Rip, mi gop

[Jimaz]

How Fox News and Right-Wing Media Brainwashed This Dad and Destroyed a Family
The Brainwashing Of My Dad

As told by his brainwashed left-wing son daughter.

Fixed that for ya.

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:

• TruthOut.org
• AlterNet.org

[Honky Tonk]

Fixed that for ya.

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:

• TruthOut.org
• AlterNet.org

Speaking of programs, do you think anyone watches your 1 hour specials?
Physician, heal thyself.

[archfan]

Interesting. I have Muslim friends justifying the attack and destruction of the Trade Towers, and the people inside.

Are they imaginary friends?

[Honky Tonk]

Are they imaginary friends?

No. I met them on YouTube. They made a video, speaking directly to me.

[Richard]

You do realize the above is hyperbole, nonsense and partisan vitriol right?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.


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.

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?

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.

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/




The US has a relatively meager welfare state.

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.

Meager welfare state? Perhaps,.. but it's hard for anyone to think of 3/4 or our economy and growing as meager.

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.

[Zads07]

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.

[Bigdd]

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.

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?

[oladub]

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.

"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.

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.

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.

[Canadian Visitor]

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.

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.

All that hot air in order to speak about something that I didn't raise as an issue.

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.

[Gistok]

Pretty soon it will be impossible for a conservative to win an election, and we'll quickly spiral into Venezuela.

Nice use of a slippery slope fallacy there with the Venezuela comparison...

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.

[Canadian Visitor]

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%.

Medicaid/Medicare in the US OVER pays for most procedures and drugs, US private insurers pay even more.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Unfunded liabilities are a serious issue. No question.

They are not, however, 'the debt' nor 'the deficit' these terms have a meaning.

Meager welfare state? Perhaps,.. but it's hard for anyone to think of 3/4 or our economy and growing as meager.

Uhhh, except for the fact that is entirely untrue.....

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.

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.

That choice of words refers to the current legal description of the Federal Budget as enshrined in US law, not a personal characterization.

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 suggested 68 or higher, not 65. My use of 65 references the right to take SS early, in exchange for a lower payout.

I was suggesting moving the number in sync w/whatever the new retirement age would be, ie early takers are retirement age minus three.

Medicaid should be reeled back

Not happening w/o some other means of guaranteed coverage. Politics 101.

,... and the AMA should be eliminated. Flexner / Rockefeller medicine is a scam.

Uhh, the AMA is an association whose right to exist is expressly protected by the US Constitutions express freedoms/rights.

[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?

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.

[aj3647]

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!

[Richard]

All that hot air in order to speak about something that I didn't raise as an issue.

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.

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.

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?

[Bigdd]

They are not, however, 'the debt' nor 'the deficit' these terms have a meaning.

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.

Liars will try to blind you to that reality by talking in terms of deficit, or debt.

Uhhh, except for the fact that is entirely untrue.....

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp

Total US gov't spending, of all kinds, Federal, State and Local are collectively 35.9% of GDP.

Sneaky,.... I see what you did there. You rephrased what I said in terms of GDP,..

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.

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.

No,.. no one wants to pretend that "SNAP and Sec 8" are the only entitlement programs.

Uhh, the AMA is an association whose right to exist is expressly protected by the US Constitutions express freedoms/rights.

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.

https://worldaffairs.blog/2015/10/20...natural-cures/

[Bigdd]

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.

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.

[Canadian Visitor]

Sneaky,.... I see what you did there. You rephrased what I said in terms of GDP,..

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.

I did nothing sneaky and rephrased nothing. This is exactly what you said, quoted

"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.

[aj3647]

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.

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.

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.

[aj3647]

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.

[Richard]

^ 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.

[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.

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.

Again, stop deflecting and please address why you are defending the legal cheating of gerrymandering.

[Bigdd]

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.

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.

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.

[Zads07]

Just read he ACA,.. or most any commentary on it.

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.

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.

[Meddle]

Can you cite your sources for what you believe to be fact?

Can you just ignore Big Dummy?