Summations Only

Before Obama Care came along, the total United States per person healthcare spending BY THE GOVERNMENT ALONE was more than the combined government/private yearly per person bills in all but 3 countries.FAQ's - PNHP60.5% was payed by the government.So we can easily see that single payer healthcare tends to have GDP costs quite a ways lower than the present system (5% of GDP typically ).See link for the ways taxpayers shell out for health care in #41 which is on same page I linked.Even conservatives admit that the majority of Americans supported socialism for a LONG time.Listen to the GOP Senators oppose Trump's recent call to abolish the filibuster.

quote:

---

He clearly hasn't served in the legislative body

​

Had we not had the filibuster this country would have been gone a long time [ago ], would have gone straight to socialism
-Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah)-

---

Bob Corker of Tennessee said:

quote:

---

I do wish somebody would take his iPhone away from him

---

We need to understand that the government programs that are attacked as socialist have been popular for a long time and the biggest ones would actually be able to get a "pro economic growth " seal in an honest and accurate description. ( I say that as someone who is going to dislike alot of typical features of a single payer plan. At least the typical ones that are offered. But my problems will never be against the pro economic growth results which are a completely separate issue. )In defense of your post Marc9000, I must admit that the right wing echo chamber always seems to be in the thick of the woods TOTALLY LOST on the economic growth that a typical single payer healthcare system would bring. The confusion you have displayed clearly is due to your listening to the echo chamber uncritically.

He made a big deal of how he opposed the cuts to Medicare which he is now supporting.The GOP Health Care Bill Violates One Of Donald Trump's Biggest Campaign Promises | HuffPost Latest News

I know the arguments are there. But doing them at the federal level isn't constitutional, without some serious amending of the constitution, or nationwide issue votes. Thank you, that's the thread's topic. This would all be going on (in a much milder form) with any newly elected Republican president. It's so much more intense against Trump because there is so much jealousy of him. Some because of his past business success, and as much or more because he's a 70 year old billionaire who still has plenty of ambition to accomplish more in his life.

That echo chamber is the Constitution. It's not a socialist document, it's just not.Those on the left know it's not, so they have a choice - they can try to propose serious amendments to it or eliminate it and replace it completely, or they can pretend that it is flexible enough to accommodate all the socialism that someone like Bernie Sanders favors. They've obviously chosen the latter - it's easier for them to be sneaky and dishonest than it is to risk the serious attention and upheaval they'd get it they tried to claim the Constitution needs replacing because it's outdated.

I just read the Constitution for the umpteenth time before this post (it's not that hard since it can fit on a single large page) and I would argue it is not particularly a capitalist document either (except for condoning slavery).Edited by anglagard, : Extraneous wordEdited by anglagard, : misplaced '

A two page monster by a London School of Economics comparative politics fellow which devoted the entire article to foreign policy, with about a third on Syria.An amazing piece of crap that shows the utter dishonesty (and outright danderousness on Trump's so-called "bluffing " on North Korea ) of the United States news media.Subtitled, Trump's Foreign Policy is a Mess. April 30,217

quote:

---

. P 35
To his credit, Trump rightly bombed Syria...
....

​

We know just how muddled Trump's thinking is because he repeatedly condemned any airstrikes on Syria under Obama, even when Assad had killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and used chemical weapons...

---

Not a single mention of ISIS or Obama administration CIA training and arming the rebels (not a single mentioning of rebel fighters period, just lies about civilians and so-called "Inaction " by Obama plus attacking Trump for Assad remaining in power)Not a single mention of ISIS.And I have read British newspapers from a year ago that said that Assad's Alawite army has lost 250,000 troops and the men of fighting age are almost down to unsustainabley low numbers.Failure to mention ISIS while making an effort to pretend like there is sympathy for dead Syrian civilians is noteworthy dishonesty.Needless to say, there was no attempt to parse the 500,000 deaths which would result in a breakdown into deaths of government troops, al Qaeda troops, ISIS troops, "moderate " rebel troops, etc. THEN we could look at the actual number of deaths among non-fighters or civilians.The various regions of Syria should see the breakdown of the numbers of people killed.The western coast is Alawite (dead there wouldn't be from Assad )The south is Druze and Shi'a mostly. Assad wouldn't be to blame there.The east has long been abandoned by Assad's troops but the slaughter there is most noteworthy when it comes to just how much slaughter there would be if Assad was totally out of the picture in the entire country.The ISIS slaughter has been throughout the entire country and entire minority populations have been severely reduced.The media is rotten to the core, but we suck just as badly if we don't care about the dishonesty itself but would rather make a lame ideological labeling argument instead.

