $1.584 trillion from us and of that only the top 50% of the people pay that. So that is and additional $5 Trillion a year paid for by the top 50%. You are advocating that we increase the average workers tax burden another 3x of what they pay now.

I believe doug was 30K to the feds? Now he would pay 120k to the feds. So instead of paying 10k a year that he does for insurance, he can now pay 90k a year for insurance. I am sure doug will be very motivated to make money at that rate. There will be a point where the top 50% drops out and only the top 30% is paying taxes because there would be little incentive to work if food, housing and insurance is paid for. Sign me up.

once the financial industry stops credit evals, regarding medical debt and collections, but you still pay your mortgage and car loans etc etc on time. They will lend money and ignore it. Its already happening now. So what do you do, just have the government take it over, do not allow private insurance and raise taxes. Control the income of the physicians and hospitals and they don't have to fear pandamonia if the financial sector ignore the medical debt.

If you miss your child support for 3 months, you become a walking dead man, cannot get any financial flexibility until you balance. PAY your support, you should anyways, its your child! But, with that said, millions have outstanding student loan debt, and its become moot, lenders still lend. so why pay it.

socialized healthcare, without private options, is a monopoly on your money. They will take it faster than you can spend it. On top of that, we will end up in a system that has limited service and no ability to expedite care. Why would anyone be in a hurry, not like you have somewhere else to go. While we all may not like the reality we live in, hospitals and physician services want and need you to go to them. They need to profit to survive. Healthcare providers work their ass off. Its not an easy gig. Pay them or there will not be any left.

You guys must be relieved pence is on the corona virus case. I'm sure he is praying up a solution ASAP.

Originally Posted by dougr

socialized healthcare, without private options, is a monopoly on your money. They will take it faster than you can spend it. On top of that, we will end up in a system that has limited service and no ability to expedite care. Why would anyone be in a hurry, not like you have somewhere else to go. While we all may not like the reality we live in, hospitals and physician services want and need you to go to them. They need to profit to survive. Healthcare providers work their ass off. Its not an easy gig. Pay them or there will not be any left.

how come firemen still turn on their sirens and rush to a fire, being socialist pawns and all?

Trump guts the CDC in the runup to the virus, brilliant. I'm sure Pence and Mother can pray it away. The newly gutted CDC and the administration full of science deniers put out a faulty test for the virus, back to the drawing board. Meanwhile Trump is blaming it on the media lol.

Too bad for trump Corona virus isnt a thing where he can fire someone and replace with a political appointee in an "acting" role to "solve" a crisis. And too bad he removed all Obama era infectious disease specialists and gutted the entire department. And too bad he put science denier pence in charge whos response is to pray. The country needs someone to get real information they can trust. Wall street wants, needs information it can trust. Too bad this admin isnt trustworthy. Be honest, who trusts trump?

Originally Posted by ralph

You guys must be relieved pence is on the corona virus case. I'm sure he is praying up a solution ASAP.

Why do you have to belittle religious people. You are your kind are the ones who call yourselves women, yet ignore X and Y chromosomes

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

how come firemen still turn on their sirens and rush to a fire, being socialist pawns and all?

And firemen are what percentage of the population? They will be fired immediately if they did not do otherwise and there are people lined up to take their spot. Eventually the standard would fall.

You are not going to have doctors and nurses lined up to take others places, well because you do not even have that now. The standard is very high and even then you get quacks.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Too bad for trump Corona virus isnt a thing where he can fire someone and replace with a political appointee in an "acting" role to "solve" a crisis. And too bad he removed all Obama era infectious disease specialists and gutted the entire department. And too bad he put science denier pence in charge whos response is to pray. The country needs someone to get real information they can trust. Wall street wants, needs information it can trust. Too bad this admin isnt trustworthy. Be honest, who trusts trump?

Just when I didn't think you could be any more stupid, you completely blow me away and remove my doubt. Well done.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

And firemen are what percentage of the population? They will be fired immediately if they did not do otherwise and there are people lined up to take their spot. Eventually the standard would fall.

