TRUMP for Prez

The problem is that Trump is the wrong guy to get pretty much get anything done. Even if he's on the right side of an issue, he pisses everyone off by acting like an impetulant child who has to have his way and wants all the credit. Absolutely the wrong way to get people to cooperate, especially in the political arena. Instead of getting intelligent articulate people to make a sound case, he believes that his bombastic accusations and a racist narrative will convince people to see his side.

The claim that everyone wanted a wall until Trump arrived just supports the claim that Trump is the wrong guy. There is a reason for that. People know that anything he pursues is ill conceived and solely for the purpose of self-aggrandizing. They want an intelligent leader before they commit put their faith and money. You don't give money to an idiot.

I can imagine that people are going to reply that Trump is accomplishing great things from China and N Korea, but that's counting your chickens before they hatch. It's pretty much self evident that the way to beat Trump is to flatter him and give him apparent wins that translate to nothing down the road.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

I am positive if your country had this problem you'd prob sing a different tune especially if you weren't well off & your hood was greatly impacted by them. In fact, most of the supporters on this site are clearly removed from the many negatives of the impact on cities with illegals or like most lip service liberals can afford to live in better areas & don't actually give two ****s about the people impacted by the illegals. I live very close to them, my school district is full of them, it's an issue, not a racist issue. Murder rates have sky rocketed, hit runs seem to be favorite past time of the Mexicans jacking everyones insurance rates through the roof, laws requiring all of us to pay for uninsured motorist insurance. Burglaries at an all time high, kidnappings, etc. Send 10 million americans to any country on earth and act the way the illegals have and I guarantee whitey would get kicked the eff out & by force if necessary. There's a reason Canada can be Canada & it has a lot to do with how they handle immigration & how they know how to say no. Bet your ass if millions were flocking to Canada illegally they'd be demanding we stop it & they'd be constructing a wall.a

Again, I'm not saying illegal immigration isn't a problem and I'm not saying more shouldn't be done, I'm saying spending $25b on a wall to reduce illegal immigration by 5% doesn't make any sense. Especially when you are already running a $1T budget deficit at the end of an expansion cycle and total debt is about to breach $22T

Originally Posted by ralph

No mate, not fake, what you see is part of the 10%. That's right, there is 90% more your not seeing and wasting $25b on a wall isn't going to stop. I'm not saying it's not bad and things shouldn't be done, I'm saying spending money on a wall is just a symbol and prevents money from being spent where it would be more effective.

So why is there currently hundreds of miles of walls on the border and why did the democrats want more wall before? They wanted more wall because it works where it is implemented.

The more wall, the less of your expensive assets have to be used in the areas of the walls. It is not that the wall will completely seal the border. You can now move personnel to the actual hot spots. You guys act like we do not already have border walls with mexico and this is a new thing.

Illegals cost california billions every year. The third largest GNP product for Mexico is cash directly leaving the local American economy. I believe that is over $50 billion alone. 2003 numbers for california were around $15 billion in services rendered. Then you have massive extra infastructure usage. Water usage and so on. All this is passed on the middle class so the democrats can have more voters voting for hand outs from the public money. Get enough in the country and you can turn the country socialist by using the ballot box.

To answer if mexico is going to pay for it? They would. They would have to pay for all their people that they can not pawn off on us for education, healthcare, cash relocation and so on.

Originally Posted by fly135

The problem is that Trump is the wrong guy to get pretty much get anything done. Even if he's on the right side of an issue, he pisses everyone off by acting like an impetulant child who has to have his way and wants all the credit. Absolutely the wrong way to get people to cooperate, especially in the political arena. Instead of getting intelligent articulate people to make a sound case, he believes that his bombastic accusations and a racist narrative will convince people to see his side.

The claim that everyone wanted a wall until Trump arrived just supports the claim that Trump is the wrong guy. There is a reason for that. People know that anything he pursues is ill conceived and solely for the purpose of self-aggrandizing. They want an intelligent leader before they commit put their faith and money. You don't give money to an idiot.

I can imagine that people are going to reply that Trump is accomplishing great things from China and N Korea, but that's counting your chickens before they hatch. It's pretty much self evident that the way to beat Trump is to flatter him and give him apparent wins that translate to nothing down the road.

Sounds great when you say this in your own head but it does not hold water. Bush was a good guy. Democrats lied and hated him. Reagan was a good guy. Democrats hated him. It does not matter if you have good ideas because good ideas are good for America. The goal is not to be good for America because that only strengthens our national unity. The goal is to globalize America so all good ideas need to be resisted. Trump knows the agenda and that simply having good ideas with proper decorum is not going to get it done. The Americans in all the fly over states who are footing the bill of the internationalist understand this too. We know who the enemies are and what it will take to beat them. That is how you got Trump.

Originally Posted by ralph

Again, I'm not saying illegal immigration isn't a problem and I'm not saying more shouldn't be done, I'm saying spending $25b on a wall to reduce illegal immigration by 5% doesn't make any sense. Especially when you are already running a $1T budget deficit at the end of an expansion cycle and total debt is about to breach $22T

The fiscal year budget is 4 trillion. 22 billion is hardly a dent. In that budget is 30 billion aid to S. America, 150 billion in aid to ME countries who hate us. In the grand scheme of things, the wall money is chump change. Maybe we can give the ME 75 billion & build the wall. As for deficits, the entire world runs on deficits & credit & no one will ever claw their way out of it. It's a ponzi scheme so claiming this is a waste of money is rather comical in comparison to what we waste. I say take it out of the defense budget, which is what will happen if he issues the order to build the way by Nat Emergency.

