Donald Trump is like the GOP version of Bernie Sanders. He is a populist, first and foremost. That's why he gets so much attention and praise from primary voters. Trump's run for president and the reaction he has been getting has shown that the GOP is on the brink of civil war. There is a clear divide between beltway/establishment Republicans and the average Joe with no Washington connections that loyally votes for the GOP each election cycle for better or for worse. The economy has been stagnant ever since the financial crisis, and that hasn't made things any better for those average Joes. Combine this with establishment Republicans offering no real opposition to the Obama administration and it results in voters taking their anger out on the only other possible choice they can think of that could shake things up for better or for worse. Many of the people I know who support Trump really only want someone who is not a career politician and who isn't politically correct.
I personally want to see a Trump vs. Sanders general. That would not only be hilarious, but it would also make Sanders win easily.
Actually I'd say Trump would win that contest. Some of the Trump v Sanders polls I've looked at have Sanders winning fairly narrowly it but when push comes to shove I would have my money on Trump. The US is not Scandinavia. You seriously underestimate how many people would thumb their nose towards the American version of Olof Palme.
I personally think that if Sanders got into the general and could get everyone who is paying attention to hear his message, he would win. Not only will Trump probably insult several key groups of voters before the election is over, but if everyone knew that Sanders was campaigning for raising the minimum wage and making college free, he would not only get the vote of educated liberals but also of almost every person with a low-income and every person with children who they want to send to college.
I'm not prepared to rule out the possibility that Trump is a Democrat running as a Republican and making himself look like a jack wagon to hand Hilary Clinton the presidency.
Not that I plan on voting anyway unless Sanders is an option. Our government is run by corporate sponsored bribery, and he's the only one willing to admit it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I personally want to see a Trump vs. Sanders general. That would not only be hilarious, but it would also make Sanders win easily.
Sanders is a socialist. Between those two, the loser would be America.
I assume you put your kids through private school on your dime? Have never driven on a road you yourself did not pave? Never used the fire department, police, or hospitals?
The overwhelming amount of infrastructure in the US (and most services in the rest of the developed world) run on Socialism.
People are afraid of socialism because "the reds are godless socialists". Now we're scared of socialism (even though the USSR was an oligarchy, not a socialist state), and we have "In God We Trust" on our money: so we can be different from the "evil Soviets".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Keep in mind I'm not versed in politics at all. Just speaking from the view of the average dude.
So far I like him.
I very sincerely hope that this is not the opinion of the "average dude."
I mean if you took all the candidates from this, last and the election before that and played sound bites of them to me I couldn't tell you who was who.
Really? How many of those candidates have you actually listened to?
I've listened to the debates. That's about it. Alot of it seems to avoid the question completed and focusing shifting it back to pre planned speaking points(which Trump also has done). However, Trump is the only one that stuck out in recent memory who essentially told the mediators "too bad, deal with it".
I personally want to see a Trump vs. Sanders general. That would not only be hilarious, but it would also make Sanders win easily.
Sanders is a socialist. Between those two, the loser would be America.
I think if Sanders won, we would see what a real socialist is rather than conservatives complaining about a faux socialist and using whining about government programs we dislike. The libertarian strands came out with anarchism, so it's only took sometime before we saw their sister socialists on the campaign trail. It actually balances out the ticket. There have been times in history whenever socialists have had good ideas regarding the welfare state, but when conservatives take the position and implement them they do so more rationally.
I honestly hate the concept of big government, yet it might be time for a few decades of government growth in very specific ways such as some corruption, ball busting moves. My argument for a while after Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush has been that moving slightly leftward as we tacked a little too to the right during the last few decades with regards to hand holding business in a very bad way.
The tax code needs rebooted, and right now there's no consensus on that. Rick Santorum has stated some areas such as trying to rebuild the American manufacturing base, and retaining a progressive income tax system without going to the flat tax. I agree with him, but disagree with his approach. For starters on the policy end, the Chinese Renminbi problem is dealing with a country that is evolving and will cheat the system where it can. Which means that we need as a country a better system for the "pipe line" between high school and jobs. I look at the first problem is seeing that we need finishing school in the first place for youngsters. That and the concept of formalizing "internships" in lieu of actual job training as a type of pipeline. In an economy that is so diverse, internships are great if you're still in school but whenever job hopping and you need money you don't have time to piss around with an internship or volunteer work. That's the job of businesses to place into their infrastructure training.
Employers here are a large part of the problem with arcane moves in making hiring itself difficult, and guess what happens? New laws, and that's one of the reasons why we see the leftward creep in youngsters. The other is the financial shock, on top of that we have to stack in social conservatives attempting a phalanx of new laws against gays. Which introduces a slurry of feminism and other defenders from the 1960's.
Some of what I see today reflects the 1960's, the radical shifts in ideology and attempts to rebuild and redefine America. There's just not really a social movement that you can point to, though, thus far sticking other than the gay rights movement. If anything social liberalism is helping the US, and Obamacare is placing in the infrastructure to change the welfare state. If conservatives can stop trying to defund and use it to get some pet projects in like health savings accounts that travel with you from job to job. I will say, I can probably get today a Democrat to support HSA than a Republican.
In terms of the candidates, I had hoped that Rand Paul would have shown some more gusto with his ideology but he isn't really doing that well and might have to get some more experience as a candidate by losing this cycle.
The basics of socialism are sound so as long as you have capitalism. You can't have government without some forms of socialism, but there lacks a real strain of communtarianism in what was seen in movements like the Black Panthers. While the Black Panthers were militaristic in some ways and had a lot of problems, the basic fundamentals of localism and self sufficiency with an identity built on pride and accomplishment is better. However, I feel that there needs to be more of a communitarian movement among social conservatives in something similar to the Progressive Movement that involves more aspects of business.
Socialism isn't the problem, neither is capitalism, government isn't the problem, business isn't the problem, as those are all just things or ideas. People are the problem, if you can change the hearts and behaviors that is whenever you win. It is our obligation to the future generations to build the resources that will enable to succeed. Success only comes whenever someone sucks less. So maybe the Black Panthers as a socialist organization setting up health clinics and businesses was a good idea, and that their drug and extortion rings were really bad ideas. But that doesn't mean that socialism itself has all bad ideas. Neither does the church with food banks, but still trying to discriminate against people in a 19th century way.
Right or left, people are people and they have some great ideas and some really bad ideas. This is why moderation is best, but also that the centrism needs to not look at goofy goals like a "No Labels" movement.