You are not going to have doctors and nurses lined up to take others places, well because you do not even have that now. The standard is very high and even then you get quacks.

well what percentage are brain surgeons? What's your point? Add up all state and federal employee first responders then. They all seem to do their jobs even tho they suckle at the teat of socialism. Why would docs be different?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Just when I didn't think you could be any more stupid, you completely blow me away and remove my doubt. Well done.

Who believes trump was the question. The stock market and I think you got it wrong.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b66622ed768d31

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Why do you have to belittle religious people. You are your kind are the ones who call yourselves women, yet ignore X and Y chromosomes

Because they are hilariously deluded. Don't worry I make fun of gender deniers too.

Originally Posted by ralph

Because they are hilariously deluded. Don't worry I make fun of gender deniers too.

I don't believe me and my wife are hilariously deluded. Lots of ignorance in your statement.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

well what percentage are brain surgeons? What's your point? Add up all state and federal employee first responders then. They all seem to do their jobs even tho they suckle at the teat of socialism. Why would docs be different?

Democrats really are blind to the human condition aren't you. Maybe you are not deliberately dangerous, maybe it is ignorance. Question is, is it deliberate or on purpose?

The point is, the standards will be lower. Why the heck does someone want to go to school for 8 years plus and work nights and weekends only to have someone waiting to take their lively hood at every given turn to not be compensated for the demand and the risk?

There are not that many people in the country that can even meet the standard. Remove the reward and now you remove the motivation for those who do.

If your message was so positive, then why is your party freaking out over Bernie? I would think that his praise of Castro, Soviet Union and Venezuela would make you proud. Why does him speaking about those countries make your moderates cringe? Isn't his message a positive one?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

well what percentage are brain surgeons? What's your point? Add up all state and federal employee first responders then. They all seem to do their jobs even tho they suckle at the teat of socialism. Why would docs be different?

Also first resonders are a different breed. They tend to be more of the warrior types in our society.

With that said, the ability to retire at 50 years old has a certain draw to it. There are also lines of people who will take their job so the leadership will wash out a first responder in a heart beat if they do not hold the standard. There are tons of people who go through the police academies in California who do not get picked up or washed out in field training.

You don't really have lines of brain surgeons laying around when one does not meet the standard. Rarity creates value.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Who believes trump was the question. The stock market and I think you got it wrong.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b66622ed768d31

Stock market is going down because supply chain disruption. Sounds like a good time for you rich people to invest.

The stock market is down because of uncertainty. It doesnt like uncertainty. Trumps info, handling of the issue does not satisfy this need. Trump is untrustworthy.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I don't believe me and my wife are hilariously deluded. Lots of ignorance in your statement.

Do you know the first step in being deluded? Thinking you not deluded lol.

I can list a ton nonsensical things you believe if you think it will help.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Also first resonders are a different breed. They tend to be more of the warrior types in our society.

With that said, the ability to retire at 50 years old has a certain draw to it. There are also lines of people who will take their job so the leadership will wash out a first responder in a heart beat if they do not hold the standard. There are tons of people who go through the police academies in California who do not get picked up or washed out in field training.

You don't really have lines of brain surgeons laying around when one does not meet the standard. Rarity creates value.

Honest question -- do green berets / seal team / etc. get paid "private sector money," and is there a shortage of them?

Clearly there's another big gatekeeping difference which is that elite military / first responders don't pay for their own training as docs do. One can see that an adjustment from private to public service would also require some adjustment to how med school is paid for. Part of the reason docs can justify the huge student loan burden is that the income will be there to take care of the loans.

That said, I'm honestly not sure whether the change in comp would be that much of a difference for future docs if the cost of getting the required education was adjusted correspondingly (certainly it would be a huge system shock for current docs). Medicine is a calling as much as it is a career and the idea of the super-compensated doc is really relatively new (a few generations).

