ActualCornHusker

Insulin & drugs is definitely a complicated one. One major reason for the outrageous cost is that the government protects these industries with crazy patent laws, while other countries basically rip off those formulas, and American companies footed the millions of dollars of R&D on those drugs. That, and politicians on both sides are bribed to protect these companies and the insurance providers they work with. The healthcare system in the US is messed up, there's no doubt.

I'm not going to take an anarchist stance that we should have NO taxation - there are obviously public services and amenities that are pretty much essential (Police, roads, public water, etc). And I agree 100000000% that poor and middle class people should be taxed less, but I'd take it a step further and say that EVERYONE should be taxed less.

Those are good thoughts so I appreciate you chiming in. Regarding your 1st and 2nd point, I'd refer you to my last post in response to BlitzFirst

Regarding #3 - I'm not specifically referring to Obamacare. The system was a mess long before the (Un)Affordable Care Act went into effect. The main thing our healthcare system lacks is transparency in pricing, in addition to the monstrous administration costs (as a result of too much government intervention) and cronyism of insurance & drug companies. If prices for procedures and medical products were required to be stated up-front by all medical offices, it would be a giant step in the right direction. Agree on #2 in regards to balancing the budget, but I disagree that the size of the budget doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, why not just confiscate 100% of everyone's income and have the government provide all goods and services? I know that's hyperbole... #1 This will be our main point of disagreement. The left's assumption is that raising taxes on the rich will bring in more revenue to the treasury. That assumption is false, and I invite you to read about Hauser's Law. So in summary, higher taxation has been shown over and over to stifle economic activity and reinvestment, resulting in lower GDP and not having a considerable effect on federal tax revenues. My assertion is that money is better off in the hands of individuals than our wasteful, corrupt government so that new jobs are created, new technologies and processes are developed, and society as a whole benefits as a result.

I agree 100%. Many degrees at universities should be discontinued, and general ed courses should either be cut entirely, or severely decreased. I was into my 3rd semester at college before I ever got into material that was actually pertinent to my major. That's nothing but a money grab imo.

Right, that's basically what I'm asking. You'd have to get the answer to that before ever jumping on board - not just assume that . Then in addition to that, you'd have to ask the questions: Is there an age limit? Would you have to take advantage of it straight out of high school, or could a 62-year-old take advantage of it? Would it be limited to 4 years and 1 degree, or would taxpayers be on the hook if someone were to take 7 years to get 3 degrees? From there, you'd have to get an accurate look at the cost and assess if it's worth doing.

Oh hey, thanks for an actual reply of substance. Except it doesn't answer the question... So the claim is that there would not be an increase in attendance at public universities due to it being "free"?

Thank you for the info. I'd have to look at the breakdown of that more closely because the total of tuition at public universities yearly is much higher, and if it's "free" then many more people would attend. Sounds like an optimistic estimate like many of the other Bernie proposals.

Thank you for that link. I'd have to see in-depth at how those numbers are calculated, because the actual yearly cost of tuition at public institutions is much higher I don't think you know what fiscal conservative means....

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 27.1 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.6 percent).

Instead of the ad hominem attacks, how about you have a real conversation for once?

Continually saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. So you'd be in favor of a flat tax?

All I did was point out that they're 2 of the largest unfunded liabilities. Why jump to conclusions?... And I'd rather not get SS benefits if it meant I didn't have to pay in - not sure if you've ever actually looked at the numbers, but the payoff of that investment is negative... If it were up to me, we'd not be in all the endless wars in the middle east, and the military budget would be much lower - but you're being intellectually dishonest. The budget for military increased by $34 billion. You'd have to prove your claim on that one...

A couple questions: 1) can you be more specific by what you mean by "fixing the tax code" and "rich paying their fair share"? I've already laid out that the top 1% of income earners pay more in taxes than the bottom 90%. How much more do they need to pay according to you. 2) In 2018, federal expenditures were over $4 TRILLION! Total GDP is $20Trillion. How much bigger should the federal budget get? 3) I don't see it as the best option, but our current healthcare system is the worst of all available systems, so I think we'd be better off with universal healthcare than where we are currently. However, I'd need clarification other than wishful thinking: In what ways would medicare for all / universal healthcare cause per capita healthcare costs to go down? Feel free to send a link if you'd like. I'd really like a legitimate conversation on this one.