Fences; I built a fence around property. Can you jump it & get in my yard? Sure can. Do the kids run through my property anymore? No. Do people use my yard as a short cut to open space anymore? No. The simple reduction in the numbers is what matters.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

The fiscal year budget is 4 trillion. 22 billion is hardly a dent. In that budget is 30 billion aid to S. America, 150 billion in aid to ME countries who hate us. In the grand scheme of things, the wall money is chump change. Maybe we can give the ME 75 billion & build the wall. As for deficits, the entire world runs on deficits & credit & no one will ever claw their way out of it. It's a ponzi scheme so claiming this is a waste of money is rather comical in comparison to what we waste. I say take it out of the defense budget, which is what will happen if he issues the order to build the way by Nat Emergency.

Fences; I built a fence around property. Can you jump it & get in my yard? Sure can. Do the kids run through my property anymore? No. Do people use my yard as a short cut to open space anymore? No. The simple reduction in the numbers is what matters.

NZ is currently running a budget surplus with free healthcare and education. So yeah, it can be done if the will is there. And I totally agree, you would have money for the wall if you weren't spending it elsewhere. Another Trump lie, he would balance the books and it would be easy.

Originally Posted by ralph

NZ is currently running a budget surplus with free healthcare and education. So yeah, it can be done if the will is there. And I totally agree, you would have money for the wall if you weren't spending it elsewhere. Another Trump lie, he would balance the books and it would be easy.

No such thing as Free. You have to get the money from somewhere or limit salaries and benefits.

We do have the money for the wall. It is easy if people wanted to do it. This is a political issue. The democrats do not want to turn the Illegals, who may end of voting and certainly their children who will vote, against them. The money is not the issue at all. One ship in our navy costs that much. California spends more than that in less than 1/4 of a year on illegals alone.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

No such thing as Free. You have to get the money from somewhere or limit salaries and benefits.

We do have the money for the wall. It is easy if people wanted to do it. This is a political issue. The democrats do not want to turn the Illegals, who may end of voting and certainly their children who will vote, against them. The money is not the issue at all. One ship in our navy costs that much. California spends more than that in less than 1/4 of a year on illegals alone.

Yes of course you are right, nothing is free.What I should of said is healthcare and education costs are shared by all society here and we still have money left over for the coming economic downturn.

Where as in the states you don't provide those services and still spend more money than you collect and argue that you should be spending more. I find it amazing that conservatives think this way.

Originally Posted by ralph

Yes of course you are right, nothing is free.What I should of said is healthcare and education costs are shared by all society here and we still have money left over for the coming economic downturn.

Where as in the states you don't provide those services and still spend more money than you collect and argue that you should be spending more. I find it amazing that conservatives think this way.

You keep comparing apples to pears. Your system & health care is not anything like ours. It won't work here. We've made the cost of medical care so outrageous, for the Gov to suddenly take it over would completely crash the system, doctors would flee as salaries are cut there'd be a shortage of nurses & a massive influx of patients. Aus, Europe are not socialists, you're capitalists with welfare programs propped up by not blowing what we blow on military, space, DARPA research. And as ****ty as it seems, this planet has been at peace more now than in history than any other time. A large part of that is the security it offers Europe who'd be Russian by now without us backed NATO. Piracy was a still big problem until the Navy & Russian Navy started patrolling the oceans. War sucks, but it comes, I'd rather we have WAY better weapons than china or Russia. I digress

Aus's surplus is also the first one in 14-15 years? Your population is 25 million I think? We're 300 million with 24 million illegals. Most of the world has actually been better off with our stupidity except those we bomb & replace leaders we don't like then cry that Russia spent a few thousand on facebook ads, Like it or not, America is America because of the global hegemony we have. And in turn our allys have good place & it pisses Russia & China off so they want their piece of the globe & us gone. Only that hurts us economically & we're not having it, we like our way of life & expensive boats. They threaten that & I personally don't want either having the big stick. We have that solely because of our weapons & technology. So yo, **** the poor they can get jobs & pay for their insurance like the rest of us.

I'm from NZ

Hey if you like Gretta Van or LED Zepplen check out this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=upBWWm86PXU

Originally Posted by ralph

I'm from NZ

Same ****, different twang

Well Chump blinked & canceled the SOTU. Guys a pussy & a liar. Next

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

You keep comparing apples to pears. Your system & health care is not anything like ours. It won't work here.

Cause all our organs are in different spots.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Sounds great when you say this in your own head but it does not hold water. Bush was a good guy. Democrats lied and hated him. Reagan was a good guy. Democrats hated him.

I know it sounds good in your head to say all it takes to run the country is to be a good guy. But that isn't how it works.

Originally Posted by fly135

I know it sounds good in your head to say all it takes to run the country is to be a good guy. But that isn't how it works.

Isn't the point that democrats are obstructionists a-holes?

Originally Posted by denverd1

Isn't the point that democrats are obstructionists a-holes?

I guess it just depends which side of the fence you are on. Rewind to 2010-16 and the Republicans can sure seem like obstructionist a-holes too. Garland's supreme court nomination, for instance? The tea-party cratered "grand compromise" budget negotiations? Relentless and ridiculous benghazi investigations?

And there are others who could probably say that no, the republicans weren't being obstructionist a-holes, they were doing their patriotic and constitutional duty to act as a check on an overreaching democrat president and his administration. <--- consider that dems could see their function this way too.

Originally Posted by denverd1

Isn't the point that democrats are obstructionists a-holes?

No, the point was that you shouldn't disagree with the policies of a good guy. He was arguing that the guy who created some of the worst foreign policy decisions in decades, wasted trillions turning the ME into an unstable hotbed of terrorism, and left office with a budget that sent deficit spending soaring to over a trillion was a good guy, so Democrats were bad for opposing him.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I guess it just depends which side of the fence you are on. Rewind to 2010-16 and the Republicans can sure seem like obstructionist a-holes too. Garland's supreme court nomination, for instance? The tea-party cratered "grand compromise" budget negotiations? Relentless and ridiculous benghazi investigations?

