The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Landlord]

5 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

So in summary, higher taxation has been shown over and over to stifle economic activity and reinvestment

 

Higher taxation of the poor/middle class people who are too burdened that they are unable to reach their potential for activity and growth. Not just higher taxation period with no context. 

 

Hence, the richest need to pay more so that the people making $50k-1mil and running small businesses can be free to not be stifled.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

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.

 

 

Oh I agree. But we need taxes, and we need the things taxes pay for. So take a bigger chunk from the smaller few who it doesn't really hurt and keep more money in the hands of the largest amount of individuals who can and will use it in ways they otherwise couldn't.

[Ratt Mhule]

8 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

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.

 

Let's say your assertion that knowing the prices beforehand would drive costs down due to competition is true.  What is the reason insulin keeps going up, always at the same time, from three different distributors?  Shouldn't competition drive prices down?  Or could it be their all in cahoots?

[ActualCornHusker]

1 minute ago, Landlord said:

 

Higher taxation of the poor/middle class people who are too burdened that they are unable to reach their potential for activity and growth. Not just higher taxation period with no context. 

 

Hence, the richest need to pay more so that the people making $50k-1mil and running small businesses can be free to not be stifled.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh I agree. But we need taxes, and we need the things taxes pay for. So take a bigger chunk from the smaller few who it doesn't really hurt and keep more money in the hands of the largest amount of individuals who can and will use it in ways they otherwise couldn't.

 

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.

[ActualCornHusker]

3 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Let's say your assertion that knowing the prices beforehand would drive costs down due to competition is true.  What is the reason insulin keeps going up, always at the same time, from three different distributors?  Shouldn't competition drive prices down?  Or could it be their all in cahoots?

 

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.

[Ratt Mhule]

11 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

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.

 

Exactly.  We both agree on this point.  Our politicians are bought and paid for by lobbyists.  So wouldn't you want to vote for the ONE politician that isn't bought and paid for?  Even if you don't agree with him, it can show the establishment that someone who isn't corrupt and gets millions of dollars through small dollar donations from the people can win a presidency/seat in congress and then politicians on all sides can follow this blueprint and answer to the people and not their donors.

 

There is a group called justice democrats that primaries establishment/corporate democrats with the promise to only raise money through small dollar donations.  If they do not make this promise, they can't run as a JD.  I wish the GOP would create a group like this.  If both sides had a group like this, we could start chipping away at the corruption.

[ActualCornHusker]

Just now, Frott Scost said:

 

Exactly.  We both agree on this point.  Our politicians are bought and paid for by lobbyists.  So wouldn't you want to vote for the ONE politician that isn't bought and paid for?  Even if you don't agree with him, it can show the establishment that someone who isn't corrupt and gets millions of dollars through small dollar donations from the people can win a presidency/seat in congress and then politicians on all sides can follow this blueprint and answer to the people and not their donors.

 

I respect that Bernie seems honorable in that regard, and he's probably the "least corrupt" of all the candidates, but I couldn't be much farther away from him on actual policy. I could lock arms with him on about 2-3 issues, but the rest I want no part of. I also feel that identifying yourself as a socialist or communist should be as off-limits as identifying as a nazi...

 

The wider focus on Bernie and corruption would be this: even if he's an extremely honorable individual, the vast expansion of the powers and scope of the federal government that he espouses would be a breeding-ground for greater and greater levels of corruption down the line. Remember the cliche "absolute power corrupts absolutely" - that applies to governments without exception. I'm for shrinking of the federal government, not expanding it.

[Ratt Mhule]

 

This is a good video just dropped today that falls into the conversation we've been having today.

[Landlord]

21 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

I also feel that identifying yourself as a socialist or communist should be as off-limits as identifying as a nazi...

 

 

 

You're too smart to think something so stupid.

[ActualCornHusker]

8 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

You're too smart to think something so stupid.

 

You'd have to ignore the history of every socialist or communist country that we've seen arise over the last 150 years to think that's stupid...

[deedsker]

5 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

You'd have to ignore the history of every socialist or communist country that we've seen arise over the last 150 years to think that's stupid...

Read

 

Quote

The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.

 

[Ratt Mhule]

11 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

You'd have to ignore the history of every socialist or communist country that we've seen arise over the last 150 years to think that's stupid...

 

Do you consider Canada, France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, UK, etc socialist?

[ActualCornHusker]

1 minute ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Do you consider Canada, France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, UK, etc socialist?

 

By their own admission they are not. They are mostly capitalist societies with a vast social safety net, and a couple of them actually rank higher on the economic freedom index than the US.

[Ratt Mhule]

3 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

By their own admission they are not. They are mostly capitalist societies with a vast social safety net, and a couple of them actually rank higher on the economic freedom index than the US.

 

I agree.  So what policies is Sanders proposing that are different than what these countries I mentioned offer their citizens?

[ActualCornHusker]

4 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

I agree.  So what policies is Sanders proposing that are different than what these countries I mentioned offer their citizens?

 

I'll have to do some research on that one - at this point my knowledge of those countries is very broad. But I know where you're going with this, and I'll preface that conversation with this:

1. Most of those countries have very small military budgets because the US defends many of them - maybe all of them, I'm not sure.

2. Even if a policy is "successful" in those countries doesn't mean we should implement it here. 

3. All of those countries have MUCH smaller populations (Sweden only has 10mil ppl), so implementing any social program here has to be done on a MUCH larger scale which makes it a LOT more complex. This is the importance of states rights in America. If Washington state wants to implement a $20/hr min wage, they can do that. If people would rather not live in Washington because of that policy or another, they can move to Montana or Arizona. 

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I'll have to do some research on that one - at this point my knowledge of those countries is very broad. But I know where you're going with this, and I'll preface that conversation with this:

1. Most of those countries have very small military budgets because the US defends many of them - maybe all of them, I'm not sure.

2. Even if a policy is "successful" in those countries doesn't mean we should implement it here. 

3. All of those countries have MUCH smaller populations (Sweden only has 10mil ppl), so implementing any social program here has to be done on a MUCH larger scale which makes it a LOT more complex. This is the importance of states rights in America. If Washington state wants to implement a $20/hr min wage, they can do that. If people would rather not live in Washington because of that policy or another, they can move to Montana or Arizona. 

 

Why should we keep the same healthcare program when all of those countries have proven that they can provide better healthcare at about 1/3 of the price?