Originally Posted by 95sn

Who believes trump was the question. The stock market and I think you got it wrong.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b66622ed768d31

So he wouldn't give drug addicts free needles and he is responsible for the HIV outbreak. LMFAO.

Originally Posted by ralph

Do you know the first step in being deluded? Thinking you not deluded lol.

I can list a ton nonsensical things you believe if you think it will help.

You can list them, however you are the one who is constantly bitching about how things are vs what you want them to be. I, on the other hand, am living in the now with how things actually are. Things usually are the way because that is how it needs to be or naturally will be. I think I am doing just fine.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Honest question -- do green berets / seal team / etc. get paid "private sector money," and is there a shortage of them?

Clearly there's another big gatekeeping difference which is that elite military / first responders don't pay for their own training as docs do. One can see that an adjustment from private to public service would also require some adjustment to how med school is paid for. Part of the reason docs can justify the huge student loan burden is that the income will be there to take care of the loans.

That said, I'm honestly not sure whether the change in comp would be that much of a difference for future docs if the cost of getting the required education was adjusted correspondingly (certainly it would be a huge system shock for current docs). Medicine is a calling as much as it is a career and the idea of the super-compensated doc is really relatively new (a few generations).

So know we are onto free school for doctors and nurses. You don't see the slippery slope do you?

Actually many first responders do pay for their own academy. I know a few who have. Some get paid for if they get picked up by a department first. They have to pass the academy and then field training. Of course that is after they have already paid for enough college credits on their own prior to be accepted by a department first. A good portion get washed during the training phases.

Are you really comparing police officer, doctors, firemen to Navy Seals? While I can appreciate the shared spirit, it is not even close. My friend (I didn't know him when he was younger) would run his butt off in high school just for the challenge. The guy is 50 and retired from the team and still goes for 5 miles runs and 30 to 50 mile bike rides before the sun gets up most days of the week. You are talking a very unique mindset. Even then, as you may have seen in those documentries, most of those dudes get washed out in training. If the Seals wanted they could lower the standard and have more of their ranks. There are always a line of people who want to do it (until they have to do it anyway). They are not in it for money, they are in it for the cool stuff they get to do, the cool equipment, claiming to be the best of the best, and f-ing crap up with a license to do so. Many of them pay the ulitmate sacrifice and some never ever recover from some of the things they had to do to others or seen done to their buddies.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Honest question -- do green berets / seal team / etc. get paid "private sector money," and is there a shortage of them?

Clearly there's another big gatekeeping difference which is that elite military / first responders don't pay for their own training as docs do. One can see that an adjustment from private to public service would also require some adjustment to how med school is paid for. Part of the reason docs can justify the huge student loan burden is that the income will be there to take care of the loans.

That said, I'm honestly not sure whether the change in comp would be that much of a difference for future docs if the cost of getting the required education was adjusted correspondingly (certainly it would be a huge system shock for current docs). Medicine is a calling as much as it is a career and the idea of the super-compensated doc is really relatively new (a few generations).

Also, there are very elite few special forces members.

As far as the free college stuff. So you want to move the cost of medical which appears to be an additional 3x tax burden on the top 50%, now you want to move medical training to those same people? How much taxes do you want people to pay?

Hate to break it to you. Bernie is not the outlier in your party. He is the party and you are him.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Hate to break it to you. Bernie is not the outlier in your party. He is the party and you are him.

Delta, Bernie, is only getting 30% of democratic vote in a few States including his home State, Trump wants him to win the nomination because he would be easy to beat next November. Bernie only has 45 delegates, you need 1991 delegates to win the nomination so, there might be a brokered convention, in that case Bernie does Not get the nomination.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN20L3B0

Originally Posted by joeshmoe

Delta, Bernie, is only getting 30% of democratic vote in a few States including his home State, Trump wants him to win the nomination because he would be easy to beat next November. Bernie only has 45 delegates, you need 1991 delegates to win the nomination so, there might be a brokered convention, in that case Bernie does Not get the nomination.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN20L3B0

I know, it is a long race. Bernie has momentum. More importantly for this WW discussion, Bernie won Nevada I believe. That is Shawns state.