While a good in construct, it is nothing more than another ABC organization. It's like what happens with the Tea Party, it's too focused on government without a social movement component that actually supports communitarian actions in people. And that's what conservatism lacks ever since Reagan, that it lacked a social and business aspect. There's the individualis surge, but movements such as the Moral Majority and other Moms Hate America approaches serve to create new laws. While DARE actually had a purpose and advertising campaign. There are equally just as many ABC organizations that do not produce anything like a real NGO similar to the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
While Christianity proper has an activist message, there remains no philosophical trend without something like stoicism. Instead, modern Christianity has branded itself to some moralities like Objectivism and others. Thus far, I remain against that ideology. It might have come time to design a different kind of social philosophy with actual hard work in place when it comes to specific policy adaptations. Something that is able to combine neo-pragmatism with the egotistic framework within some of the better ideas out of Objectivism. Perhaps not, rather returning to classical approaches like stoicism along with Enlightenment prose and post WWII activist strains like the Civil Rights Movement and others right or left.
Social democracy, anarcho libertarianism, Austrian Libertarianism, neo-liberalism/neo-conservativism, Randian Objectivism, Marxism, frankly I don't really hold any of them in full compromising my own belief system. Is it strange to really take to seeing different portions of them as holding value? Frankly, yes, but that must be in tern asking the constant source of why those exist.
Libertarianism exists in current form out of a reaction against fascism and especially communism. Marxism exists as a weapon against imperialism and the worst of capitalism. Neo-conservatism is an evolution of Reaganism to be "softer gentler" with a hawkish approach to defense. Social democracy is a portion of the game that is more of a reaction to modernity and the shifts in the market that can undermine the family.
I feel it' only natural for people who struggle to look at their richer companions an be jealous and want to use the government. This is also a lack of understanding by CEO's that cutting benefits and wages without cutting themselves is against leadership and people do see that. That stirs jealously and something that needs to be looked at and considered a natural part of the human condition especially whenever struggle is in place. This is what sows the ideas of socialism and why fairness is so prevalent in leftist talk these days, because people want to build themselves up and there are real and yes imagined areas of strains.
I think the major barriers exist within the business community going for less regulation and less taxes, rather than having a real education policy and tailoring their training programs to be less stressful to workers and themselves. But there's a real entitlement strain, especially in successful entrepreneurs. That egotistical philosophy gives them the drive to succeed, while also making certain ones blind that sometimes their own business as well as other businesses suck as certain things and that not everyone can or should own a company.
So we in the conservative side of the spectrum need to also call our own "kind" our on their stuff. For example, I've said to some church goers "Why do I see advertisements against abortion, but never about poverty and solutions to poverty like starting a business?" It's an interesting discussion to have. The answer is in part church leadership setting priorities wrong. Mission trips are great, institutions are way stronger. You may save a child from abortion, but what value is that life if they descend into crime and kill others?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
I will say, the more I see Trump the more he grows on me. I was originally very against the idea of him as a candidate but I like some of his ideas. My biggest question about him right now is how much his lack of knowledge and experience in politics might trip him up. I like that he has a good network of people and doesn't really need money. I saw an interview today about him talking about potential cabinet members and I liked his idea that he knows a lot of people who are very good business people and that he could give jobs to people who know what they are doing rather than returning favors for money.
I guess... I will sit back and continue to survey the field for now. There are still several republican candidates that I have interest in but I guess Trump is slowly growing on me. I like his no nonsense straight forward this is who I am sort of personality even though I know it will get him in trouble you really feel like you know who he is as an individual and he isn't trying to cover that up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I assume you put your kids through private school on your dime? Have never driven on a road you yourself did not pave? Never used the fire department, police, or hospitals?
The overwhelming amount of infrastructure in the US (and most services in the rest of the developed world) run on Socialism.
People are afraid of socialism because "the reds are godless socialists". Now we're scared of socialism (even though the USSR was an oligarchy, not a socialist state), and we have "In God We Trust" on our money: so we can be different from the "evil Soviets".
No, people object to socialism because it doesn't work.
We can't afford government spending at the rate it's going. Exactly how is Sanders expected to fund his programs? Oh that's right, he doesn't know. But I'm sure people are going to claim he'll do it without the middle class having to pay increased taxes, because that makes any sense at all.
I assume you put your kids through private school on your dime? Have never driven on a road you yourself did not pave? Never used the fire department, police, or hospitals?
The overwhelming amount of infrastructure in the US (and most services in the rest of the developed world) run on Socialism.
People are afraid of socialism because "the reds are godless socialists". Now we're scared of socialism (even though the USSR was an oligarchy, not a socialist state), and we have "In God We Trust" on our money: so we can be different from the "evil Soviets".
No, people object to socialism because it doesn't work.
We can't afford government spending at the rate it's going. Exactly how is Sanders expected to fund his programs? Oh that's right, he doesn't know. But I'm sure people are going to claim he'll do it without the middle class having to pay increased taxes, because that makes any sense at all.
How about closing the tax loopholes that allow the the top 10 Fortune 500 companies to avoid paying between 150 (WSJ) and 600 (HuffPo) billion in taxes annually? That would go a LONG way towards helping the budget.
Secondly is continuing to improve the health care system by the elimination of frivolous lawsuits. Almost half of a doctor's fee in the US is liability to protect from stupid lawsuits (required in the US, the most litigious people in the history of existence). Cut down on frivolous lawsuits, cut down cost for doctors, which cuts down cost for the patient.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I like him because he isn't a cookie cutter politician (compared to the other candidates on both sides). This is the most fun I've had watching politics ever.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
How about closing the tax loopholes that allow the the top 10 Fortune 500 companies to avoid paying between 150 (WSJ) and 600 (HuffPo) billion in taxes annually? That would go a LONG way towards helping the budget.
Our budget is in the trillions. That is the budget now, when the government isn't paying for everyone's health care and colleges, along with goodness knows what else.
So you've raised, what, .15 trillion? Congratulations. You'll be able to work off a little more than a fourth of our present budget's deficit. Where's the rest of it going to come from?
I mean, really, this is why this primary is rather sad: if anyone actually thought about it for five minutes, you can easily see why no one should vote for Trump or Sanders. With Sanders, it's as simple as realizing that things cost money. With this in mind, you might realize that rapidly increasing spending when you have no idea how you're going to pay for everything is not a smart plan. That's freaking basic logic.
As for Trump... Really? What is Trump's defining quality? That he's basically a giant troll who's giving the middle finger to everyone. What does the president have to do? Oh right, work together effectively with other people in order to run the country. Of course Donald Trump is not qualified to be president. That's freaking basic logic.
Although, I am reminded that Al Sharpton has run for the Democratic nominee, so we can't criticize 2015 as having a monopoly on silly candidates.
Fiorina's qualifications for running are that she was a CEO once who crashed her company into the ground. That is even less qualified for political office than Trump.
Trump's had four bankruptcies on his watch. I think Fiorina wins this one.
How about closing the tax loopholes that allow the the top 10 Fortune 500 companies to avoid paying between 150 (WSJ) and 600 (HuffPo) billion in taxes annually? That would go a LONG way towards helping the budget.