And there are others who could probably say that no, the republicans weren't being obstructionist a-holes, they were doing their patriotic and constitutional duty to act as a check on an overreaching democrat president and his administration. <--- consider that dems could see their function this way too.

so it's good 'ole democracy

Obama and Dems voted for increased border security measures. Now a measly $5B is keeping the gov't shutdown ongoing. still democracy?

I thought i would check out and do some research on Socialized Healthcare. At first it seems like it is very similar to ours, but it's not even close. You just have to be happy with what you can get and pray that things do not get worse.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Originally Posted by ralph

I'm from NZ

Pretty sure W2W thinks New Zealand in is Europe.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

Same ****, different twang

Like Canada & the US

Originally Posted by deneng

I thought i would check out and do some research on Socialized Healthcare. At first it seems like it is very similar to ours, but it's not even close. You just have to be happy with what you can get and pray that things do not get worse.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Any YouTube video called "The Truth about...." is not going to be the truth about anything.

Originally Posted by deneng

I thought i would check out and do some research on Socialized Healthcare. At first it seems like it is very similar to ours, but it's not even close. You just have to be happy with what you can get and pray that things do not get worse.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

I've had 45 years experience with socialized healthcare and it is honestly very good, and you can still opt to have private insurance and private healthcare if you want even better.

I love that Trump tweeted:
"....alternative venue for the SOTU Address because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber. I look forward to giving a “great” State of the Union Address in the near future!"

Putting the word "great" makes this one of his first honest self-evaluations.

Who has Amazons Alexa?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MECcIJW67-M

Originally Posted by denverd1

so it's good 'ole democracy



Obama and Dems voted for increased border security measures. Now a measly $5B is keeping the gov't shutdown ongoing. still democracy?

Measly works both ways. Why keep the govt shut down over this? Reopen then negotiate like a grownup.

Originally Posted by ralph

I've had 45 years experience with socialized healthcare and it is honestly very good, and you can still opt to have private insurance and private healthcare if you want even better.

Again, doesn't work here, it would never be as good as yours or Canadas for many reasons. You don't have socialized healthcare, you have Gov provided healthcare propped up by damn near zero defense spending. There is such a part of me that wishes the states would collapse over night to see what sort of free world everyone faces without us backing their asses up & being the major factors in everyone's economy. Aside from your great insurance, you guys have high levels of poverty, your average tax rate is 33%. I make a great living & I pay 22%. To raise my taxes to 33% to cover universal care would be bull****, I pay less in premiums. You have higher gas taxes, corporate taxes Your illegal immigration comments & comments about Indians are rather comical considering your country was founded the exact same way by British.

"In New Zealand's public health system it is typical for medical appointments, particularly surgeries to have a waiting list. District Health Boards are typical judged in the media and by government in part based on the length of these lists. In 2016, it was inferred that many people required surgery but were not put on the official list.[15] Research projected that of all the people who had been told they needed surgery less than half were on the official list. However, the main concern noted by heath industry observers was the overall increase in waiting time, about 304 days"

Waiting damn near a year for surgery doesn't happen in the states if you're insured. Doesn't happen either if you're not insured because it's illegal to deny anyone care. Stick to your own country, Ralph, I like you & you're level headed like Shawn but you don't know jack **** about the whys

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Measly works both ways. Why keep the govt shut down over this? Reopen then negotiate like a grownup.

I'd rather him keep it shutdown. All the dumbasses that are furloughed and couldn't save a little money are feeling it. Stay off the gov't ***.

I do believe ATC are essential employees. should have privatized when they had the chance.

Originally Posted by denverd1

I'd rather him keep it shutdown. All the dumbasses that are furloughed and couldn't save a little money are feeling it. Stay off the gov't ***.



I do believe ATC are essential employees. should have privatized when they had the chance.

You get to three missed paychecks and you are gonna have some angry folks.

Originally Posted by ralph

Yes of course you are right, nothing is free.What I should of said is healthcare and education costs are shared by all society here and we still have money left over for the coming economic downturn.

Where as in the states you don't provide those services and still spend more money than you collect and argue that you should be spending more. I find it amazing that conservatives think this way.

We absolutely provide those services. You can go to any hospital citizen or not and get treatment. Every country has a hospital that will provide services on a income based scale. The arguments you keep reading about are private care and insurance and the big differences in services rendered and access between the two. Everyone wants the socialized care price with the availability of the private industry.

You have money left over as well because you don't have a military that has had to bail out the world twice and then continued (s) to bail out the world with military spending to keep the bad actors in check. Remove our world commitment to the military for world affairs and then check our budget.

Originally Posted by fly135

No, the point was that you shouldn't disagree with the policies of a good guy. He was arguing that the guy who created some of the worst foreign policy decisions in decades, wasted trillions turning the ME into an unstable hotbed of terrorism, and left office with a budget that sent deficit spending soaring to over a trillion was a good guy, so Democrats were bad for opposing him.

On that account democrats were and are liars. They supported Bush until they decided to take a turn left and then say they opposed Bush. That is how now have the west coast leftists destroying the democrat party. The only democrats that did not sound just like Bush and voted against Bush were just a few left coast socialists. The only way to get a difference was to go radical and here you are.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

We absolutely provide those services. You can go to any hospital citizen or not and get treatment. Every country has a hospital that will provide services on a income based scale. The arguments you keep reading about are private care and insurance and the big differences in services rendered and access between the two. Everyone wants the socialized care price with the availability of the private industry.

You have money left over as well because you don't have a military that has had to bail out the world twice and then continued (s) to bail out the world with military spending to keep the bad actors in check. Remove our world commitment to the military for world affairs and then check our budget.