I have heard talk of the brokered convention, but they screwed Bernie last time. I don't think the party will do that.

He has momentum, but the states thus far are not the bigguns. I'm not voting for Bernie and I would not be thrilled if he gets the nom, but let's be honest - Bernie doesn't want to make the US into Cuba, he wants to make it into Canada.

Interesting link Shawn. This part in particular:

"If, for instance, both Sanders and Biden had around 40% of the delegates, lower-tier candidates might decide to ask their delegates to vote for one or the other weeks before the convention.

How is this all playing out on the campaign trail?

Sanders has said the candidate with the most delegates should get the nomination, since that best reflects the will of the people.

But as rival Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out during a CNN town hall on Wednesday, Sanders himself said the opposite in 2016, when Clinton held a majority of pledged delegates. At the time, he argued superdelegate support could still clinch the party’s nod for him at the convention.

Warren said she would fight until the convention even if she trails in delegates.

“Bernie had a big hand in writing these rules,” she said. “I didn’t write them.”"

It's Bernie's to lose at this point. A brokered convention is compelling fiction but in practice would be a complete and utter disaster. You think team bernie is going to go along en masse and vote for someone else? No friggin way. Once the superdelegates get released, they are going to have to back whoever has the most delegates (even if a plurality).

We'll know a week from now who it is, but I just don't see anyone with the ability to close the deal like bernie.

We are all good down here in Florida, we got this preacher guy that cured the Zika virus, and now is going to pray away the corona virus!
https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/...of-coronavirus
He is demanding that his parishioners pay him 10% of their income for his service!

Originally Posted by pesos

He has momentum, but the states thus far are not the bigguns. I'm not voting for Bernie and I would not be thrilled if he gets the nom, but let's be honest - Bernie doesn't want to make the US into Cuba, he wants to make it into Canada.

Hard to believe when he compliments Cuba and the Soviet Union. Canada has the ability to be Canada because they are next to the US.

Originally Posted by psudy

So he wouldn't give drug addicts free needles and he is responsible for the HIV outbreak. LMFAO.

It was more his history of public health policy when gov of Indiana. Yeah it was an error to hold off on the needle exchange, over 200 died. He was wrong in 2001 when he said smoking doesnt kill. Praying isnt a reasonable political response to um well...anything.
Again, the question is Do you trust the trump administration to handle the virus issue? Thus far they have downplayed the threat. Most of the big issues hes dealt with were self caused N. Korea and Rocketman, the border, Supporting Putin, Ukraine impeachment, Stone justice dept tampering, and on and on.....Recall his handling of situations he didnt personally cause, ie hurricane Dorian his ego and sharpiegate. The mishandling of Puerto Rico after hurricane. In Nov 2019 the Center for Strategic and International Studies (includes 5 GOP senators) warned of gaping holes in the countries defenses against a major health crisis. It concluded saying "The American people are far from safe, to the contrary the United States remains woefully ill-prepared to respond to global health security risks".
This is an administration in constant chaos, upheaval and change in characters.Trumps administration is on its 3rd Chief of Staff, its 4th Nat'l Security Advisor, its 5th Sec. of Homeland Security, its 6th Nat'l Deputy National Security, he is on his 7th Communication Director and on and on.... Its the definition of disorganization and disorder.
So the question remains, Do you trust the Trump administration to handle the Covid-19 virus issue?

https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/sto...e-by-president

I wonder what would have happened if he wouldn't have halted flights from China? He wouldn't have been called a racist but then he would be blasted for not stopping flights from China. Puerto Rico? Please. The only people that mishandled that situation was the Puerto Rican Government. I trust him as much as I would trust any other government run response.

