Printable View
"Michigan must redraw legislative and congressional districts for the 2020 election because current maps drawn by Republicans represent a political gerrymander “of historical proportions,” a three-judge federal panel ruled Thursday."
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...ng/3576663002/
Rot in Piss! https://www.thecoli.com/styles/defau...ilies/umad.png
well, whaddaya know.
"Detroit — Michigan must redraw legislative and congressional districts for the 2020 election because current maps drawn by Republicans represent a political gerrymander “of historical proportions,” a three-judge federal panel ruled Thursday."
Hot Damn! More Taxes = More Free Money!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Not only more taxes and more welfare,.. but also more unemployment, more racial division, more crime.
Good times are coming again.
After reading the article at brizee's link, I can't help wondering why we don't proactively preempt problems like gerrymandering instead of retroactively correcting them. Maybe that sounds naïve but it sure would be more efficient.
Do European countries have this gerrymandering problem?
Proving once again that the only way Republicans can win is by lying, cheating and stealing.
Now, now, the folks in the GOP are kind, caring and honest Christians. Why their "Screw you I got mine! Party politics come first regardless of the will of the people!" are reflective of their true DNA.
If non-citizens are not counted in the 2020 census and only Americans are represented in the U.S. Congress, Michigan will pick up one congressional seat. This change, by itself, would require new congressional district lines.
As much as I've had my Independent leanings for the past fifty years, this is beyond the pale brizee. We know what they have done, for forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by brizee
Just shouted TOO loud.
The party in power at the time of the census tries to ensure they'll be elected for the next ten years. Their incentive is to gerrymander even further, not to play fair. It will be interesting to see what the independent panel comes up with in 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
I've laid out my plan for districts before. Some like it, some didn't.
Basic concept, NO party involvement in the mapping. None. Must be done by an independent commission. NO demographics either. Head count only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby
More importantly,.. the only way Democrats can win is by promising to steal money from a small group, and give it to a bigger group,... in order to buy themselves votes.
Sure they'll destroy the state / country they're running for office in [[I.E. Treason),.. but what do THEY care,... they get to wield power for a few years.
And if the middle class get wiped out, and the poor get even more poor, and dead, ... well, that's THEIR problem. The politician will be well off, and living in a gated community.
Michigan has a Democrat Governor,Detroit has a Democrat mayor,historic gerrymandering proportions are leaning towards what party?
I guess it does not work so well.
The only historical cycle is Dems get in office,create more ways to tax to the point where everybody is broke then republicans take office and rebuild so people can breathe again,then the cycle repeats again.
When it does not we see cities staying broke,although Detroit’s current mayor seems to be an exception,but then again he could really be a Republican that identifies as a Democrat.
Geography alone works against the Democrats. The liberals are heavily concentrated in a few urban areas, and thus the geographic spread is not a heterogeneous statewide representation of the overall population mix.
Long story short, you will probably always get a greater representation of the GOP in district type legislature voting, when compared to the political breakdown of the state population as a whole. This will remain true regardless who draws the lines, albeit not quite as skewered as the current Gerrymandering.
Michigan will lose one seat in Congress after Census 2020 unless there
is some totally unexpected demographic change. Current law calls
for the distribution of Congressional seats on the basis of what is
identified by Congress as the apportionment population. Congressional seats and the electoral college could be apportioned on the count of citizens age 18 and over but this would, seemingly, require both constitutional amendment and numerous changes in federal law.
We will know more when Census 2020 counts for states are released on the morning of Thursday morning December 31, 2020.
One of Michigan's most gerrymandered districts is that of Rashida Tlaib. Perhaps in the mayhem of redrawing lines and possibly adding an additional congressional district Democracts can squeeze out Rep. Tlaib in a primary for someone more amenable to Jewish lobbies and moderates. This has happened before. When Ohio had to give up one congressional district, Kucinich's district [[Cleveland) was combined with Marcy Kaptur's distict [[Toledo). Both Representatives had been enemies of the Federal Reserve. Either way, mega banks would win. Kaptur won and was tamed. She hasn't been a major critic of the Fed since.
Michigan Democrats will also have to decide whether to support California having an extra four representatives based on counting non-citizens or having one additional Michigan representative to represent Michigan if non-citizens are not counted in the 2020 census.
Yes, like when George W. Bush saved us from the Clinton surplus and Pax Americana by hurling us into two endless wars, the Great Recession, and a mushrooming deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Other than the occasional billionaire, it's great how it's been laid so bare that Balkan-style hyper-nationalism or virulent fundamentalist Christianity are the true motivators for the vast majority of GOP voters.
I'm white, a Christian, a veteran, and a proud American - and I will never, ever, ever vote GOP. Trump, Dubya, Snyder - enough said.