I get a little confused by that, if you can go to any hospital and get treatment why do you need health insurance and why do you here tales of people bankrupted by medical expenses?

If your point is the US spend way to much on military I agree with you.

Originally Posted by ralph

I get a little confused by that, if you can go to any hospital and get treatment why do you need health insurance and why do you here tales of people bankrupted by medical expenses?

It's just a bizarre interpretation of reality. You will get a bill. If you are poor you can probably just ignore it. But you still can't afford to see a doctor if you're poor. So you have to go to the ER every time what every you got kicks your a$$. If you aren't poor then you need to have HI, otherwise if you have a problem you'll be poor once it's fixed.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

Again, doesn't work here, it would never be as good as yours or Canadas for many reasons. You don't have socialized healthcare, you have Gov provided healthcare propped up by damn near zero defense spending. There is such a part of me that wishes the states would collapse over night to see what sort of free world everyone faces without us backing their asses up & being the major factors in everyone's economy. Aside from your great insurance, you guys have high levels of poverty, your average tax rate is 33%. I make a great living & I pay 22%. To raise my taxes to 33% to cover universal care would be bull****, I pay less in premiums. You have higher gas taxes, corporate taxes Your illegal immigration comments & comments about Indians are rather comical considering your country was founded the exact same way by British.

"In New Zealand's public health system it is typical for medical appointments, particularly surgeries to have a waiting list. District Health Boards are typical judged in the media and by government in part based on the length of these lists. In 2016, it was inferred that many people required surgery but were not put on the official list.[15] Research projected that of all the people who had been told they needed surgery less than half were on the official list. However, the main concern noted by heath industry observers was the overall increase in waiting time, about 304 days"

Waiting damn near a year for surgery doesn't happen in the states if you're insured. Doesn't happen either if you're not insured because it's illegal to deny anyone care. Stick to your own country, Ralph, I like you & you're level headed like Shawn but you don't know jack **** about the whys

Waiting times can give a bit of a skewed sample because elective surgery is included as well as urgent. As a personal example, 3 years ago my wife found a lump and required double mastectomy and reconstruction, we have insurance and from finding lump to being reconstructed took 3 weeks. 1 year later my mates wife required a single mastectomy, they didn't have insurance and it took 5 weeks. Procedure was performed in the same clinic. IMO, that's a pretty good outcome with both systems.

No doubt the indigenous people here got a rough deal and we have work to do in reparations but I feel like they are treated with more respect than the Indians or aboriginals in Ausy.

Average tax is not 33%, that's the top tax rate, the average income are taxed @ 18.5% plus we have a universal sales tax @ 15%. No state tax.

Yes, we pay more tax and recieve more services but you can't get away from the fact that the US spend twice what we do per capita on Healthcare yet it seems many people are not looked after. So that's why I give my perspective from the outside, I feel like you guys are being let down by your leaders, they could do a lot better.

Oh and I looked up, NZ spend 1.1% of gdp on defense which is about the same as Germany and Canada. I don't apologize for it, I think spending 3.5% of gdp is way too much and the military industrial complex is discusting.

Originally Posted by ralph

I get a little confused by that, if you can go to any hospital and get treatment why do you need health insurance and why do you here tales of people bankrupted by medical expenses?

If your point is the US spend way to much on military I agree with you.

And that is where all the different tales come in. Are people really bankrupted by it?

My wife's good friends brother in law had cancer treatments and he did not have a job or insurance. My wife when she was a teen/ early 20's did not have insurance. Went to county hospital and had wrist surgery. Graduated scale.She was so young and broke, it cost nothing. It took time to schedule.

Unfortunately most of the county hospitals are in the bad areas especially in the cities and most suburban people are not going to drive over there (little to dark outside for their liking). They are also crowded with high demand. Most hospitals are private hospitals but are mandated that they have to provide services. Well, they are going to try and give you a bill.

You have the other situation where illegal immigration is adding millions of people to a system that are not paying taxes for that system. Many of the hospitals in high illegal areas have shut down.

You also have a difference on what people and hospitals call a real issue. Are the people really sick or are they just walking with a limp because they crashed on a wakeboard. In a tax payer funded model, the wakeboard limp may not be a high priority.

Bankruptcy is a financial tool. It allows you to go before a judge and have the judge determine a plan for you to pay debts.

I admit it is complicated. I don't believe I knew anyone who had insurance growing up. Also our doctors and nurses pay their own way through school so they are absorbing all the risk. We are not socializing their education and the supposed socialistic education system is out of control with their costs.

On the military. I am glad we spend what we do on it, however that is a reason why our budgets are different than most of the worlds.

Originally Posted by fly135

It's just a bizarre interpretation of reality. You will get a bill. If you are poor you can probably just ignore it. But you still can't afford to see a doctor if you're poor. So you have to go to the ER every time what every you got kicks your a$$. If you aren't poor then you need to have HI, otherwise if you have a problem you'll be poor once it's fixed.

Not really. Just stop jumping over jumps while holding onto a rope, stop sending children out to beat each other in sports, and so on. Costs go down by billions a year. get rid of the billions a year spent on illegals in the medical system. medical gets cheaper and there is the money that had already been earmarked for it to go around. We all want to keep our risky behaviors and still get the reward of safety nets.

Socialized medial is stating that a person has to render services to us no matter what. That is indentured servitude.

You are correct if you are not poor you will get a bill. yet we do not change our behaviors. Why is that? Because it truly does not cost individuals enough that it changes their behaviors.

Originally Posted by ralph

Oh and I looked up, NZ spend 1.1% of gdp on defense which is about the same as Germany and Canada. I don't apologize for it, I think spending 3.5% of gdp is way too much and the military industrial complex is discusting.

Well, you should check on that NATO agreement on what everyone is supposed to spend and you will see that America is the one footing the bill.

