|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Awesome Republican Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The "socialism" nonsense is more soccer-holliganry than actual debate. My mom is very conservative and she has bought into this "socialism" nonsense. I asked her how she could be against socialism and still expect to get Social Security and Medicare when she turns 65 in a few years. Her response? SS and Medicare are not socialism because she paid into it. All I could do was shake my head. I started to open my mouth to explain that it is still socialism, but thought better of it. I doubt I could change her mind on the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2
|
My mom is very conservative and she has bought into this "socialism" nonsense. I asked her how she could be against socialism and still expect to get Social Security and Medicare when she turns 65 in a few years. Her response? SS and Medicare are not socialism because she paid into it. All I could do was shake my head. I started to open my mouth to explain that it is still socialism, but thought better of it. I doubt I could change her mind on the issue. You might, actually, by focusing on exactly that "I paid into it" mentality. Sure, it's not precisely accurate (her tax dollars were not saved for her use; she paid for the previous generation of retirees, just as those of us working now pay for her), but it's close enough for a debate. Just as "she paid into" SS and Medicare, the poor "pay into" social services like unemployment, fire and police protection, SS, Medicare, and so on. Under a public health option, everyone would also "pay into" the service, just as she "paid into" Medicare. Even the unemployed "pay into" these services, because their unemployment check is itself taxed for income, and then taxed through sales taxes to be redistributed into social programs. If it's okay for her to receive benefits from programs that she "paid into," it then must be okay for other programs to be "paid into" by everyone so that everyone can also receive benefits. Logically, if she opposes public health care or other typical "socialist" policies, she must also refuse to accept Medicare and SS. Of course, I've never tried to convince a 65-year-old of anything, with the possible exceptions of ICANT/Buz who may be older than that. And of course we know how well that works. The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Honestly, guys, is any of them even close to being electable? Romney used to fire thousands and thousands of people to make money. Gingrich has more skeletons than anyone can count. It really doesn't matter which one gets nominated, the Obama campaign will murder these guys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
It really doesn't matter which one gets nominated, the Obama campaign will murder these guys. It's probably 60% certain, but you can't underestimate the power of liberals to be complacent, or the caliber of the DNC's circular firing squad. A lot of idiots over on our side are still talking about a primary challenge to the President - by Hillary Clinton, no less. Yeah, Firebaggers, that's exactly who we want facing Gingrich. Some people's kids!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3259 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
It's probably 60% certain, but you can't underestimate the power of liberals to be complacent, or the caliber of the DNC's circular firing squad. Exactly. I was all but certain that Bush II would lose to John Kerry, and somehow he pulled out an actual victory, both electoral college and a sheer majority of the voters. I don't tend to take anything for granted in politics any more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Just as "she paid into" SS and Medicare, the poor "pay into" social services like unemployment, fire and police protection, SS, Medicare, and so on. Under a public health option, everyone would also "pay into" the service, just as she "paid into" Medicare. Even the unemployed "pay into" these services, because their unemployment check is itself taxed for income, and then taxed through sales taxes to be redistributed into social programs. If it was anyone but Mom I would tell them just that. I have found that being on Mom's good side is worth its weight in gold. I have seen Republican elected officials taken to task on this very issue. They cry about the evils of socialism, and then they are asked if we should get rid of Medicare and SS since these are straight up socialism. Oh how they squirm. They know that they need the senior vote which is one of the most active voter blocs out there. They also know that attacking these socialistic programs will cause them to lose votes within that bloc. The best they can do is claim that they want to reform the socialism we already have. Another point that I wish they would be taken to task on is the claim that we can not afford a government funded single payer system. It is a tacit admission that we can not afford the current cost of health care PERIOD, be it privately or publicly insured. If we replaced private insurance premiums with an equal value tax then we should be able to afford universal single payer health care, no? The problem is that the for profit health care system we have has inflated the cost of health care beyond reason. Perhaps we are past the point of no return, but we should at least try to curtail costs, and the only way I see of doing this is through government intervention. I don't see the people raking in profits being willing to see that money go away. At least Ron Paul is consistent. He wants to get rid of these programs along with a ton of other government agencies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
Perhaps we are past the point of no return, but we should at least try to curtail costs, and the only way I see of doing this is through government intervention. I don't see the people raking in profits being willing to see that money go away. Healthcare costs are driven upwards by several factors. A large one is prescription medications - a single-payer government near-monopoly on healthcare, as by far the largest consumer of prescription medications, has sufficient negotiating power to reduce the cost of medication from Big Pharma (which of course they don;t want...). Another is the fact that we really do need more people paying into the system - insurance is never about paying into the system so you can take pack what you paid (if that were the case you'd use this new thing they have called a "savings account"). Insurance of all types is based on those who are not currently receiving benefits paying for those who do need the benefits with the assurance that they, too will receive the benefits if needed someday. In the current paradigm we have many who can't afford to pay premiums or who are healthy and so don't buy insurance...and this drives the premium price even higher, because the healthy pay for the sick in return for the guarantee of reciprocation if/when necessary. It's why the Obamacare mandate is in there, and it's functionally similar (but more complicated, and with Constitutional questions, and far more difficult to control, and with the for-profit middlemen) to simply taxing everyone in a single-payer system. But the largest problem is likely the fact that something like 1/3 of every dollar paid in insurance premiums goes to claims filing. If you cut out the for-profit bureaucracy whose vested interest is to deny care to maximize profit and replace it with the doctor and patient making the decision of what care is needed, we automatically chop out all of that expense. Every other first-world nation somehow manages to afford universal healthcare. It's a rather odd facet of the "American exceptionalism" brainbug that causes Americans to believe that we're simultaneously "better" but "can't afford" what every other nation does.