You have that backwards. The housing crash and resulting depression [[oops,.. I mean "Great Recession") was the result of Clinton,.. not Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
The socialist system of mortgage guarantees we've had [[FHA etc) was working quite well until [[under the Clinton admin) they removed most all of the regulations on it. This was under the auspices of making it easier for minorities to buy homes.
So with no income qual, etc, mortgages exploded. This puts a massive amount of artificial currency into the system. Building exploded, house prices exploded,.. but it was all a bubble.
It was unsustainable, and it finally collapsed a decade after it began,.. but by that time Clinton was out of office, and the next guy takes the heat.
But blaming that one thing on Bush is dishonest.
Think of it as Clinton receiving 100,000 new credit cards,.. maxing them out [[life is good, for a while). Yay the budget is balanced, the economy is great. But then the bills coming due under Bush, and the downside is bigger and lasts longer than the bubble did.
The fools won't figure that out,.. and will think Clinton was a great president,.. and we need more like him. But the housing disaster, NAFTA, etc were all catastrophic to our economy.
THIS IS HUGE ! Thanks for pointing that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
More California is bad for the rest of the US.
Quote:
The only historical cycle is Dems get in office,create more ways to tax to the point where everybody is broke then republicans take office and rebuild so people can breathe again,then the cycle repeats again.
Are you serious? Cut the nation to the bone, for the profit of a few?
We've already seen it, to shut down the government, for the fancy of
ONE person!
I've always been non-partisan, but the state and national Repubs and their backers have ruined their stance for the past forty years.
And Democrats have a tendency to over reach, after years of a lockstep
congressional plan to back the "Crazy" guy in the oval office.
That is what has trickled down to me over the years.
I've heard that. Thus, why they want to push voting for incarcerated felons. Only problem [[smile) is that some long-term inmates have had enough time to think and read to have turned indie or conservative!! --:eek:--
There's a percentage of religion conversion going on in prison, newly converted Muslims and Christians may not be so obliged towards the new socialist democratic agenda or what the repubs keep churning!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus
Outside of the being white part which really should not matter,that outlook or stance is what makes this country great.Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
You have that freedom to take that stance even though there are some who wish to remove those very freedoms.
I did military service under then president Carter,he stripped the military down to the bone and pushed the anti military agenda to the point where it was best not to be in public in uniform.
The lack of spare parts cost a lot of lives on failed missions,we had 9 months of straight 24-7 duty in Iran no breaks,he pops up gives us a warm beer and says great job expect a $300 bonus,which never came and did not even offer to help load the bodies.
$10,000 in life insurance was the only benefit offered.
Even at that you never saw rusty navel vessels floating around and running into other ships,or terrorist boats blowing them up and you would have never handed your weapon over to the enemy out of political correctness like the military was run under the previous administration.
If we did not have the constant bickering it would meen the checks and balances no longer worked and we would have bigger problems then gerrymandering to worry about.
Defend your work, professor. I'd like to see a citation for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Even if that were accurate, Bush had 8 years to undo or modify whatever Clinton did but was too busy getting us mired in unwinnable wars.
Not a Clinton fan but definitely not a fan of this Fox News-style of rewriting history to favor whoever has an R after their name.
Are you aware of time lines?Quote:
I did military service under then president Carter,he stripped the military down to the bone and pushed the anti military agenda to the point where it was best not to be in public in uniform.
Quote:
The lack of spare parts cost a lot of lives on failed missions,we had 9 months of straight 24-7 duty in Iran no breaks,he pops up gives us a warm beer and says great job expect a $300 bonus,which never came and did not even offer to help load the bodies.
https://www.fpri.org/article/2009/09...l-perspective/
I was also mid 70's Navy and would like to see the link's to which you subscribe for info. National Review?
^ I am well aware of timelines and do not need to subscribe to any links,typical response you had there from the Democratic playbook.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
How could Carter have ordered it if he was not president in your response.
The navy has and is involved in many different aspects and missions,it is not just about ships.
Carter cared about the armed forces about as much as Obama and Hillary did,politics first the people second.Seems to be a common trait.
It seems like everytime the military is being hung out to dry there is a Democrat behind it looking to further thier political agenda at the cost of others.
Thank you Richard, for you're personal views again, and a weak ass Wiki link. :confused:
Operation DETYES.
It seems you reply with your OWN personal views, and not any factual links, except for a poor Wiki.Quote:
It seems like everytime the military is being hung out to dry there is a Democrat behind it looking to further thier political agenda at the cost of others.
Is this the voter fraud that the GOP said was rampant. So glad they finally found it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigb23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigb23
Must be some good shit you're smoking, Bigb, you already posted the same thing twice in a row. Have another hit, change the words around, and post it a third time. You'll come off sounding like a real intellectual.
When the level of discourse in a thread on this website starts to mirror anything one would expect to see in sites like the Freep, I realize there really is no hope for American politics, at least in the near future.