Our budget is in the trillions. That is the budget now, when the government isn't paying for everyone's health care and colleges, along with goodness knows what else.
So you've raised, what, .15 trillion? Congratulations. You'll be able to work off a little more than a fourth of our present budget's deficit. Where's the rest of it going to come from?
I mean, really, this is why this primary is rather sad: if anyone actually thought about it for five minutes, you can easily see why no one should vote for Trump or Sanders. With Sanders, it's as simple as realizing that things cost money. With this in mind, you might realize that rapidly increasing spending when you have no idea how you're going to pay for everything is not a smart plan. That's freaking basic logic.
As for Trump... Really? What is Trump's defining quality? That he's basically a giant troll who's giving the middle finger to everyone. What does the president have to do? Oh right, work together effectively with other people in order to run the country. Of course Donald Trump is not qualified to be president. That's freaking basic logic.
Although, I am reminded that Al Sharpton has run for the Democratic nominee, so we can't criticize 2015 as having a monopoly on silly candidates.
Fiorina's qualifications for running are that she was a CEO once who crashed her company into the ground. That is even less qualified for political office than Trump.
Trump's had four bankruptcies on his watch. I think Fiorina wins this one.
How about reducing the amount we spend on the military, and stop trying to play the world's policeman? We spend more on our military then the next 23 countries on the list COMBINED, and 21 of them are allies. We rocketed military spending under Reagan, shot it up even further during Bush Jr's war for oil in Iraq, and it doesn't need to be as high as it is. We don't spend that much for our soldiers (otherwise maybe the VA Medical Service wouldn't be as messed up as it is), we spend that much for the military contractors that bought congressional seats.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I like Donald Trump as a candidate. That being said I don't listen to any of his ideas or take him seriously, but I love the fact that he's completely upending traditional politics as a newcomer who speaks his mind.
The American people have had a very strong anti-incumbent sentiment for awhile now. We've about had it with traditional politics.
Trump may says some truly asinine things. But the fact that he refuses to back down just goes to show how much Politically Correct manufactured controversy there is. The media loves to churn stories out of candidates putting their foot in their mouth instead of focusing on substantive issues. And the people just eat it up! But they don't really want to. It's the equivalent of clicking on a britney spears link on CNN. It's eye catching, but people hate that they fell for it.
Deep down the American people would rather focus on actual substantive points instead of manufactured reasons to be outraged.
The best thing about Trump is that he doesn't care about what he says. And it works. People get outraged for a little while, and Trumps refusal to back down ends up turning the people to his side. It's almost as if magically the American people didn't care that much about the PC crap in the first place--and lo and behold Trumps popularity endures.
I don't think for a second Trump would make a good president, or is even a serious contender for that matter. But he's making the Republicans look like idiots at the moment, and I think that's a good thing. It's a message to Republicans to shape up learn how to fight for the heart of their party.
Republicans have been sucking at the teat of the lowest common denominator for political approval for the past decade. So Trump comes along and decides to suck even lower. First he says Mexico is sending over their rapists. Then when he's challenged on it, retorts "well SOMEONE is doing the raping"
THEN because he says that his approval soars apparent because he's siphoned supporters from the other republican candidates! Trump is a message to republicans. Stop building your base around the lowest common denominator. Republicans, meet the Dems in the center, and we can have a more productive political environment altogether. That I believe is good for America.
How about reducing the amount we spend on the military, and stop trying to play the world's policeman?
Because what's keeping our enemies at bay? Oh, right, the influence we exert globally. What has history proven happens when we don't exert that influence? Oh right, other people do, and usually *****ty ones. Once again, basic freaking logic.
But sure, let's humor you. Reduce military spending? By how much, exactly?
We rocketed military spending under Reagan
We had a superpower to deal with. Which, by the way, the arms race played a role in ultimately bankrupting, because the USSR could not keep up with us economically.
How about reducing the amount we spend on the military, and stop trying to play the world's policeman?
Because what's keeping our enemies at bay? Oh, right, the influence we exert globally. What has history proven happens when we don't exert that influence? Oh right, other people do, and usually *****ty ones. Once again, basic freaking logic.
But sure, let's humor you. Reduce military spending? By how much, exactly?
We rocketed military spending under Reagan
We had a superpower to deal with. Which, by the way, the arms race played a role in ultimately bankrupting, because the USSR could not keep up with us economically.
WE FREAKING CREATED ISIS!!!!!
ISIS took power because we overthrew a crappy Iraqi regime and left nothing substantial in its place. The Taliban was given firearms and military training by the US to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan! Outside of assisting Kuwait for the sake of oil, everything we have done in the Middle East has made things worse.
The US Military budget is 682 billion. Again, that is more than the next 23 countries on the list combined. 21 of those are allies. That accounts for 17% of the total US expenditures. It is the third largest expenditure in the US behind Social Security (33%) and Medicare (25%). All of Europe defends itself with a third of what we spend on the military every year.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
On the contrary, fanatical Islamists created ISIS.
The US Military budget is 682 billion.
To which I pose the question again: how much are you proposing we cut?
Frankly, if we're going to be so unrealistic as to assume that socialism is a good idea, I say we go for broke and cut all of it. Yes, we'll be left defenseless; yes, we're going to have a big power vacuum in world politics and that will result in a whole lot of terrible things happening in the world; yes, we're going to have a large number of unemployed, dissatisfied people with military training to deal with. Screw it! Cut it all!
Ok, so between that and the 150 billion you got from closing the tax loopholes, you've got 832 billion, which is 268 billion more than the deficit for the 2015 budget. Hooray! We can advance that towards paying for health care. How much is the Sanders plan going to cost?
Well, unfortunately, we don't know how much the Sanders plan is actually going to cost, because there is no Sanders plan. He hasn't come up with one. However, Obamacare has an estimated gross cost of 1.993 trillion over ten years. This averages to 199.3 billion per year. Now, Obamacare currently insures between 24-27 million Americans. We're talking about insuring all Americans. All 318.9 million (and rising) Americans. How much is that going to cost?
On the contrary, fanatical Islamists created ISIS.
The US Military budget is 682 billion.
To which I pose the question again: how much are you proposing we cut?
Frankly, if we're going to be so unrealistic as to assume that socialism is a good idea, I say we go for broke and cut all of it. Yes, we'll be left defenseless; yes, we're going to have a big power vacuum in world politics and that will result in a whole lot of terrible things happening in the world; yes, we're going to have a large number of unemployed, dissatisfied people with military training to deal with. Screw it! Cut it all!
Ok, so between that and the 150 billion you got from closing the tax loopholes, you've got 832 billion, which is 268 billion more than the deficit for the 2015 budget. Hooray! We can advance that towards paying for health care. How much is the Sanders plan going to cost?