Thanks. You imply you dont trust any governments response. Do we have a choice?
Personally, I dont think shutting down the country to flights is correct response. Our focus shouldn't be stopping airplanes, damaging global trade and shutting borders. We cant do that for month after month on end. We need to concentrate our response on another level. We are relying on a lot of Chinese info, need more. Focus on bulking our treatment and care responses.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Thanks. You imply you dont trust any governments response. Do we have a choice?
Personally, I dont think shutting down the country to flights is correct response. Our focus shouldn't be stopping airplanes, damaging global trade and shutting borders. We cant do that for month after month on end. We need to concentrate our response on another level. We are relying on a lot of Chinese info, need more. Focus on bulking our treatment and care responses.

Hospitals already train for these events. Only thing a government can do is suspend your rights and detain you. If Trump did that, you would hold him up as a monster. They already have scientists at all levels working on a cure/ treatment. 60,000 to 80,000 a year in the US die from the flu and I don't see you blaming that on the government.

Why don't you guys explain how a virus like this is getting out of control in a socialized medicine country? Not only a socialized medicine country, but an authoritarian country no less. I would love to here this one.

The Chinese probably have as much or more power as any country to completely shut down a large city. Agree? I believe its a province near the size of NYC. I do not trust China. Not sure that being a country with socialized medicine effects a virus. Does it know? Its too early to know how the US is doing since we are not even testing. In addition to suspending rights and detaining, the Govt has an obligation to inform us. The history of the current administration in handling all issues has been to obfuscate, confuse, deny, project and cover-up . Not suggesting that is the case with the virus, but that is the concern. Placing Pence to lead doesnt give me a warm fuzzy.

Originally Posted by psudy

I wonder what would have happened if he wouldn't have halted flights from China? He wouldn't have been called a racist but then he would be blasted for not stopping flights from China. Puerto Rico? Please. The only people that mishandled that situation was the Puerto Rican Government. I trust him as much as I would trust any other government run response.

What makes you think he has stopped flights from China?

Originally Posted by 95sn

The Chinese probably have as much or more power as any country to completely shut down a large city. Agree? I believe its a province near the size of NYC. I do not trust China. Not sure that being a country with socialized medicine effects a virus. Does it know? Its too early to know how the US is doing since we are not even testing. In addition to suspending rights and detaining, the Govt has an obligation to inform us. The history of the current administration in handling all issues has been to obfuscate, confuse, deny, project and cover-up . Not suggesting that is the case with the virus, but that is the concern. Placing Pence to lead doesnt give me a warm fuzzy.

They only do that because democrats are liars and cheats. I would not trust democrats either when it comes to politics if I was Trump. We have seen what they have been about.

You guys seem to think socialized medicine is great and will cure everything. It seems to be doing not so well with this virus.

What is this being tested thing in the US? If someone has been exposed or shows symptoms, they are tested. Other than that, they are not going to line us up at gun point and draw our blood. Not sure what this testing is supposed to be? Would be genius though. Great way to sucker everyone into giving the government your DNA out out of fear. No longer have to sucker you though the geneology testing websites.

Make no mistake, the government really has ZERO obligation to tell you what is happening. If crap really hit the fan and there was a decision for the public good, you would simply be dealt with. You would like to think the government would have you march down on your own or whatever, but they have no obligation.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You guys seem to think socialized medicine is great and will cure everything. It seems to be doing not so well with this virus

Eh, you realise that socialised medicine won't stop you from getting the virus, it just stops you dying if you do get it

You can have all the socialist medicine you want, just don't make the entire healthcare system get under the finger of the government. you can have people opt in, opt out, but Bernie does not want that, he wants to control you, and he knows the cost will kill us, so it will fail, without it being single payer, no private, he will have people opt out, and he will not be able to hike taxes to cover his plan. Thats it, simple. offer a public option, let the people decide. IS that not what America is about?

Originally Posted by dougr

Thats it, simple. offer a public option, let the people decide. IS that not what America is about?