:pQuote:
Must be some good shit you're smoking, Bigb, you already posted the same thing twice in a row. Have another hit, change the words around, and post it a third time. You'll come off sounding like a real intellectual.
Drinking now, Honk - we'll see soon in my legal [[mellow) mode, dude. Awright?
And I'm one of your true followers. #1 fan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigb23
Don't follow me, I'll lead you astray. Carry on.
YAY Whitmer!
Change those republic gerrymandering districts.
Hail Whitmer!
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
Most European countries do not have FPTP electoral systems or at least not pure ones.
[[First Past the Post).
Most have some variant of proportional representation.
Which means that assuming there are local seats, that a party that had fewer than its share of the votes would automatically be topped up to its 'fair share' of seats.
For a primer on this system, see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propor...ctoral_systems
PR is in effect in:
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.
Among other places.
The United States, Canada and Britain retain FPTP. [[The system of local elections in which the person w/the most votes wins, whether they got 50% plus one or not).
***
This problem doesn't really existing in Canada either, FPTP notwithstanding.
We don't let the politicians draw the lines. [[we used to, this was changed in the 60s, after gerrymandering became an issue)
Instead we appoint eminent panels, non-partisan, led by a sitting judge, who review census data, draw-up proposals, and then hold public hearings on changes to ridings [[districts).
The effort is always to be non-controversial, fact-based, and to obtain all-party support for changes.
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/15/560428...ow-to-fix-them
It is changing though in France and Spain,people are protesting about densely populated Madrid and Paris having all the power to determine the outcome for the less populated rest of the country.
Thats what it is really,about equal representation regardless of population density otherwise on a national scale you have a few population centers dictating to the entire country and the same on the state level.
I think that is why so many were confused with the electoral college thing.
I am not sure of how adding more layers of government would help in this country since the existing ones are having a complicated time as it is.
Local representation is allready based on popular vote the presidential vote is not for the reason above.
And they cant be kicked out soon enough. I used to be a moderate but after seeing ten years of complete GOP control in Michigan it's a big fat NO from me.
Ten years and they ruined our public schools, subverted our democracy and poisoned an entire city. No self respecting Michigander should ever vote for a GOP candidate ever again. Never forget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldsgreatest
How's that?
Was it by putting WAY too much money into the Detroit school system?
Guess again.... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...te/1588646002/
Charter schools was supposed to be the big Republican panacea for fixing schools... that Betsy 'scAMWAY' Devos was promoting before you know who in Washington made her Education Secretary. This ill-fated scheme was an idea of the 'privatize prone' Republicans.
I'm the same way. Back in the early 00's I was young, religious, and a conservative Republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldsgreatest
However, after I graduated college and got into the real world I started having a more diverse group of friends and coworkers. I had gay and Muslim friends. I started see more of what was out in the world and I realized that I had been groomed by certain key people [[friends, politicians, church) to have hate and fear towards many minority groups.
In the aftermath of our decisions in Iraq that resulted in tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis, it was one political party that was trying to tell me that it was OK. I even had "Christian" friends try to justify our invasion of Iraq even with the knowledge we have today that there were no WMD's.
"Fiscal conservatism" of the Republicans is a joke, as we have watched the annual deficits rise while the Republicans controlled EVERYTHING for the first two years of the Trump era.
My experience with the intertwining of the Christian faith and the Republican party has sent me running away from both.
Gray
Old
Prudes
Can't go extinct soon enough for me.
There may well not be a way to correct the devastation the Democrats have wrought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
But it's silly to blame the GOP for a proposed solution that only had mixed success.
Allowing charter schools didn't CAUSE the Detroit school system to be simultaneously the most expensive, AND the worst performing district in the nation. DPS was the worst in the nation long before charter schools came around.
You DO realize that like 76% of the federal budget is Social Security and entitlements right?Quote:
Originally Posted by 48307
Now try to guess which party likes to promise to give away hundreds of trillions of dollars that it doesn't have, in exchange for votes for itself? [[I.E. treason)
How on earth will we pay for ANY of that? The only shred of hope we have is to shift the economy into high gear, and shove the gas pedal flat to the floor,.. and hope we can add enough people to the tax roles, and remove enough people from the welfare roles that we can the shift the date when we become Venezuela as far into the future as possible.
Shutting down energy, putting unnecessary restrictions on business and raising taxes on business so they are forced to leave the country to compete doesn't work.
Two words... Charter Schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Has nothing to do with Detroit.
Can you explain what do you mean by that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldsgreatest
You do realize the above is hyperbole, nonsense and partisan vitriol right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
The entire annual US Federal budget is a bit over 4.7 Trillion. No one is promising hundreds of trillions of dollars for anything.