Well, unfortunately, we don't know how much the Sanders plan is actually going to cost, because there is no Sanders plan. He hasn't come up with one. However, Obamacare has an estimated gross cost of 1.993 trillion over ten years. This averages to 199.3 billion per year. Now, Obamacare currently insures between 24-27 million Americans. We're talking about insuring all Americans. All 318.9 million (and rising) Americans. How much is that going to cost?
Are you seeing the problem?
The problem is you only listen to the things that interest you, for one thing.
We created ISIS by bungling the invasion of a country for false reasons and leaving a power vacuum when we decided that getting our young people blown up by IEDs for oils and lies is a crappy thing to do.
Secondly, I never said cut the budget entirely. If you are going to debate, do it honestly please.
Thirdly, 263 million Americans had insurance before Obamacare. Obamacare extended to 22 million more people. So where you think Obamacare is supposed to be used for every American is beyond me.
Fourthly, which candidate are you currently backing?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
How about reducing the amount we spend on the military, and stop trying to play the world's policeman?
Because what's keeping our enemies at bay? Oh, right, the influence we exert globally. What has history proven happens when we don't exert that influence? Oh right, other people do, and usually *****ty ones. Once again, basic freaking logic.
But sure, let's humor you. Reduce military spending? By how much, exactly?
We rocketed military spending under Reagan
We had a superpower to deal with. Which, by the way, the arms race played a role in ultimately bankrupting, because the USSR could not keep up with us economically.
At a $3 trillion deficit, which is still with us with a resurgent Russia. Military build up was also a part of Reagan's plan, it was not the totality of it all. There were diplomatic aspects going on at the time, as well as increased interest in building up businesses that were superior to Gorbachav's own country and showing them the "stupidity of communism." The same thing happened with China whenever Deng Xiaoping went to Singapore, looked at Lee Kuan Yew and asked him how did he it.
Geo-strategy in part has to look at different ways at projecting power, while also looking specific at the various external factors in the US. For a long time without American hegemony, we were under a world order dominated by the European powers. While we had the XYZ Affair and the Pseudo War with France, War of 1812, Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII. Pre-WWII we were fairly weak military except for post-Civil War North had one of the strongest militaries in the world in terms of strategy, tactics and technology which gradually weakened.
So with that said without involving the Banana Wars, we must conclude that America has not always used it's military as a strong deterrent and instead used a vast array of alliances to defeat their enemies since the Revolution. It was only post WWII where we become the major military power in the world after the collapse of the English Empire. We must therefore also conclude that other military powers around the world such as Russia weren't as technologically advanced. Today what separates us from China is not just technology, but actual military experience since we're constantly at war. We're like the modern version of Prussia.
On the contrary, fanatical Islamists created ISIS.
The US Military budget is 682 billion.
To which I pose the question again: how much are you proposing we cut?
Frankly, if we're going to be so unrealistic as to assume that socialism is a good idea, I say we go for broke and cut all of it. Yes, we'll be left defenseless; yes, we're going to have a big power vacuum in world politics and that will result in a whole lot of terrible things happening in the world; yes, we're going to have a large number of unemployed, dissatisfied people with military training to deal with. Screw it! Cut it all!
Ok, so between that and the 150 billion you got from closing the tax loopholes, you've got 832 billion, which is 268 billion more than the deficit for the 2015 budget. Hooray! We can advance that towards paying for health care. How much is the Sanders plan going to cost?
Well, unfortunately, we don't know how much the Sanders plan is actually going to cost, because there is no Sanders plan. He hasn't come up with one. However, Obamacare has an estimated gross cost of 1.993 trillion over ten years. This averages to 199.3 billion per year. Now, Obamacare currently insures between 24-27 million Americans. We're talking about insuring all Americans. All 318.9 million (and rising) Americans. How much is that going to cost?
Are you seeing the problem?
I'll take this into separate dosages:
1. ISIS in part was created by the power vacuum left behind in Iraq. Unlike bin Laden, where he only wanted to kill Americans and felt that he could "magically win" if he killed enough of "them." ISIS is different than Al Qaeda in that it conquers for actual territory and is going to setup a caliphate. It's a conquering power that holds territory, and by leaving the area without a centralized state we created a place for a new power to rise.
2. The insurance issue is complex, for starters the pre-Obamacare version sucked. There's no one doubting that, Obamacare started the conversation. Conservatives aren't finishing the conversation by actually proposing the HSA and other conservative ideas about healthcare. Instead, what we are dealing with a scaling program with scaling costs. The issue isn't Obama, but rather the conservative movement that has been fixated on trying to get rid of Obamacare rather than scaling up programs that have a proven track record of lowering medical costs such a hand full in New Jersey, Chicago, and Pennsylvania.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
[quote from="Teysa_Karlov »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/624050-donald-trumps-presidency?comment=40"]
Frankly, if we're going to be so unrealistic as to assume that socialism is a good idea, I say we go for broke and cut all of it. Yes, we'll be left defenseless; yes, we're going to have a big power vacuum in world politics and that will result in a whole lot of terrible things happening in the world; yes, we're going to have a large number of unemployed, dissatisfied people with military training to deal with. Screw it! Cut it all!
Ok, so between that and the 150 billion you got from closing the tax loopholes, you've got 832 billion, which is 268 billion more than the deficit for the 2015 budget. Hooray! We can advance that towards paying for health care. How much is the Sanders plan going to cost?
Well, unfortunately, we don't know how much the Sanders plan is actually going to cost, because there is no Sanders plan. He hasn't come up with one. However, Obamacare has an estimated gross cost of 1.993 trillion over ten years. This averages to 199.3 billion per year. Now, Obamacare currently insures between 24-27 million Americans. We're talking about insuring all Americans. All 318.9 million (and rising) Americans. How much is that going to cost?
Are you seeing the problem?
If you're going to see this problem, then we have to see that it's coming from all sides, not just Sanders. The most substantive thing I've heard from any candidate is Bernie Sanders' racial program, and that's because the Black Lives Matters movement applied pressure to Bernie Sanders (directly, twice) to get a response. Now granted, I could be living under a rock, but I've heard no numbers, period, from any candidate regarding spending or earning money. Please feel free to correct me as needed.
What I have heard, regarding military, and Bernie Sanders directly, is Bernie Sanders is not a pacifist. If push came to shove, he would act with the military. HOWEVER, he wants to with others and the support of others, (with Iran, he mentioned to Bill O'Reily Saudi Arabia) as a means to curb not only human costs, but the monetary cost as well.
We created ISIS by bungling the invasion of a country for false reasons and leaving a power vacuum when we decided that getting our young people blown up by IEDs for oils and lies is a crappy thing to do.
This exacerbated the problem of ISIS, yes, but this is not the same as "WE FREAKING CREATED ISIS!!!!!"
Secondly, I never said cut the budget entirely. If you are going to debate, do it honestly please.