Sold! 100% agree. The downside of the public option is reduced control over costs (gov't plan competes against private plans), but if we are going to run giant deficits let's at least buy something with the IOU to China, right? It's the right answer at this time... complete nationalization of the healthcare industry would be too disruptive.

EDIT -- I guess the other downside is no individual mandate, which means (unlike education, fire, police, and military protection) we'll still have stupids with no coverage.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Sold! 100% agree. The downside of the public option is reduced control over costs (gov't plan competes against private plans), but if we are going to run giant deficits let's at least buy something with the IOU to China, right? It's the right answer at this time... complete nationalization of the healthcare industry would be too disruptive.

EDIT -- I guess the other downside is no individual mandate, which means (unlike education, fire, police, and military protection) we'll still have stupids with no coverage.

There will always be people who do not want coverage. and even with government options, there will be some cost to the individual. So in the end. like obama care, medicare and medicaid is not free, there are still individual costs. people on social security still pay taxes, still have medical bills. its not inclusive. So why would anyone believe those who don't pay now, are going to pay period. Thats why the welfare system is so beneficial to the poor. they pay nothing. We pay it. and i am for helping people. truly! But I also have a responsibility to my family and myself. I work my ass off, i choose to because i can change the landscape of my family and future family. Take it away, and the juice is not worth the squeeze.

Originally Posted by dougr

There will always be people who do not want coverage. and even with government options, there will be some cost to the individual. So in the end. like obama care, medicare and medicaid is not free, there are still individual costs. people on social security still pay taxes, still have medical bills. its not inclusive. So why would anyone believe those who don't pay now, are going to pay period. Thats why the welfare system is so beneficial to the poor. they pay nothing. We pay it. and i am for helping people. truly! But I also have a responsibility to my family and myself. I work my ass off, i choose to because i can change the landscape of my family and future family. Take it away, and the juice is not worth the squeeze.

I’m my neighbors don’t have the option to not pay for public schools that they don’t use. Pretty sure they’d elect not to pay if they had the chance.

Originally Posted by dougr

Thats it, simple. offer a public option, let the people decide. IS that not what America is about?

100% agree, it's what we have here and it works well and is affordable

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I’m my neighbors don’t have the option to not pay for public schools that they don’t use. Pretty sure they’d elect not to pay if they had the chance.

You can opt out of paying general school tax by not owning. just rent, property and school taxes, depending on the state, are inclusive to ownership. Now some states don't have state tax, and opt for higher property tax. We all pay taxes, let those who don't want to pay rent, or move to area with lower taxes or move to a state that marries your tax beliefs. No one is saying, no taxes, bernie is saying everythigns free, but its not. We all know its not. Do you want to decide or have Bernie decide for you.

the 3 canadian employees, under our USA inc employment, all say, it takes forever to see a doctor if you don't have a personal, independent, health plan. They buy private insurance. Canadian insurance covers basic, basic care. 20 years ago, Canadians were spending about 50 billion a year in private coverage. Currently there are aprox 40 million canadians. So they are still buying supplement coverage for apron 200 or so billion, Thats not including out of pocket after.

so with 300 million people, plus total costs, just supplemental health care, out side of basic would cost over a trillion a year if we had medicaid basic and bought BCBS, not including co pays and deductibles. IT would be much higher with full coverage, prescriptions etc etc

Originally Posted by dougr

You can opt out of paying general school tax by not owning. just rent, property and school taxes, depending on the state, are inclusive to ownership.

For a business guy that’s pretty facetious Doug. The tax is charged on all property owners. So your landlord pays it and passes it along to you in rent, or the landlord passes the tax along to you directly (NNN). even if your landlord cuts the tax check, you the renter are paying it.

Beat me to it re: prop taxes.

In other news, Biden landslide in SoCo, and Steyer dropped out (most of his 11% of votes would go to a Biden type too). Out of nearly 2,000 delegates needed, it's now Bernie 57 and Biden 51.