You may dislike the military industrial complex but it is why you are typing to us right now and not speaking Japanese.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Socialized medial is stating that a person has to render services to us no matter what. That is indentured servitude.

Eh ok, are you one of those "tax is theft" weirdos? Why is it ok to force people to pay tax to provide military but not healthcare?

Tax and benefits is part of the social contract, you are part of a society which agrees together that there will be some sharing of costs for the greater good. This provides all sorts of things like police, firemen, military, retirement, education and Healthcare. Together people get to decide the relative level of personal cost and benefit. That's what this discussion is about, how much you pay, what is provided and how competent those that structure the system are.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Well, you should check on that NATO agreement on what everyone is supposed to spend and you will see that America is the one footing the bill.

You may dislike the military industrial complex but it is why you are typing to us right now and not speaking Japanese.

If you say so. Which country do you think is out of step with the rest of the world? Spending 55% of your tax take on military spending is insane.

Originally Posted by ralph

Eh ok, are you one of those "tax is theft" weirdos? Why is it ok to force people to pay tax to provide military but not healthcare?

Tax and benefits is part of the social contract, you are part of a society which agrees together that there will be some sharing of costs for the greater good. This provides all sorts of things like police, firemen, military, retirement, education and Healthcare. Together people get to decide the relative level of personal cost and benefit. That's what this discussion is about, how much you pay, what is provided and how competent those that structure the system are.

I'm a weirdo by Californian principles. I believe it takes taxes to run a government. I don't believe in the California model where we are going to make everything free regardless or cost and force people to provide services with forced servitude. You can not force health workers to see an unlimited number of people.

I also believe you should not keep raising taxes against the will of the middle class because the rich can afford it and they purposely sponsor the poor and illegals so they can have near slave labor to do their bidding. The rich and the illegals/ poor outnumber the middle class in California. All while they price the middle class out of existence and make the price of entering the middle class too high. You really should see how many tent cities exist under the freeway overpasses in California now. Didn't california just get pegged as one of the worst standard of living states in America?

Originally Posted by ralph

If you say so. Which country do you think is out of step with the rest of the world? Spending 55% of your tax take on military spending is insane.

I think you have completely relabeled that chart you found. That is percent of global contribution to military spending and you just proved my argument. That chart is not about how much of America's budget spent on military.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I think you have completely relabeled that chart you found. That is percent of global contribution to military spending and you just proved my argument. That chart is not about how much of America's budget spent on military.

Correct, the chart doesn't show % of tax take spent on military, that came from my general knowledge. My point is no other country in the world feels the need to spend anything like the US does on military, you could spend half as much and still be much bigger than anyone else.

Originally Posted by ralph

If you say so. Which country do you think is out of step with the rest of the world? Spending 55% of your tax take on military spending is insane.

Also, if you look at budget reports. The US budget in 2015 for instance, it was 3.8 trillion dollars. That 3.8 trillion represents 21% of the US economy. That means that the US economy that year was around 18 trillion dollars. Of the budget, military spending was 16%.which was 600 billion.

Conversely, Social Security, unemployment, labor, Medical and Health was 60% of the budget. That was 2.28 Trillion spend on the people directly.

This was just the federal budget. Each state has a few billion for each state that they spend each year and the state budgets do not include military. California's budget alone is around $200 billion a year.

[QUOTE=DeltaHoosier;1984809]The rich and the illegals/ poor outnumber the middle class in California. All while they price the middle class out of existence and make the price of entering the middle class too high./QUOTE]

So you support a progressive tax rate that increases as you move further away from the middle class? Great, so do I.

Originally Posted by ralph

Correct, the chart doesn't show % of tax take spent on military, that came from my general knowledge. My point is no other country in the world feels the need to spend anything like the US does on military, you could spend half as much and still be much bigger than anyone else.

The US does not spend 55% on military. Sure, we can stop patrolling your waters and pull out of Europe and we can save billions. You can think of hte military being like a jobs program. The troops have special skills that they get trained for. They are not all infantry. However, we can just cut the over seas bases and bring them home. We can turn isolationist like we were prie WW1 and WW2. How much did that cost us cleaning up all the Europeans messes? Are we better to keep a presence or pull out with history being the guide to the decision?

Besides, weren't you one of the ones on this thread complaining about Trump pulling out of Syria? Isn't that one of those money and life saving decisions that are more isolationist?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Also, if you look at budget reports. The US budget in 2015 for instance, it was 3.8 trillion dollars. That 3.8 trillion represents 21% of the US economy. That means that the US economy that year was around 18 trillion dollars. Of the budget, military spending was 16%.which was 600 billion.

Conversely, Social Security, unemployment, labor, Medical and Health was 60% of the budget. That was 2.28 Trillion spend on the people directly.

This was just the federal budget. Each state has a few billion for each state that they spend each year and the state budgets do not include military. California's budget alone is around $200 billion a year.

Ok here you go. If you don't think spending almost 10x as much on military as you do on either healthcare or education I don't know what else to say

[QUOTE=ralph;1984813]

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

The rich and the illegals/ poor outnumber the middle class in California. All while they price the middle class out of existence and make the price of entering the middle class too high./QUOTE]

So you support a progressive tax rate that increases as you move further away from the middle class? Great, so do I.

Not sure how you got that. If you are rich, you by the very definition, you are paying more. Not sure how progressive tax changes that. With that said, the US already has a progressive tax so I don't get the point. Flat tax would be a better model then you would have 47% of the population that does not pay taxes be more careful of what they vote for. They can vote for more and more with out consequence because they have nothing to lose.