I didn't say you did. I did, however, say that even if you cut the entire military budget, it would not be enough to fund Sanders' proposed policies. Clearly, you will have to do better than "close loopholes" and "cut military spending." But given your lack of an answer as to where the money is going to come from, it would seem you have no idea how to pay for Sanders' proposed increases in government spending. No surprise, Sanders has no idea either.
And therein lies the problem with this primary. On the Republican side, we have a candidate who campaigns by saying "**** all y'all" to everyone, and on the Democratic side, we have a candidate who campaigns by promising everyone the moon. The problem is clear: if Sanders or Trump were elected to the White House, that would mark the end of their campaign and the beginning of them actually having to DO things. And neither of them has any ideas on what to do when they're actually in the position of running the country.
Also, is anyone but me loving the irony of people saying how much they like Trump because they think he'd make actual change in Washington when the Republicans' key stance is how much they are against the policies of the last guy who claimed exactly that?
Thirdly, 263 million Americans had insurance before Obamacare. Obamacare extended to 22 million more people. So where you think Obamacare is supposed to be used for every American is beyond me.
We're talking about Bernie Sanders, who wants the government to provide healthcare for all Americans. "All Americans" is over 300 million people.
Fourthly, which candidate are you currently backing?
No one right now. I do, however, believe Clinton, Trump, and Sanders would all be complete disasters in the White House, so I'm definitely not supporting them.
Ok, so between that and the 150 billion you got from closing the tax loopholes, you've got 832 billion, which is 268 billion more than the deficit for the 2015 budget. Hooray! We can advance that towards paying for health care. How much is the Sanders plan going to cost?
Well, unfortunately, we don't know how much the Sanders plan is actually going to cost, because there is no Sanders plan. He hasn't come up with one. However, Obamacare has an estimated gross cost of 1.993 trillion over ten years. This averages to 199.3 billion per year. Now, Obamacare currently insures between 24-27 million Americans. We're talking about insuring all Americans. All 318.9 million (and rising) Americans. How much is that going to cost?
Given the USA's per capita expenditure on healthcare is already among the highest in the world, possibly less than what you're paying at the moment? Assuming you actually reform the system, rather than plaster over the litigious, price-inflated, fat-insurance-company model you currently enjoy.
The cost of this new healthcare system shouldn't be in addition to the cost of the current system.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
We created ISIS by bungling the invasion of a country for false reasons and leaving a power vacuum when we decided that getting our young people blown up by IEDs for oils and lies is a crappy thing to do.
This exacerbated the problem of ISIS, yes, but this is not the same as "WE FREAKING CREATED ISIS!!!!!"
Secondly, I never said cut the budget entirely. If you are going to debate, do it honestly please.
I didn't say you did. I did, however, say that even if you cut the entire military budget, it would not be enough to fund Sanders' proposed policies. Clearly, you will have to do better than "close loopholes" and "cut military spending." But given your lack of an answer as to where the money is going to come from, it would seem you have no idea how to pay for Sanders' proposed increases in government spending. No surprise, Sanders has no idea either.
And therein lies the problem with this primary. On the Republican side, we have a candidate who campaigns by saying "**** all y'all" to everyone, and on the Democratic side, we have a candidate who campaigns by promising everyone the moon. The problem is clear: if Sanders or Trump were elected to the White House, that would mark the end of their campaign and the beginning of them actually having to DO things. And neither of them has any ideas on what to do when they're actually in the position of running the country.
Also, is anyone but me loving the irony of people saying how much they like Trump because they think he'd make actual change in Washington when the Republicans' key stance is how much they are against the policies of the last guy who claimed exactly that?
Thirdly, 263 million Americans had insurance before Obamacare. Obamacare extended to 22 million more people. So where you think Obamacare is supposed to be used for every American is beyond me.
We're talking about Bernie Sanders, who wants the government to provide healthcare for all Americans. "All Americans" is over 300 million people.
Then GOOD NEWS! You should expect the cost of healthcare in america to come down drastically.
Right now, as a percentage of GDP, America spends about 17.6% of that whole lot on healthcare. That's more than France, or Germany, or Australia or Italy. It's more than the UK, and more than Canada. It's more than...well, actually, on the world health organisation figures for 2010, it's more than literally every other country in the world except sierra leone.
It's possible you spend less than North Korea, Somalia and Zimbabwe, but no stats were collected for them. Still, even if you assume they are worse, two of those are African nations in the midst of or recovering from civil wars, one of them in recent years had literally no money of any kind, and the other is fricking north Korea.
The biggest problem with "obamacare" isn't that it's socialised medicine and therefor super inefficient, it's that it ISN'T SOCIALISED MEDECINE and is therefore hoplessly inefficient. (Because if you think the way to fix a *****ty healthcare system in which insurers charge too much and hospitals charge too much* is to give more people exactly the same kind of insurance that is broken as hell for everyone else, you are bad at all of the understanding of things).
* The primary reason american healthcare costs so much more than for everyone else is that you pay more for it.
The biggest problem with "obamacare" isn't that it's socialised medicine and therefor super inefficient, it's that it ISN'T SOCIALISED MEDECINE and is therefore hoplessly inefficient. (Because if you think the way to fix a *****ty healthcare system in which insurers charge too much and hospitals charge too much* is to give more people exactly the same kind of insurance that is broken as hell for everyone else, you are bad at all of the understanding of things).
* The primary reason american healthcare costs so much more than for everyone else is that you pay more for it.
How much is not too much for healthcare? fascinating question. I don't know the answer.
But how much America pays is provably too much. You pay too much for surgery, too much for insurance, too much for individual drugs and medicines, and then on top of all that you pay more because you just have always paid more.
And it's not that you pay more because America is richer or people get paid more; you pay more per person once balanced for incomes and strength of currency, as well.
Australia pays about 7 or 8% of its GDP on healthcare. America pays 17.6%. The next nearest modern economy is, I think, the Netherlands which pays about 11.5%.
Think of it another way.
Americas GDP is about 17.5 Trillion dollars. At the moment, you spend about 3.1 trillion of those dollars on healthcare.
You *should* be spending only about 2.1 trillion dollars.
A trillion wasted dollars is, one might suggest, too much.
Given the USA's per capita expenditure on healthcare is already among the highest in the world, possibly less than what you're paying at the moment? Assuming you actually reform the system, rather than plaster over the litigious, price-inflated, fat-insurance-company model you currently enjoy.
The cost of this new healthcare system shouldn't be in addition to the cost of the current system.
How not? Right now the government isn't paying for everyone's healthcare because people are paying it themselves. If we're talking about the government providing for everyone in America, that requires the government to take on the cost of insuring everyone in America.
Then GOOD NEWS! You should expect the cost of healthcare in america to come down drastically.
I have no doubt we can also expect the quality to come down drastically.