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-feder...akdown-3305789
You are welcome to have a political preference. You are welcome to prefer greater fiscal prudence [[hopefully from both major parties).
You are not welcome to make stuff up.
Go read the facts. Then publish those, with citations and links, and then render an informed opinion.
***
PS, big spending may or may not be wise [[how big, and on what?) but it is not treasonous. If deficits are treasonous then I would suppose you would favour charging every Republican president for the last 1/2 century w/treason?
***
Also, there have been 2 'entitlement' expansions of note since the year 2000.
1) Medicare Part D - Drugs - Proposed and Signed by Republican President Bush
2) Medicaid Expansion - Obama
Which do you suppose was the more expensive?
Ding Ding, you win the prize if you said the Republican expansion, which will cost a bit over 100B this year; while Medicaid expansion runs in the 65B range.
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-b...and-financing/
Imagine how much more proud of yourself you'd be if you knew what you were talking about!
*****
The US has a relatively meagre welfare state.Quote:
How on earth will we pay for ANY of that? The only shred of hope we have is to shift the economy into high gear, and shove the gas pedal flat to the floor,.. and hope we can add enough people to the tax roles, and remove enough people from the welfare roles that we can the shift the date when we become Venezuela as far into the future as possible.
But the highest uptake of Federal welfare programs is in Republican jurisdictions, where poverty is highest.
https://www.lexingtonlaw.com/blog/fi...tatistics.html
If you wanted to examine how the 'discretionary' part of the Federal budget is spent......
Once you include the OCO fund, then military spending is $989 billion. It's spread out among different agencies and budget categories, so you must add it all together. It includes:
- Defense Department base budget: $576 billion.
- DoD Overseas Contingency Operations: $174 billion.
- Departments that support defense: $212.9 billion. They include the Department of Veterans Affairs, State Department, Homeland Security, FBI and Cybersecurity, and the National Nuclear Security Administration.
- Emergency funding for support departments: $26.1 billion.
From here: https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...ending-3305763
***
If you want to fix the US deficit the answer is both reductions in military spending [[just cut the overseas bit to zero)
Then impose a national, broad sales tax at 5% [[yes, I know that requires a constitutional amendment)
But it would raise 270B per year.
https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2016/52285
Also required is raising the retirement age to 68 or higher.
And raising the minimum age to receive non-disability based benefits to 65 or higher.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/raising-e...getand-economy
Canada needs to do that to, even though our pension system is fully funded. It would allow more generous benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
As told by his brainwashed left-wing son.
That still does not explain how Republicans pissed away even more money. What does explain it is the huge tax breaks for the ultra-rich they passed [[which was more important than balancing the budget to the fully Republican controlled government). But don't worry, some of the breadcrumbs have hit the floor for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Quote:
Originally Posted by 48307
Interesting. I have Muslim friends justifying the attack and destruction of the Trade Towers, and the people inside.
I've never met a single person of any background that has done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Fixed that for ya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky TonkAs told by his brainwashed left-wingQuote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
sondaughter.
Okay, now you have unwittingly confessed to commenting on a link you hadn't even clicked.
Are any of your future comments even worth reading?
You had promise for a moment there but you botched it.
Deprogram yourself, Honky Tonk:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
Speaking of programs, do you think anyone watches your 1 hour specials?
Physician, heal thyself.
Are they imaginary friends?Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
No. I met them on YouTube. They made a video, speaking directly to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by archfan
On the military spending aspect and setting aside the keeping the fight thousands of miles from our soil and where it poses the greatest threat,our military is considered a deterrent for hundreds of millions across the world,that comes at a price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
On the flip side how come Russia never took Canada during the Cold War?
It would have been the quickest and most cost effective way to place a direct threat on the US border.
Even now how long do you think Canada would last without the deterrent to the south of her,or even Mexico for that matter.
Korea or even ISIS could roll through either country if there was no intervention or other deterrents.
We create chaos in the world but imagine what would happen if it was not a semi controlled chaos and the billions of dollars that other countries add to thier coffers by selling thier military hardware.
It is kinda hypocritical to say the US should keep its military within its own borders while on the same accord collecting profits on both sides of the chaos.
The Republican Governor of Florida is getting ready to sign off on allowing Canadian pharmaceuticals into the state in order to bring healthcare costs down.
Maybe we should remind him that it is not a Republican mantra and really why should we be pumping billions into the Canadian system anyways.
You keep telling/chastising people how flawed thier thinking is according to your train of thought and coming up with all of these brilliant idieas to make America great again,that do not even work in your own country.
I didn't say "Per year". If we continue to shell out 3 Trillion a year for the next 50 or 100 years,... that's how much? Hundreds of trillions right? Money we don't have and can't possibly ever get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
What I said was "Now try to guess which party likes to promise to give away hundreds of trillions of dollars that it doesn't have, in exchange for votes for itself?"