Originally Posted by ralph

Ok here you go. If you don't think spending almost 10x as much on military as you do on either healthcare or education I don't know what else to say

You are trying to fib at this point. Your chart is only showing discresionary spending, not the total budget.
You mean this one:

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Not really. Just stop jumping over jumps while holding onto a rope, stop sending children out to beat each other in sports, and so on. Costs go down by billions a year. get rid of the billions a year spent on illegals in the medical system. medical gets cheaper and there is the money that had already been earmarked for it to go around. We all want to keep our risky behaviors and still get the reward of safety nets.

Socialized medial is stating that a person has to render services to us no matter what. That is indentured servitude.

You are correct if you are not poor you will get a bill. yet we do not change our behaviors. Why is that? Because it truly does not cost individuals enough that it changes their behaviors.

Another bizarre interpretation of reality. Every busted bone I've had from holding on to a rope is nothing compared to things that people can't reasonably control. Cancer that is not apparently related to anything that could have been predicted is an example. I had a stuck gallstone and had the bladder removed. You can't predict that. $130K bill. Who knows what you could negotiate that to. The HI company did to around $60K.

If I had no insurance they most likely would have sent me home without removing it. And I would have probably been back later with another stone. But I had HI and they took care of it. Have cancer and you're poor w/ no HI? It's probably a toss of the coin as to how much treatment you will get.

HI was socialized in the workplace before the ACA. If you had a preexisting condition you would still get HI from your employer. If you were fat, you paid the same as the uber-fit dude in the next cubicle that's the same age. UHC is in the future. It's just a matter of time. The attempt to make HC a free market while at the same time dividing society into HC haves and have nots through employers and IRS plans is what's going to be the cause. Then businesses are dividing up between have and have not HI plans. The ACA tried to counter that. Get enough have nots who vote and boom! UHC.

Originally Posted by fly135

Another bizarre interpretation of reality. Every busted bone I've had from holding on to a rope is nothing compared to things that people can't reasonably control. Cancer that is not apparently related to anything that could have been predicted is an example. I had a stuck gallstone and had the bladder removed. You can't predict that. $130K bill. Who knows what you could negotiate that to. The HI company did to around $60K.

If I had no insurance they most likely would have sent me home without removing it. And I would have probably been back later with another stone. But I had HI and they took care of it. Have cancer and you're poor w/ no HI? It's probably a toss of the coin as to how much treatment you will get.

HI was socialized in the workplace before the ACA. If you had a preexisting condition you would still get HI from your employer. If you were fat, you paid the same as the uber-fit dude in the next cubicle that's the same age. UHC is in the future. It's just a matter of time. The attempt to make HC a free market while at the same time dividing society into HC haves and have nots through employers and IRS plans is what's going to be the cause. Then businesses are dividing up between have and have not HI plans. The ACA tried to counter that. Get enough have nots who vote and boom! UHC.

You just used the probably been back. You could have went o county and had that scheduled for later. My mom was poor and had cancer. No insurance. She got care. Hers was too far along so she did not want to go through all the treatments but they gave her end of life care.

I am sure it is a toss of the coin on how much treatment you get because people have to stay on budget. You having cancer is not the peoples problem. In any other society and any other time in history, that is a death sentence. Still is in American even though we spend billions a year on it. The ACA was going to usher in an absolute budget control just like they have in England. You won't have the luxury of special treatments or in your case a $130,000 just in case surgery.

I agree that money in the industry has created haves and have nots. I have been saying that for years. Now the have nots want what they have do. Also, it makes it so doctors do not want to work with the have nots. and most important, the educational system that was supposedly a idealistic institution are raping people for medical (and any training for that matter) because they know they can get hundreds of thousands from these future doctors.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You are trying to fib at this point. Your chart is only showing discresionary spending, not the total budget.
You mean this one:

The power of half truths! SS is completely funded by a separate tax, and is misrepresented in the context of your argument. However, HC spending is very large. And it should be, compared to the military. All of us need HC. We don't all want to invade another nation. HC spending is misrepresented by the graph in a couple ways. First medicare is funded by a separate tax, so that part isn't directly comparable to military spending. However, tax deductions for people that buy HI is a reduction of revenue that really amounts to the same as spending. And that isn't represented in the graph.

ACA subsidies are presumably in the Medicare & Health section. It would be nice to see Medicare separated so we could get a feel for actual comparable spending. And a number for medicare revenue vs spending. Take out Medicare and SS, then that graph would be more interesting. Also would like a number for tax revenue lost to HI deductions. Some IRS plans also get revenue from FICA as well.

Originally Posted by fly135

The power of half truths! SS is completely funded by a separate tax, and is misrepresented in the context of your argument. However, HC spending is very large. And it should be, compared to the military. All of us need HC. We don't all want to invade another nation. HC spending is misrepresented by the graph in a couple ways. First medicare is funded by a separate tax, so that part isn't directly comparable to military spending. However, tax deductions for people that buy HI is a reduction of revenue that really amounts to the same as spending. And that isn't represented in the graph.

ACA subsidies are presumably in the Medicare & Health section. It would be nice to see Medicare separated so we could get a feel for actual comparable spending. And a number for medicare revenue vs spending. Take out Medicare and SS, then that graph would be more interesting. Also would like a number for tax revenue lost to HI deductions. Some IRS plans also get revenue from FICA as well.

How about this. Let me know when a tax is not a tax? Is it still forces from you? I am pretty sure I don't get to choose where that money is spent.

Could you be independently wealthy if you were able to invest that non tax tax (or is it a tax with a different name?)?

Medicare is a different tax too. Some people like their cucumbers pickelled. Still a tax.

You can say the same about they tax for road right? I get to use them so it must not be a tax and according to you, it must not be part of the budget because we get a benefit from it.

In all this discussion, this budget talk still does not count the TRILLIONS in state taxes from around the country that does not get spent on military or social security.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You are trying to fib at this point. Your chart is only showing discresionary spending, not the total budget.
You mean this one:

Wasn't My intention to show a skewed graph, it was just the first the popped up when I Googled.