There is a false dichotomy here, namely that there are ways of driving down the cost of healthcare that do not require socialism. It's not socialism or status quo.
I personally think that if Sanders got into the general and could get everyone who is paying attention to hear his message, he would win. Not only will Trump probably insult several key groups of voters before the election is over, but if everyone knew that Sanders was campaigning for raising the minimum wage and making college free, he would not only get the vote of educated liberals but also of almost every person with a low-income and every person with children who they want to send to college.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Why else do you think he's getting such huge support?
Not that I plan on voting anyway unless Sanders is an option. Our government is run by corporate sponsored bribery, and he's the only one willing to admit it.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I assume you put your kids through private school on your dime? Have never driven on a road you yourself did not pave? Never used the fire department, police, or hospitals?
The overwhelming amount of infrastructure in the US (and most services in the rest of the developed world) run on Socialism.
People are afraid of socialism because "the reds are godless socialists". Now we're scared of socialism (even though the USSR was an oligarchy, not a socialist state), and we have "In God We Trust" on our money: so we can be different from the "evil Soviets".
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I've listened to the debates. That's about it. Alot of it seems to avoid the question completed and focusing shifting it back to pre planned speaking points(which Trump also has done). However, Trump is the only one that stuck out in recent memory who essentially told the mediators "too bad, deal with it".
I think if Sanders won, we would see what a real socialist is rather than conservatives complaining about a faux socialist and using whining about government programs we dislike. The libertarian strands came out with anarchism, so it's only took sometime before we saw their sister socialists on the campaign trail. It actually balances out the ticket. There have been times in history whenever socialists have had good ideas regarding the welfare state, but when conservatives take the position and implement them they do so more rationally.
I honestly hate the concept of big government, yet it might be time for a few decades of government growth in very specific ways such as some corruption, ball busting moves. My argument for a while after Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush has been that moving slightly leftward as we tacked a little too to the right during the last few decades with regards to hand holding business in a very bad way.
The tax code needs rebooted, and right now there's no consensus on that. Rick Santorum has stated some areas such as trying to rebuild the American manufacturing base, and retaining a progressive income tax system without going to the flat tax. I agree with him, but disagree with his approach. For starters on the policy end, the Chinese Renminbi problem is dealing with a country that is evolving and will cheat the system where it can. Which means that we need as a country a better system for the "pipe line" between high school and jobs. I look at the first problem is seeing that we need finishing school in the first place for youngsters. That and the concept of formalizing "internships" in lieu of actual job training as a type of pipeline. In an economy that is so diverse, internships are great if you're still in school but whenever job hopping and you need money you don't have time to piss around with an internship or volunteer work. That's the job of businesses to place into their infrastructure training.
Employers here are a large part of the problem with arcane moves in making hiring itself difficult, and guess what happens? New laws, and that's one of the reasons why we see the leftward creep in youngsters. The other is the financial shock, on top of that we have to stack in social conservatives attempting a phalanx of new laws against gays. Which introduces a slurry of feminism and other defenders from the 1960's.
Some of what I see today reflects the 1960's, the radical shifts in ideology and attempts to rebuild and redefine America. There's just not really a social movement that you can point to, though, thus far sticking other than the gay rights movement. If anything social liberalism is helping the US, and Obamacare is placing in the infrastructure to change the welfare state. If conservatives can stop trying to defund and use it to get some pet projects in like health savings accounts that travel with you from job to job. I will say, I can probably get today a Democrat to support HSA than a Republican.
In terms of the candidates, I had hoped that Rand Paul would have shown some more gusto with his ideology but he isn't really doing that well and might have to get some more experience as a candidate by losing this cycle.
The basics of socialism are sound so as long as you have capitalism. You can't have government without some forms of socialism, but there lacks a real strain of communtarianism in what was seen in movements like the Black Panthers. While the Black Panthers were militaristic in some ways and had a lot of problems, the basic fundamentals of localism and self sufficiency with an identity built on pride and accomplishment is better. However, I feel that there needs to be more of a communitarian movement among social conservatives in something similar to the Progressive Movement that involves more aspects of business.
Socialism isn't the problem, neither is capitalism, government isn't the problem, business isn't the problem, as those are all just things or ideas. People are the problem, if you can change the hearts and behaviors that is whenever you win. It is our obligation to the future generations to build the resources that will enable to succeed. Success only comes whenever someone sucks less. So maybe the Black Panthers as a socialist organization setting up health clinics and businesses was a good idea, and that their drug and extortion rings were really bad ideas. But that doesn't mean that socialism itself has all bad ideas. Neither does the church with food banks, but still trying to discriminate against people in a 19th century way.
Right or left, people are people and they have some great ideas and some really bad ideas. This is why moderation is best, but also that the centrism needs to not look at goofy goals like a "No Labels" movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels
While a good in construct, it is nothing more than another ABC organization. It's like what happens with the Tea Party, it's too focused on government without a social movement component that actually supports communitarian actions in people. And that's what conservatism lacks ever since Reagan, that it lacked a social and business aspect. There's the individualis surge, but movements such as the Moral Majority and other Moms Hate America approaches serve to create new laws. While DARE actually had a purpose and advertising campaign. There are equally just as many ABC organizations that do not produce anything like a real NGO similar to the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
While Christianity proper has an activist message, there remains no philosophical trend without something like stoicism. Instead, modern Christianity has branded itself to some moralities like Objectivism and others. Thus far, I remain against that ideology. It might have come time to design a different kind of social philosophy with actual hard work in place when it comes to specific policy adaptations. Something that is able to combine neo-pragmatism with the egotistic framework within some of the better ideas out of Objectivism. Perhaps not, rather returning to classical approaches like stoicism along with Enlightenment prose and post WWII activist strains like the Civil Rights Movement and others right or left.
Social democracy, anarcho libertarianism, Austrian Libertarianism, neo-liberalism/neo-conservativism, Randian Objectivism, Marxism, frankly I don't really hold any of them in full compromising my own belief system. Is it strange to really take to seeing different portions of them as holding value? Frankly, yes, but that must be in tern asking the constant source of why those exist.
Libertarianism exists in current form out of a reaction against fascism and especially communism. Marxism exists as a weapon against imperialism and the worst of capitalism. Neo-conservatism is an evolution of Reaganism to be "softer gentler" with a hawkish approach to defense. Social democracy is a portion of the game that is more of a reaction to modernity and the shifts in the market that can undermine the family.
I feel it' only natural for people who struggle to look at their richer companions an be jealous and want to use the government. This is also a lack of understanding by CEO's that cutting benefits and wages without cutting themselves is against leadership and people do see that. That stirs jealously and something that needs to be looked at and considered a natural part of the human condition especially whenever struggle is in place. This is what sows the ideas of socialism and why fairness is so prevalent in leftist talk these days, because people want to build themselves up and there are real and yes imagined areas of strains.