Perhaps you missed that part?
And that's just the programs that are already in effect. What about the things that socialist politicians propose and say they'll push for if elected? Stuff like free college for all, Medicare for all, guaranteed minimum wages, etc. Just the Medicare for all would be more than our annual budget [[Currently 15% of Americans are on Medicare, yet it consumes 17.5% of our budget,.. and that's climbing by 1% a year. AND THAT'S with it being heavily subsidized by other insurance companies at the doctor's offices. Go in for a procedure and what you pay is based on who your coverage is though. Medicare pays out at the very low end of the spectrum [[so much so that many doctors won't accept it),.. so you get your kids tonsils out and it's $8,000 if you have Blue Cross,.. but only $1,900 if you pay cash. But if we go to medicare for all,.. it won't just cost $112% of our current total annual budget,.. but rather, it could easily double or more to something like 250%. So the Bernie Sander's and some other candidates for 2020,.. [[as well as AOC etc) are proposing adding what?? $8 trillion, $9 Trillion a year to the current $4.7? [[There's no way to even know until 5 -7 some years after such a program was implemented. Even the CBO will have no idea).
In addition,... ACTUAL: debt isn't just the current year's deficit,.. or even the amount we have already had to borrow and are already paying interest on [[$21 Trillion). Rather,.. the ACTUAL debt includes the amounts we have already promised and commited ourselves to give away,.. and that number for the US is already well over $200 Trillion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
Boarders on. When you use deficit spending to improve the country, or to jump start the economy,.. or to secure the boarders it's one thing,.. but when you intentionally damage the country for your own personal benefit,... that boarders on treason,.. yes. And for sure, the previous 4 presidents should be charged.
Meager welfare state? Perhaps,.. but it's hard for anyone to think of 3/4 or our economy and growing as meager.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
DISCRETIONARY PART? It's all discretionary, if they try hard enough. No one I know promised to give others our money, and NO ONE is entitled to free stuff. The name is in itself a misnomer.
I agree,.. SOS should be raised,.. but not to 65,.. rather to 72. It was meant to bolster a person's income in the last 5 years of their life,.. not be their entire income for the last 15 - 20. It should have been indexed to life-span,.. which currently stands at 78.7 years here.
Medicaid should be reeled back,... and the AMA should be eliminated. Flexner / Rockefeller medicine is a scam.
Of course this thread has gone off the rails.
It seems no one can actually stay on point and realize that the main fact in the article is that REPUBLICANS have unfairly tried to legally cheat the system in order to stay in power.
That shows a couple of things. First off, that although legal, the GOP has been caught cheating and second, that more votes and voters are skewing left, away from the right and it showed in the presidential election and it's showing in how gerrymandering will be gone.
Face facts here, the Republican party as we knew, prior to Trump, it is starting to go the way of the Dodo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
Unless you consider people promising to give away trillions of other people's money in exchange for votes as being cheating. [[Like they did again with Obamacare, where they steal from a small group and give to two large groups,.. as a means to buy their votes).
Nearly 50% of Americans now receive government checks of some kind. Pretty soon it will be impossible for a conservative to win an election, and we'll quickly spiral into Venezuela.
Can the nation be saved?
I largely agree. Bush lied about the WMD's but we mustn't forget his allies included many Democrats. Senator Clinton was a cheerleader for the Iraq war. Bernie, to his credit, voted against the Iraq war. Don't forget about Lyndon Johnson who got us into the Vietnam War in which 60,000 Americans died. Also, you neglected to mention that Obama/Kerry/Clintion overthrew Khaddafi and attempted to overthrow Assad causing additional hundreds of thousands of Arab deaths and added to the millions of refugees. When Trump mused about getting our troops out of Syria and half out of Afghanistan, he was driven back by neocons and Democrats who went silent.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48307
I also agree that Republicans fell well short of fiscal conservatism. BushII doubled the national debt before Obama doubled it again. Obama raised the national debt by $120,000 for the average family of four. Trump is on track to run up the debt at the same rate as BushII. Canadian Visitor listed ideas about how to check spending. So far, we haven't heard of many ideas from Democrats. Which Democrat has proposed a plan to decrease the federal debt? I'm hearing free college, free health care, Green New Deal, providing for everyone crossing our open borders but so far nothing about shrinking the national debt.
All that hot air in order to speak about something that I didn't raise as an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
There are ZERO US troop stationed in Canada other than a few equal number exchanges under NORAD.
Yes, the US deters Russia, with its Domestic forces, not its overseas deployment in Syria, or Iraq or North Korea etc. etc.
Those do not benefit Canada's situation at all.
PS, you do realize what a sphere is right? ie. the shape of the planet.
The only direct route from Russia to Canada is through Alaska.