Shows how easy it is to tell a narrative with statistics I guess.

Regardless, I still contend you could halve the military spending, do better with the education and Healthcare spending and run a budget surplus if things were better managed. I don't think you need to spend more on Healthcare, just get the insurance and pharmaceutical industries out of lobbying and make real changes to the industry.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

How about this. Let me know when a tax is not a tax? Is it still forces from you? I am pretty sure I don't get to choose where that money is spent.

Could you be independently wealthy if you were able to invest that non tax tax (or is it a tax with a different name?)?

Medicare is a different tax too. Some people like their cucumbers pickelled. Still a tax.

You can say the same about they tax for road right? I get to use them so it must not be a tax and according to you, it must not be part of the budget because we get a benefit from it.

In all this discussion, this budget talk still does not count the TRILLIONS in state taxes from around the country that does not get spent on military or social security.

How are taxes different? Well if the govt makes a selected group of people pay a tax specifically for their retirement, then the money should be used only for that and not subject for debate as to if it should be used for something else. That is the case for both SS and Medicare.

When the tax is just general fed tax revenue with no specific purpose, then all spending from that tax is comparable. The other point I was making is that tax deductions are just a mirror image of spending. And to really understand how the govt money is used to affect markets you need to put both spending and revenue diversion in the cart.

So Segway to Trump calling a state of emergency and funding the wall this way, does anybody here support that? Does that open the door for the next democratic president to declare climate change or healthcare a state of emergency to fund their pet project?

Originally Posted by ralph

So Segway to Trump calling a state of emergency and funding the wall this way, does anybody here support that? Does that open the door for the next democratic president to declare climate change or healthcare a state of emergency to fund their pet project?

I don't think anybody supports that only because it would take too long to go through the court system At this time the democrats still refuse to negotiate a barrier to protect our country and that is why we have a shutdown as everybody knows we still continue to have a crisis though the same crisis the dems first proclaimed. That was when it appeared the left cared more about U.S. citizens and America. Your country has a natural barrier protecting it, and probably would not last more then a few months with the type of invasion the USA has to absorb. I don't think anyone really wants to go to NZ so don't worry too much.

Originally Posted by deneng

I don't think anyone really wants to go to NZ so don't worry too much.

Thanks for the concern, no I'm not worried about it at all. I'm more concerned about the US economy crashing and effecting the world economy. Tiny old NZ is just a cork on the international economic ocean unfortunately.

Originally Posted by ralph

Wasn't My intention to show a skewed graph, it was just the first the popped up when I Googled.

Shows how easy it is to tell a narrative with statistics I guess.

Regardless, I still contend you could halve the military spending, do better with the education and Healthcare spending and run a budget surplus if things were better managed. I don't think you need to spend more on Healthcare, just get the insurance and pharmaceutical industries out of lobbying and make real changes to the industry.

Education is mostly done by the state budgets. You don't see that when people like to talk that narrative. There is also healthcare spending at the state levels as well. We can always argue military budget. Military is almost like a jobs training program for much of the budget. It is also a huge science driver. You could easily repackage the name on the budget department and have the exact same jobs and no one would even blink.

Pharmaceuticals we can talk about those dogs.

Insurance? Not sure they are the bad guys in this. They do take a small percent but they are just the middle man. They take in the money from whoever is paying for the insurance. Usually companies. They get a contract on the companies behalf with health networks and the costs of the plans are mostly driven by usage. People are not after insurance. They are after maintenance plans and repair plans. There is very little about emergency in our society when we culturally are breaking ourselves up, over working, drinking, taking drugs, eating poorly, and so on. The insurance companies are trying to do 2 things. Keep collecting money based on usage from the members and they really win if they can delay your end of life care until age 65 so they can kick you to medicare. We as employees and employers have been paying into medicare for around 45 years at 4.5% or 7% (I believe) and this is only to pay for our end of life medical.

If you look at it from purely a cost standpoint, you literally would want everyone to die by the age of 50 for the biggest cost savings. At the end of the day a life ending even is going to cost nearly the same is you are young or old. It is expensive. Statistically the older you get, the more serious issues you are going to have prior to getting to the over age of 65. Gal Bladder issues, knee replacements, neck fusions, near death experiences that may land a younger person in permanent care vs killing an older person. It is still cheaper for insurance companies to pay out for these other serious but non fatal issues than it is for them to pay for your end of life care. that is why they will spend money for preventative. You literally pay for 45 years at those percentages just so you can afford marginal end of life care.

Originally Posted by ralph

Thanks for the concern, no I'm not worried about it at all. I'm more concerned about the US economy crashing and effecting the world economy. Tiny old NZ is just a cork on the international economic ocean unfortunately.

If you want the US economy to crash then keep supporting open borders and socialist practices. The only reason other countries can provide those types of governments is because the capitalist governments are paying for things they are not.

Originally Posted by ralph

So Segway to Trump calling a state of emergency and funding the wall this way, does anybody here support that? Does that open the door for the next democratic president to declare climate change or healthcare a state of emergency to fund their pet project?

He is not calling one so it is a non discussion. It is always a slippery slope when a leader does something like that.

Maybe some of you commies can pitch in and help Uncle George pay his bills. 21st Century brownshirts.https://www.facebook.com/huns.goide/...1MjU3MjQ1NTk0/

Originally Posted by fly135

How are taxes different? Well if the govt makes a selected group of people pay a tax specifically for their retirement, then the money should be used only for that and not subject for debate as to if it should be used for something else. That is the case for both SS and Medicare.

When the tax is just general fed tax revenue with no specific purpose, then all spending from that tax is comparable. The other point I was making is that tax deductions are just a mirror image of spending. And to really understand how the govt money is used to affect markets you need to put both spending and revenue diversion in the cart.