I think the major barriers exist within the business community going for less regulation and less taxes, rather than having a real education policy and tailoring their training programs to be less stressful to workers and themselves. But there's a real entitlement strain, especially in successful entrepreneurs. That egotistical philosophy gives them the drive to succeed, while also making certain ones blind that sometimes their own business as well as other businesses suck as certain things and that not everyone can or should own a company.
So we in the conservative side of the spectrum need to also call our own "kind" our on their stuff. For example, I've said to some church goers "Why do I see advertisements against abortion, but never about poverty and solutions to poverty like starting a business?" It's an interesting discussion to have. The answer is in part church leadership setting priorities wrong. Mission trips are great, institutions are way stronger. You may save a child from abortion, but what value is that life if they descend into crime and kill others?
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
I guess... I will sit back and continue to survey the field for now. There are still several republican candidates that I have interest in but I guess Trump is slowly growing on me. I like his no nonsense straight forward this is who I am sort of personality even though I know it will get him in trouble you really feel like you know who he is as an individual and he isn't trying to cover that up.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
No, people object to socialism because it doesn't work.
We can't afford government spending at the rate it's going. Exactly how is Sanders expected to fund his programs? Oh that's right, he doesn't know. But I'm sure people are going to claim he'll do it without the middle class having to pay increased taxes, because that makes any sense at all.
How about closing the tax loopholes that allow the the top 10 Fortune 500 companies to avoid paying between 150 (WSJ) and 600 (HuffPo) billion in taxes annually? That would go a LONG way towards helping the budget.
Secondly is continuing to improve the health care system by the elimination of frivolous lawsuits. Almost half of a doctor's fee in the US is liability to protect from stupid lawsuits (required in the US, the most litigious people in the history of existence). Cut down on frivolous lawsuits, cut down cost for doctors, which cuts down cost for the patient.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
So you've raised, what, .15 trillion? Congratulations. You'll be able to work off a little more than a fourth of our present budget's deficit. Where's the rest of it going to come from?
I mean, really, this is why this primary is rather sad: if anyone actually thought about it for five minutes, you can easily see why no one should vote for Trump or Sanders. With Sanders, it's as simple as realizing that things cost money. With this in mind, you might realize that rapidly increasing spending when you have no idea how you're going to pay for everything is not a smart plan. That's freaking basic logic.
As for Trump... Really? What is Trump's defining quality? That he's basically a giant troll who's giving the middle finger to everyone. What does the president have to do? Oh right, work together effectively with other people in order to run the country. Of course Donald Trump is not qualified to be president. That's freaking basic logic.
Although, I am reminded that Al Sharpton has run for the Democratic nominee, so we can't criticize 2015 as having a monopoly on silly candidates.
Trump's had four bankruptcies on his watch. I think Fiorina wins this one.
How about reducing the amount we spend on the military, and stop trying to play the world's policeman? We spend more on our military then the next 23 countries on the list COMBINED, and 21 of them are allies. We rocketed military spending under Reagan, shot it up even further during Bush Jr's war for oil in Iraq, and it doesn't need to be as high as it is. We don't spend that much for our soldiers (otherwise maybe the VA Medical Service wouldn't be as messed up as it is), we spend that much for the military contractors that bought congressional seats.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
The American people have had a very strong anti-incumbent sentiment for awhile now. We've about had it with traditional politics.
Trump may says some truly asinine things. But the fact that he refuses to back down just goes to show how much Politically Correct manufactured controversy there is. The media loves to churn stories out of candidates putting their foot in their mouth instead of focusing on substantive issues. And the people just eat it up! But they don't really want to. It's the equivalent of clicking on a britney spears link on CNN. It's eye catching, but people hate that they fell for it.
Deep down the American people would rather focus on actual substantive points instead of manufactured reasons to be outraged.
The best thing about Trump is that he doesn't care about what he says. And it works. People get outraged for a little while, and Trumps refusal to back down ends up turning the people to his side. It's almost as if magically the American people didn't care that much about the PC crap in the first place--and lo and behold Trumps popularity endures.
I don't think for a second Trump would make a good president, or is even a serious contender for that matter. But he's making the Republicans look like idiots at the moment, and I think that's a good thing. It's a message to Republicans to shape up learn how to fight for the heart of their party.
Republicans have been sucking at the teat of the lowest common denominator for political approval for the past decade. So Trump comes along and decides to suck even lower. First he says Mexico is sending over their rapists. Then when he's challenged on it, retorts "well SOMEONE is doing the raping"
THEN because he says that his approval soars apparent because he's siphoned supporters from the other republican candidates! Trump is a message to republicans. Stop building your base around the lowest common denominator. Republicans, meet the Dems in the center, and we can have a more productive political environment altogether. That I believe is good for America.
But sure, let's humor you. Reduce military spending? By how much, exactly?
We had a superpower to deal with. Which, by the way, the arms race played a role in ultimately bankrupting, because the USSR could not keep up with us economically.
WE FREAKING CREATED ISIS!!!!!
ISIS took power because we overthrew a crappy Iraqi regime and left nothing substantial in its place. The Taliban was given firearms and military training by the US to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan! Outside of assisting Kuwait for the sake of oil, everything we have done in the Middle East has made things worse.
The US Military budget is 682 billion. Again, that is more than the next 23 countries on the list combined. 21 of those are allies. That accounts for 17% of the total US expenditures. It is the third largest expenditure in the US behind Social Security (33%) and Medicare (25%). All of Europe defends itself with a third of what we spend on the military every year.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
To which I pose the question again: how much are you proposing we cut?
Frankly, if we're going to be so unrealistic as to assume that socialism is a good idea, I say we go for broke and cut all of it. Yes, we'll be left defenseless; yes, we're going to have a big power vacuum in world politics and that will result in a whole lot of terrible things happening in the world; yes, we're going to have a large number of unemployed, dissatisfied people with military training to deal with. Screw it! Cut it all!
Ok, so between that and the 150 billion you got from closing the tax loopholes, you've got 832 billion, which is 268 billion more than the deficit for the 2015 budget. Hooray! We can advance that towards paying for health care. How much is the Sanders plan going to cost?
Well, unfortunately, we don't know how much the Sanders plan is actually going to cost, because there is no Sanders plan. He hasn't come up with one. However, Obamacare has an estimated gross cost of 1.993 trillion over ten years. This averages to 199.3 billion per year. Now, Obamacare currently insures between 24-27 million Americans. We're talking about insuring all Americans. All 318.9 million (and rising) Americans. How much is that going to cost?
Are you seeing the problem?
The problem is you only listen to the things that interest you, for one thing.
We created ISIS by bungling the invasion of a country for false reasons and leaving a power vacuum when we decided that getting our young people blown up by IEDs for oils and lies is a crappy thing to do.