At least Ron Paul is consistent. He wants to get rid of these programs along with a ton of other government agencies. Ron Paul is an interesting man. By interesting, of course, I mean he's batshit insane but remarkably self-consistent. I absolutely believe that the man holds to his principles in every case, and that he would seek to defend the Constitution. Unfortunately his interpretation of the Constitution is amazingly distorted from what basically anyone else thinks the same words mean. He has quite a few great policies, but rather than reaching those positions the way you or I would, he reaches them by misinterpreting the Constitution. He doesn't want to end wars because of any ethical or financial or diplomatic issue - he just thinks the Constitution requires military isolationism. And thinks that most of the federal government is unconstitutional as well. Among other things. He's like a kid on a math test who gets a few right answers on hard problems, but still needs to be marked down because the work he shows for those problems is completely wrong...and made him get all the rest of the answers, even for easy questions, wrong as well.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But the largest problem is likely the fact that something like 1/3 of every dollar paid in insurance premiums goes to claims filing. I was going to say something, but then I realized ... this is The Awesome Republican Primary Thread. Can we do the case for public healthcare somewhere else? I'll start a thread myself, actually.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshthomas Junior Member (Idle past 4467 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
Cain and Stephen Colbert will meld into one Friday afternoon. At a South Carolina rally, the Television comic and the previous pizza master will make an effort to persuade voters that a vote for Cain -- whose name is on the ballot -- is a vote for Colbert -- whose bid is far too late to get on the ballot. The other has disassembled his campaign, despite still being on the ballot. Together, they want to convince voters that Colbert and Herman Cain are one and the same. Source for this article: Stephen Colbert runs in S.C. primary as Herman Cain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
saab93f Member (Idle past 1415 days) Posts: 265 From: Finland Joined: |
Not directly related to primaries but via a candidate.
http://gawker.com/...dead-atheist-father+in+law-to-mormonism Mitt may be the best of the candidates in many respects but him being a mormon is only few whisps away from being a moron. I honestly believe that all religions are unnecessary crutches but of them scientology and mormonism are just unbelievably (pun intended) imbecile. Edited by saab93f, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Newt Gingrich on negative campaigning: "Politics has become a really nasty, vicious, negative business and I think it’s disgusting and I think it’s dishonest."
Newt Gingrich on Mitt Romney: "A pro-abortion, pro gun control, pro tax increase liberal." Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Various newspapers in Europe (Bild in Germany, El Pais in Spain, Le Monde in France and the Guardian in the UK) have recently suggested that the Republican nomination race is turning into a caricature of a parody (my spin based on reading some translations rather than a direct quote of any kind). The basis of this view seems to be that the sort of views being espoused in the Republican nomination TV dabates would be considered lunatic fringe nutjobbery in any other developed Western economy.
Is this true? If so - How the hell did America end up in this situation. It's a great country with some fantastic achievements. How the hell did a situation where the lunatics are in serious danger of taking over the asylum come about? What the fuck are you guys up to over there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3259 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
What the fuck are you guys up to over there? For one thing, we're in a primary season, which means the people running are trying to get the most pasionate voters of their party to vote for them (because those are the people who tend to vote in primaries). In general, that tends to mean running to the right in the Republican primary while then trying to move more centrist in the general election. For the Democrats, it tends to be the opposite, run left in the primary, then center out for the general. For another, the Republican Party is fracturing. I've been seeing this in the works for a while, and there is still time to fix the party, but I don't see it happening. You've got the Tea Partiers, the neocons, the Religious Right, and the Libertarians all vying to be "the voice" of the Republican Party, and many of them hold, if not mutually exclusive views, then at least views that don't mix very well. The nominees have to try and wade that minefield, appealing to the Religious Right, who want an amendment banning gay marriage, while still appealing to the Libertarians who want the government as small as it can be, while also trying to appeal to the Tea Partiers who want lower taxes at all costs, and still kep the neocons happy, who want more money to spend on war. I don't envy the nominees their job, but I seriously see, within 20 years, the Republican Party fracturing into four or five smaller parties. And I can see the Democrats following suit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The basis of this view seems to be that the sort of views being espoused in the Republican nomination TV dabates would be considered lunatic fringe nutjobbery in any other developed Western economy. Is this true? If so - How the hell did America end up in this situation. Because America is the greatest nation on Earth, whereas everyone else is Communist.
(The logical implication of this assertion is that, contrary to popular belief, America lost the Cold War. Logical implications are also Communist.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The basis of this view seems to be that the sort of views being espoused in the Republican nomination TV dabates would be considered lunatic fringe nutjobbery in any other developed Western economy. This is actually a positive for a Republican candidate these days. Sad, but true. Republicans have made a career on villifying European democracies to the point that they can't go any further to the right than nutjobbery. They idolize Ronald Reagan, but Reagan would be way, way too liberal to run in this primary. Afterall, Reagan actually increased taxes during a recession.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024