Yes, in theory, over the top is possible. But due to arctic ice conditions, not all that practical.
Nice use of a slippery slope fallacy there with the Venezuela comparison...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Slippery slope is one example of a fallacy. It is an argument that suggests taking a minor action will lead to major and sometimes ludicrous consequences.
Medicaid/Medicare in the US OVER pays for most procedures and drugs, US private insurers pay even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
This is a function of excessive administrative costs, out of control patent issuing without reasonable controls [[patents themselves are anti-market, remember this, though they serve a useful purpose if done correctly); as well as profit-at-every level of the system.
PS, whether one supports it or not, if there was gov't monopoly on healthcare, providers could and would take a lower reimbursement number as they would go out of business if they didn't.
Any shift to greater gov't healthcare in the US will necessitate a means of funding that. No question. Payroll tax is the most likely, but it certainly should not be deficit funded.Quote:
So the Bernie Sander's and some other candidates for 2020,.. [[as well as AOC etc) are proposing adding what?? $8 trillion, $9 Trillion a year to the current $4.7? [[There's no way to even know until 5 -7 some years after such a program was implemented. Even the CBO will have no idea).
Unfunded liabilities are a serious issue. No question.Quote:
In addition,... ACTUAL: debt isn't just the current year's deficit,.. or even the amount we have already had to borrow and are already paying interest on [[$21 Trillion). Rather,.. the ACTUAL debt includes the amounts we have already promised and commited ourselves to give away,.. and that number for the US is already well over $200 Trillion.
They are not, however, 'the debt' nor 'the deficit' these terms have a meaning.
Uhhh, except for the fact that is entirely untrue.....Quote:
Meager welfare state? Perhaps,.. but it's hard for anyone to think of 3/4 or our economy and growing as meager.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp
Total US gov't spending, of all kinds, Federal, State and Local are collectively 35.9% of GDP.
That makes it entirely impossible for 'welfare' which is a subset of the above to represent 3/4 of the economy.
If one were discussing pure 'welfare' [[ie. SNAP or Section 8 benefits) these represent about 6% of total government spend, and therefore about 2.5% of the economy.
If one included pension and gov't funded healthcare of all types, one would get 48% of government spend, which would in turn be about 17% of GDP.
Nowhere near 3/4.
Again, you are welcome to your opinions and preferences but not to your own facts.
That choice of words refers to the current legal description of the Federal Budget as enshrined in US law, not a personal characterization.Quote:
DISCRETIONARY PART? It's all discretionary, if they try hard enough. No one I know promised to give others our money, and NO ONE is entitled to free stuff. The name is in itself a misnomer.
I suggested 68 or higher, not 65. My use of 65 references the right to take SS early, in exchange for a lower payout.Quote:
I agree,.. SOS should be raised,.. but not to 65,.. rather to 72. It was meant to bolster a person's income in the last 5 years of their life,.. not be their entire income for the last 15 - 20. It should have been indexed to life-span,.. which currently stands at 78.7 years here.
I was suggesting moving the number in sync w/whatever the new retirement age would be, ie early takers are retirement age minus three.
Not happening w/o some other means of guaranteed coverage. Politics 101.Quote:
Medicaid should be reeled back
Uhh, the AMA is an association whose right to exist is expressly protected by the US Constitutions express freedoms/rights.Quote:
,... and the AMA should be eliminated. Flexner / Rockefeller medicine is a scam.
Can you cite your sources for what you believe to be fact? You're going off topic, once again. Deflect, but can't defend the legal cheating. Please address the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
This is Michigan State Senate District 14, represented by Ruth Johnson [[R):
https://www.senate.michigan.gov/2011...trict%2014.pdf
There's literally a section of it [[bottom right) that is connected to the rest of the district by a single intersection. Not gerrymandered though, right? That's just an obviously natural way to draw a contiguous district!
Go back and re-read what you posted,even more so the part where we would have a savings by reducing the military budget and having a zero over seas budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
Then come back and post about hot air and that you did not raise the issiue.
In relation to your sphere logic,they have these new fangled flying machines that people can jump out of and land pretty much wherever they want,no need to march across a frozen wasteland like 100 years ago.
They could land alongside of most of the people and not even be noticed with everybody buried in thier cell phones.
The rest about the debt and healthcare is easy to solve,the government just takes all of the private retirement funds,anybody that retired at 45 with a pension goes back to work at a state job until 70,the government can build apartment blocks where everybody lives for free or in trade for the 40 hour work week,government provides healthcare and retirees live in the houseing blocks with a small monthly stipend.
Everybody else just works to contribute to the cause and everybody is equally the same.
With the gerrymandering aspect in the past highly populated city centers were blue while the burbs were red,with the movement of the city folk to the burbs is that not going to change the demographics in itself to where parties are going to want to change or tweak the districts?