You're right, both parties are culpable, but here are 2 of the biggest unfunded liabilities: Medicare - LBJ - Democrat Social Security - FDR - Democrat

There's $210 Trillion Of Liabilities Our Government Can't Fulfill

More than 40 percent of college graduates take a job out of school that didn’t require a degree. The article refers to individual choice of the graduates to accept the first job they can find, which means that responsibility falls at least in part on the shoulders of the graduate themself. But the data is abundant on this: Only 27 percent of college grads have a job related to their major

If goods and services materialized out of thin air, then I'd be all for implementing all these ideas. You can choose to call it what you'd like, but the point stands - We've already got $150 TRILLION (conservative estimate btw) in UNFUNDED liabilities. It's not coveting money to recognize that the amount of money that the government has already spent is going to crush this country, and adding an even larger burden through deficit spending will make it even worse... Sovereignty of the individual is THE core fundamental of what America was founded on. The fact that you feel that individual liberties is radical tells me everything I need to know.

I'd like to do a more well-thought-out response to the green new deal, but the first major criticism I would have of it would be that it would not allow Nuclear power plants... In one breath, they want to get rid of energy production that emits CO2, and in the next breath, they won't allow nuclear... That makes no sense. We should definitely facilitate a transition away from coal power toward green energy, but a better, more efficient, and less damaging way of doing so would be through incentivizing private companies (rather than coercing through government force) to develop new green energy advancements such as better energy storage technology (batteries) which is the primary limiting factor of solar and wind. Sure. What do you mean by that?

I'm only 30, so I know a LOT of people who have gone to college, graduated with 30, 40 50 grand in debt (which you can't even get rid of through filing for bankruptcy!!), and they go work jobs that not only don't have anything to do with their degree, but those jobs don't require a degree or higher education AT ALL! You don't have to go to college to learn employable skills...

There would still be scholarships for top students, grants, private loans, etc. There are also alternatives to 4-year colleges such as community colleges, as well as certificate programs. But until the government stops inflating the cost of higher education, it won't solve any issues.

And to be clear so you know where I stand @knapplc, I'll tell you again that I'm not a Republican. I'd be far more likely to vote R than D, but that does not mean I'm a Republican. I'm fiscally conservative (actually conservative, unlike the GOP) & socially extremely libertarian.

OK I'll stick with the staples that you claim: $15 minimum wage - Most importantly, a $15 minimum wage hurts the very people it intends to help. It prices low-skill and young workers out of the job market. These people inevitably end up jobless and on government assistance, creating and advancing a welfare state that perpetuates itself by not allowing those young and low-skill workers to go to work and develop employable skills. It also disproportionately hurts small family businesses, while large corporations are able to handle the added expenses (or automate processes sooner than they would have otherwise). The other large issue is that of the mutual contract agreement. If a person is willing to agree to do a job for $5/hr and the business is willing to hire that person for $5/hr, why would you consider it moral for a 3rd party (the government) to not allow that agreement? Wealth Tax - The hilarity of this proposal is the idea of "rich paying their fair share." The top 1% of income earners already pay a greater amount of taxes than the bottom 90% combined. At what point will the left say that the rich pay their fair share? Answer: they won't. Taxing the rich is built upon the logical fallacy that the market is a zero-sum game. There should definitely be incentive for wealthy people to spend, invest, and re-invest their money, but as soon as the government siphons that money out of the economy, it stops that from happening. "Free" College - Mainly, it doesn't solve the main problems with the system. It just shifts those burdens onto the taxpayers at-large. Like most issues, the biggest problems with college (the high cost and massive student debt as a result) are a direct result of an over-reach of government. If student loans are so abhorrent, why not have the government stop making these student loans?... The gov guaranteeing student loans is the single biggest factor in the skyrocketing cost of college tuition. With the current state of college education (many degrees have zero value in the job market), less people should be going to college - not more. EDIT: The government doesn't have a revenue issue. It has a spending issue, of which both parties are culpable. We've got $150 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, and that's going to destroy not just our economy, but will make our country vulnerable to outside threats.

Good question. Here would be a list of horrendous policy proposals that the left is riding on currently: - federal jobs guarantee - green new deal -$15 minimum wage -Forgiving student debt -Wealth tax -"free" college That's a few of the worst ideas.

What far right policies or opinions do you think I agree with?