Secondly, I never said cut the budget entirely. If you are going to debate, do it honestly please.
Thirdly, 263 million Americans had insurance before Obamacare. Obamacare extended to 22 million more people. So where you think Obamacare is supposed to be used for every American is beyond me.
Fourthly, which candidate are you currently backing?
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
At a $3 trillion deficit, which is still with us with a resurgent Russia. Military build up was also a part of Reagan's plan, it was not the totality of it all. There were diplomatic aspects going on at the time, as well as increased interest in building up businesses that were superior to Gorbachav's own country and showing them the "stupidity of communism." The same thing happened with China whenever Deng Xiaoping went to Singapore, looked at Lee Kuan Yew and asked him how did he it.
Geo-strategy in part has to look at different ways at projecting power, while also looking specific at the various external factors in the US. For a long time without American hegemony, we were under a world order dominated by the European powers. While we had the XYZ Affair and the Pseudo War with France, War of 1812, Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII. Pre-WWII we were fairly weak military except for post-Civil War North had one of the strongest militaries in the world in terms of strategy, tactics and technology which gradually weakened.
So with that said without involving the Banana Wars, we must conclude that America has not always used it's military as a strong deterrent and instead used a vast array of alliances to defeat their enemies since the Revolution. It was only post WWII where we become the major military power in the world after the collapse of the English Empire. We must therefore also conclude that other military powers around the world such as Russia weren't as technologically advanced. Today what separates us from China is not just technology, but actual military experience since we're constantly at war. We're like the modern version of Prussia.
I'll take this into separate dosages:
1. ISIS in part was created by the power vacuum left behind in Iraq. Unlike bin Laden, where he only wanted to kill Americans and felt that he could "magically win" if he killed enough of "them." ISIS is different than Al Qaeda in that it conquers for actual territory and is going to setup a caliphate. It's a conquering power that holds territory, and by leaving the area without a centralized state we created a place for a new power to rise.
2. The insurance issue is complex, for starters the pre-Obamacare version sucked. There's no one doubting that, Obamacare started the conversation. Conservatives aren't finishing the conversation by actually proposing the HSA and other conservative ideas about healthcare. Instead, what we are dealing with a scaling program with scaling costs. The issue isn't Obama, but rather the conservative movement that has been fixated on trying to get rid of Obamacare rather than scaling up programs that have a proven track record of lowering medical costs such a hand full in New Jersey, Chicago, and Pennsylvania.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
If you're going to see this problem, then we have to see that it's coming from all sides, not just Sanders. The most substantive thing I've heard from any candidate is Bernie Sanders' racial program, and that's because the Black Lives Matters movement applied pressure to Bernie Sanders (directly, twice) to get a response. Now granted, I could be living under a rock, but I've heard no numbers, period, from any candidate regarding spending or earning money. Please feel free to correct me as needed.
What I have heard, regarding military, and Bernie Sanders directly, is Bernie Sanders is not a pacifist. If push came to shove, he would act with the military. HOWEVER, he wants to with others and the support of others, (with Iran, he mentioned to Bill O'Reily Saudi Arabia) as a means to curb not only human costs, but the monetary cost as well.
EDIT: After doing some research, I've found this post is a factual error. Rather than further detract from this thread trailing off to Bernie Sanders, I've posted the specifics of Bernie's economic plans in his thread (http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/613777-democratic-hopeful-socialist-bernie-sanders?page=3#c57)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I didn't say you did. I did, however, say that even if you cut the entire military budget, it would not be enough to fund Sanders' proposed policies. Clearly, you will have to do better than "close loopholes" and "cut military spending." But given your lack of an answer as to where the money is going to come from, it would seem you have no idea how to pay for Sanders' proposed increases in government spending. No surprise, Sanders has no idea either.
And therein lies the problem with this primary. On the Republican side, we have a candidate who campaigns by saying "**** all y'all" to everyone, and on the Democratic side, we have a candidate who campaigns by promising everyone the moon. The problem is clear: if Sanders or Trump were elected to the White House, that would mark the end of their campaign and the beginning of them actually having to DO things. And neither of them has any ideas on what to do when they're actually in the position of running the country.
Also, is anyone but me loving the irony of people saying how much they like Trump because they think he'd make actual change in Washington when the Republicans' key stance is how much they are against the policies of the last guy who claimed exactly that?
We're talking about Bernie Sanders, who wants the government to provide healthcare for all Americans. "All Americans" is over 300 million people.
No one right now. I do, however, believe Clinton, Trump, and Sanders would all be complete disasters in the White House, so I'm definitely not supporting them.
Given the USA's per capita expenditure on healthcare is already among the highest in the world, possibly less than what you're paying at the moment? Assuming you actually reform the system, rather than plaster over the litigious, price-inflated, fat-insurance-company model you currently enjoy.
The cost of this new healthcare system shouldn't be in addition to the cost of the current system.
Then GOOD NEWS! You should expect the cost of healthcare in america to come down drastically.
Right now, as a percentage of GDP, America spends about 17.6% of that whole lot on healthcare. That's more than France, or Germany, or Australia or Italy. It's more than the UK, and more than Canada. It's more than...well, actually, on the world health organisation figures for 2010, it's more than literally every other country in the world except sierra leone.
It's possible you spend less than North Korea, Somalia and Zimbabwe, but no stats were collected for them. Still, even if you assume they are worse, two of those are African nations in the midst of or recovering from civil wars, one of them in recent years had literally no money of any kind, and the other is fricking north Korea.
The biggest problem with "obamacare" isn't that it's socialised medicine and therefor super inefficient, it's that it ISN'T SOCIALISED MEDECINE and is therefore hoplessly inefficient. (Because if you think the way to fix a *****ty healthcare system in which insurers charge too much and hospitals charge too much* is to give more people exactly the same kind of insurance that is broken as hell for everyone else, you are bad at all of the understanding of things).
* The primary reason american healthcare costs so much more than for everyone else is that you pay more for it.
How much is "not too much"?
But how much America pays is provably too much. You pay too much for surgery, too much for insurance, too much for individual drugs and medicines, and then on top of all that you pay more because you just have always paid more.
And it's not that you pay more because America is richer or people get paid more; you pay more per person once balanced for incomes and strength of currency, as well.
Australia pays about 7 or 8% of its GDP on healthcare. America pays 17.6%. The next nearest modern economy is, I think, the Netherlands which pays about 11.5%.
Think of it another way.
Americas GDP is about 17.5 Trillion dollars. At the moment, you spend about 3.1 trillion of those dollars on healthcare.
You *should* be spending only about 2.1 trillion dollars.
A trillion wasted dollars is, one might suggest, too much.
I have no doubt we can also expect the quality to come down drastically.
There is a false dichotomy here, namely that there are ways of driving down the cost of healthcare that do not require socialism. It's not socialism or status quo.