No pretending is necessary. Reading it is useful.

The constitution was amended in 1913 to allow an income tax and it seems like it was done to facilitate an activist, interventionist foreign policy.It was a liberal President and a supportive congress that brought it about. The legislation anyway.There was a conservative move to outlaw war in the 20s. It was a movement called "outlawry" or something and it was debated seriously in the Senate.Remember that taxes were brought up to about 77% of income for World War I and stayed over 60% even after cuts in the 20s. I think that they were cut from 77% down to 63% under Harding and then down to 25% under Coolidge ( just before the Depression ).We had no permanent standing military until the 1860s and it seems like the government grew out of the military state that eventually became the norm.War is a Racket was a good book from around 1930 and it was written by a General who served in endless interventions in Latin American countries during the time after the income tax became law.Taxes went up from 25% in the beginning of the 30s to 91% and remained so all the way till the 60s.91% was the rate for the top tier all the way through the good old days of the 50s.The military adventures required higher tax rates when our national income was lower per person.We have not been able to afford endlessly excessive military budgets but that doesn't mean we don't borrow and spend our national treasury into ever piling debt loads year after year.The hawks just convinced Trump to commit to spending $23 billion a year in Afghanistan and the war machine has been busy to get us ever more involved in Syria.Here is a post-election pattern I have noticed

quote:

---

New York Post
May 2,2017

​

Syria gov't in 4 'chem attacks'

​

New evidence indicates the Syrian government has used suspected nerve agents in four chemical-weapons attacks since December, including the devastating April 4 strike on Khan Sheikhoun , a human-rights group said Monday.

​

Human Rights Watch said the attacks "are part of a broader pattern of Syrian government forces' use of chemical weapons " that may constitute crimes against humanity.

​

AP

---

The media constantly includes Yemen in list of Arab Spring nations that haven't worked out without mentioning that we are supporting the viscous Saudi Arabia attacks that have killed 10,000 plus civilians. The same Saudi Arabia that has been funding the rebellion in Syria that has ruined the country and caused the civilian blood bath.The Saudi Arabia that has a $65 billion yearly military budget.The same Saudi Arabia that has been the major league source for the human body of all rebel groups.The same rebels that have controlled most of Syria for over a decade.An honest effort to try and get to the bottom of who is responsible for these chemical weapon incidents should be based on an analysis that considers which of the various player's will benefit from the limited use (thus difficult to identify the users of ) , limited death (little chance of changing war outcome by actual use of) on-the-ground situation as pertaining to the status quo ante (before the international reaction )conflict dynamic when combined with recognition of who will benefit from the likely dynamic from international players reaction to events.We know that the military industrial complex benefits the most.Taxes were 91% during the Eisenhower administration and he warned us.The unconstitutional military state brought us the high debt and taxes. This has drained our nation and hurt the general welfare. The unproductive nature of the permanent burden has required government programs for social spending to make up for the hurting the excessive military spending has caused.I suggest you follow the trail of money and see the forces that caused the constitutional interpretations to be considered in the first place.These constitutional issues have been decided already anyway.

I expected that whatever the outcome of the election, Comey would not last long in the office, but he actually held on far longer than I expected.The administration is claiming that the firing is based on Comey's handling of the investigation of the Hilary email server incident. Comey recently made substantial miss-statements regarding emails he found on the server. He claimed that Weiner’s wife had forward hundreds of thousands of emails to her husband, but apparently nothing like that happened. Of course, that raises the question of what the hell Comey was investigating during the final weeks of the campaign that he felt had to be released publicly.

Trump under the advisement of Jeff Sessions, who had recused himself of investigating the "russian thing", recommended the firing of the FBI director who is investigating the russian thing.Nothing to see he folks, move along you proles!

Maybe people should start yelling, "LOCK HIM UP!" at Trump rallies.

This is an excerpt from Trump's interview with The Economist: Here's the full interview: Transcript: Interview with Donald Trump | The EconomistSo he now believes he coined the phrase "prime the pump".Words fail.

Except he doesn't actually know what "prime the pump" means, let alone what a fucking pump is.

I think you are wrong there and I bet he even uses a fucking pump.