Too me. The taxes look the same. It is money I do not get to spend or invest and at the end of the day I most likely will not get to use it. To me it is no different than gas taxes.

Giving tax breaks for insurance. Not sure companies get tax breaks for offering insurance. What is not happening is double taxation by taxing employees for it. The money is being taxed.

The longer the shutdown goes, the lower Trumps approval rating goes 34%

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Pharmaceuticals we can talk about those dogs.

Insurance? Not sure they are the bad guys in this. They do take a small percent but they are just the middle man. They take in the money from whoever is paying for the insurance. Usually companies. They get a contract on the companies behalf with health networks and the costs of the plans are mostly driven by usage. People are not after insurance. They are after maintenance plans and repair plans. There is very little about emergency in our society when we culturally are breaking ourselves up, over working, drinking, taking drugs, eating poorly, and so on. The insurance companies are trying to do 2 things. Keep collecting money based on usage from the members and they really win if they can delay your end of life care until age 65 so they can kick you to medicare. We as employees and employers have been paying into medicare for around 45 years at 4.5% or 7% (I believe) and this is only to pay for our end of life medical.

When I'm wearing my tinfoil hat extra tight I get the feeling the insurance companies and Pharmaceuticals are in cahoots. The insurance companies want healthcare as expensive as possible to scare people in to having to have Health insurance and then can justify jacking the premium up because of the outrageous cost. So those shisters get together and lobby your corrupt representatives to allow price gauging to jack the prices. Doctors get all sorts of back handers to over prescribe drugs and no laws are in place to curb the practise. Look at the opiod epidemic, more people are getting killed directly and indirectly by prescribed drugs than black market. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and what does legislators do? Nothing.

Makes me angry but then I take my tinfoil hat off and I feel better.

In case you missed the votes today, the democrats’ plan got more reublican votes than Trump’s lol

Also, jesus ****ing christ on a crutch:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...rruled-n962221

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-requi...adline-1304549

At this point the Republicans are just the Russian party.

Originally Posted by pesos

Also, jesus ****ing christ on a crutch:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...rruled-n962221

More lies

So Roger Stone was just arrested and indicted for "lying to Congress". I can't wait to hear the Trumpsters continue to proclaim, "Mueller hasn't found anything". How many arrests, indictments, and convictions have occurred since the beginning of the Mueller investigation? If these were gang bangers or drug kingpins, the Trumpsters would be the biggest Mueller supporters. Let's see if Stone remains loyal to Trump (like Manafort) facing the prospect of jail time.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Too me. The taxes look the same. It is money I do not get to spend or invest and at the end of the day I most likely will not get to use it. To me it is no different than gas taxes.

Giving tax breaks for insurance. Not sure companies get tax breaks for offering insurance. What is not happening is double taxation by taxing employees for it. The money is being taxed.

Of course they receive "tax breaks for offering insurance". The NBER estimates these breaks reduce federal and state tax revenues by $260B per year.

Originally Posted by wake77

So Roger Stone was just arrested and indicted for "lying to Congress". I can't wait to hear the Trumpsters continue to proclaim, "Mueller hasn't found anything". How many arrests, indictments, and convictions have occurred since the beginning of the Mueller investigation? If these were gang bangers or drug kingpins, the Trumpsters would be the biggest Mueller supporters. Let's see if Stone remains loyal to Trump (like Manafort) facing the prospect of jail time.

I am really not liking Trump, but get your head out of your ass with Russia. Again, these charges all have to do with contact with Wiki, & lying about it. Nothing about Russia, again.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

I am really not liking Trump, but get your head out of your ass with Russia. Again, these charges all have to do with contact with Wiki, & lying about it. Nothing about Russia, again.

The wikileaks hacked documents were provided by the Russians. So it does have to do with them.

How many people suurounding trump have to be arrested before you trumpers start to think that maybe trump is dirty too?

If trump wanted to see Hillary locked up he should have hired her to work on his campaign.

Originally Posted by ralph

Makes me angry but then I take my tinfoil hat off and I feel better.

Nothing tin hat about it. It's written into law. HI companies are limited to 20% of premiums as revenue. The only way to make that 20% bigger is if HC costs more.

Originally Posted by wake77

Of course they receive "tax breaks for offering insurance". The NBER estimates these breaks reduce federal and state tax revenues by $260B per year.

It's hard to imagine that someone who doesn't understand that IRS rules (like section 125), which permit what would otherwise be tax revenue to be used to buy HI, would have anything of substance to offer to the conversation.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

I am really not liking Trump, but get your head out of your ass with Russia. Again, these charges all have to do with contact with Wiki, & lying about it. Nothing about Russia, again.

I had to double check. You are right that the indictment is confined to Stone lying about his Wikileaks contacts. But it is a matter of public record that he also had direct contact with Gucifer Twitter acct, which is presumed to be the front for the Russian hacking team. It’s not like Stone was shocked to learn that the Wikileaks docs originated from Russia.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I had to double check. You are right that the indictment is confined to Stone lying about his Wikileaks contacts. But it is a matter of public record that he also had direct contact with Gucifer Twitter acct, which is presumed to be the front for the Russian hacking team. It’s not like Stone was shocked to learn that the Wikileaks docs originated from Russia.

What is with you people? "assumed". That isn't how law works. When someone puts forth evidence actually linking Russia let us all know. Gucciffer has said over & over it was Seth who provided the docs. But we all know if it doesn't fit the lefts narrative there is just no way in hell there is any validity to it. Both cases have as much evidence so far, none.

Yeah that crazy leftist Mueller lol. I think Rob has a clue how the law works. And Guccifer 2.0 is Russian military intelligence according to the indictments.