I was talking about how many trillions various politicians have "promised to give away" of other people's money,.. in exchange for votes. Future obligations + current debt IS THE SUM that best represents that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
Liars will try to blind you to that reality by talking in terms of deficit, or debt.
Sneaky,.... I see what you did there. You rephrased what I said in terms of GDP,..Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
Again, you are welcome to your opinions and preferences but not to twist around what I say just so that you can claim I'm wrong.
Federal spending for 2018 was 4.09 Trillion a year. Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicaid and a couple other of the main "entitlements" was over $2.5 Trillion of that.. So just those made up 62% of spending. Then there's corporate welfare,...
Also,.. I'm not talking about JUST welfare and the like,.. but anyone receiving a government check. Whether it's corporate welfare, govt job, Soc Sec, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, Sect 8, etc, etc...... You get to a point where 50-60% of people are getting a gov't check of one form or another,.. and human nature is to vote for whomever promises to make those checks bigger,.. and POW. Down the tubes it goes.
No,.. no one wants to pretend that "SNAP and Sec 8" are the only entitlement programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
Uh,.. sure, the right to exist,.. BUT,... since 1910 they've been way more than that. They were essentially made lord of all medicine by Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
https://worldaffairs.blog/2015/10/20...natural-cures/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
Well,.. you could spend 2 min reading up on Obamacare for example.
One of many examples just in the ACA alone is;... It costs insurance companies 7x as much to insure an 80 year old as it does a 20 year old. But the ACA makes it illegal for insurance companies to charge the octogenarian more than 3x the 20 year old. [[Essentially, this acts as a massive wealth transfer to the elderly,.. who outnumber the younger generation,.. and like to vote).
They ACA also subsidizes the poor heavily. and there's lots of poor. So essentially those two massive voting blocks are being heavily subsidized by the 27 - 60 year old working people that make $80k a year or more [[A WAY smaller voting block than the poor and elderly combined). So the left buys themselves a lot of votes, while robbing a hundred million or more of their health "coverage".
Of course you aren't going to understand that last sentence,.. so I'll have to explain it.
Having "Coverage" is different than having "a plan". My family for example still has "a plan",.. [[I.E. I still have a plastic card in my wallet,.. which I pay $12,000 a year for),.. but now the deductible is $14,300. So it no longer actually covers anything.Pull out the card when your child needs their tonsils out, and you still pay 100% of the $8,000 cost. So to save money I have to tell doctor's offices that I don't have any insurance. That way I get the cash price of $1,900 and save $6,100.
So yeah,.. 20 million more people have "a plan",.. but perhaps 100 - 200 million people lost "coverage". [[Coverage being defined as the plan actually PAYING for stuff).
All done to buy votes for the left. So yeah,.. cheating is massive,.. but gerrymandering hardly makes the list in terms of importance.
I did nothing sneaky and rephrased nothing. This is exactly what you said, quotedQuote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
"Meager welfare state? Perhaps,.. but it's hard for anyone to think of 3/4 or our economy and growing as meager. "
The Economy is not the Federal budget. The Economy is GDP, literally, figurative and in any and all other ways. If you didn't mean to use that word, then use another. But don't suggest I changed your meaning. I answered exactly what you wrote.
And that's the fault of Obamacare...how again? There's no individual mandate anymore, that's YOUR CHOICE to pay $12,000 a year for a High-Deductible Health Plan [[HDHP), AKA "garbage." You could put that 12K into a Health Savings Account and would probably be better off. And you clearly did NOT buy that garbage policy on the Obamacare Exchange, since those policies are required to meet minimum Actuarial Values. Even the lowest-tier bronze plans cap cost-sharing at 40% to the beneficiary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Also, take a f'ing guess as to what the GOP "alternative" to Obamacare is for people like you? If you guessed "High Deductible Health Plans", ding ding ding you're a winner because that's their alternative. Allow insurance companies to sell junk HDHPs across state lines and charge you money while offering you almost nothing in return, that's the GOP's health care plan.
As for political parties buying votes with taxpayer dollars...
Annual budget deficit by year:
2014: $485 billion
2015: $438 billion
2016: $585 billion
2017: $665 billion
2018: $779 billion [[first full budget that belongs to Trump and the GOP)
2019: $985 billion [[actually on pace now for between $1 trillion and $1.4 trillion)
2020: $1.103 trillion [[projected)
$13 billion in welfare payments alone to Midwestern farmers, but that's not vote buying???
In case you were curious, last month [[March 2019) set the record for most deficit spending in a single month in U.S. history...ever. $234 billion in deficit spending in just one month. Not even at the height of the Great Recession under Obama were we spending that much more than we were taking in.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-b...al-debt-2019-3
Our "booming economy" is being artificially fueled by record deficit spending. We're not supposed to be running deficit this massive when the economy is good. We are artificially accelerating the economy with a massive influx of borrowed Chinese money to the tune of over a trillion dollars a year now, this is how Trump gets those magical economic numbers...by putting us into massive debt to foreign creditors. Just like how he runs his businesses.
^ 13 billion in welfare payments alone to Midwestern farmers, but that's not vote buying???
Did it buy your vote? I hope so because the trickle down is the cost of putting food on your table.You benefited from it.
Either that or allow 2 companies to control our entire food supply.
That was not welfare to the farmers,that was money given to the farmers for payment of providing your welfare.
Again, you didn't cite any sources. I am trying to have a discussion, but ranting without citing an actual source [[website) that you're getting this information from is what I'm looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Again, stop deflecting and please address why you are defending the legal cheating of gerrymandering.
Just read he ACA,.. or most any commentary on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
Known as age curve,.. or age rating ratio,.. we previously were at between 5 - 1 and 7 - 1 age ratio. The ACA capped that at 3 - 1. Meaning dramatically higher premiums for the young, and lower for seniors. Here's a study on the effect of it.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...3rwt7SI7hKgEkH
It acts as a massive wealth transfer scheme to the biggest single block of voters.
And by no means am I defending Gerrymandering,... but in terms of cheating,.. flip-flopping a couple state reps is relatively meaningless,.. or at least it is as compared to wrecking the nation's economy, imprisoning millions in poverty, and wrecking our health-care system for fun and profit.
Thank you for citing a piece, I'll have to look into that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
As for the original topic, comparing the ACA to gerrymandering is not equal, whatsoever.
Gerrymandering is legal cheating and it must be abolished. I'm glad that the courts ruled in favor of eliminating it.
Can you just ignore Big Dummy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zads07
Behind the scenes [[and not-so-behind-scenes too), the most I’ve ever seen the “screw you, I’ve got mine” attitude was from so-called elite Detroit Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by bibs
No, genius, it was payment to soybean farmers and others to make up for lost international sales [[to China) as a result of retaliatory tariffs China placed on U.S. agricultural imports due to Trump's trade war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Neither you nor I benefit from that $13 billion in welfare to the farmers, only THEY benefit from it because it compensates them for losses from FOREIGN [[not domestic) sales. Your ignorance of the basic economics involved with this issue is almost impressive.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/24/63195...offset-tariffs
What you're erroneously referring to are traditional farm subsidies, which you've confused with the $13 billion in welfare payments given as tariff relief, which is an entirely separate issue. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about, maybe just keep your mouth shut.
^ okay Mr economics professor,Bham,tariff relief or not,did the farmers stick that 13 billion in the bank or did it flow directly back into the economy?
In your eyes the welfare would not have been necessary if amercians actually supported thier fellow Americans.
What Trump should have done was ban all Chinese imports,change the name from dollar store to a $5000 dollar store and spent the 13 billion reopening factories so Americans can make a livable wage.
My guess is that had he done that you would also be upset.
[[Just in case anyone misinterpreted the sentence you wrote)Quote:
Originally Posted by aj3647
It should be mentioned that RESPONDING to CHINA's trade war is the president's JOB.
China has had horrific tariffs on our products going there for many decades. They break it down into a list of fees and duties,.. so the raw tariff doesn't seem so huge.
But for example [[and I witness this first hand,.. as I visit China a bit and have property there).
Anyway,..I was there in 2008 and a friend bought a Mercedes ML350. They're built in Alabama.
Here they would have sold for about $44,000. In China they're $120,000 after tariffs, duties and fees.
Some will try to decieve you and just quote one of those numbers, so as to make it seem like China only charges 25% or something,.. but in reality it's more like 185%,.. ON TOP OF the cost of the car.
Want to buy a 2010 VW CC as my sister in law did? If you get one assembled in China, it will cost you $22,000,.. just like they were here at the time. But buy a German assembled one, and it's more like $60,000.
So how long should the various presidents stab American workers in the back to help China? How many millions of manufacturing jobs should we give away? [[And keep in mind that manufacturing and energy extraction is the source of ALL wealth).
The proper solution is, we react with retaliatory tariffs. That escalates back and forth until finally both parties come to their senses and sit down at the table and work it out. Then we end up with a couple percent tariff this way on X product,.. and couple percent tariff that way on Y and Z products, and everyone''s happy for a decade or two.
If the president does nothing,.. he's abdicated his job.
Don't let the America and president hating pinkos on CNN fool you, China started this trade war.
The previous 3-4 presidents just cared more about massive corporations and how much profit they could make by shipping manufacturing overseas than they did about American workers.
And we're seeing the results of having a populist instead of a corporate lackey in the WH now. Manufacturing is moving back to the US, unemployment is at an all time low, and for the first time in decades,.. wages are finally starting to inch ever so slightly upwards.