US Politics

Redplane said:
It doesn't say your taxes so the majority is correct. The repubs are pretty good at handling taxes for their personal benefit.
Click to expand...

They have successfully framed taxes to their benefit over the past 40 plus years to where the public interpret the value of taxation as something that should be minimized and returned to them - as opposed to invested in infrastructure, education, and healthcare programs that return a tangible value to the public. If the Bernie movement succeeds it will (at least partly) be because they successfully reframe the value of taxes as an investment in the future as opposed to a form of theft from the public.
 
All the Space Force stuff is a clever ploy to eventually defund NASA and put all that technology and mission authority under the military. NASA after all does pesky things like study global climate change which Trump knows is just a hoax so clearly the military (IE, private military contractors) would be better suited to the mission.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
All the Space Force stuff is a clever ploy to eventually defund NASA and put all that technology and mission authority under the military. NASA after all does pesky things like study global climate change which Trump knows is just a hoax so clearly the military (IE, private military contractors) would be better suited to the mission.
Click to expand...

That plus the Air Force already does a vast majority of the tasks a so called Space Force would do. They are currently responsible for space from a defense perspective.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
All the Space Force stuff is a clever ploy to eventually defund NASA and put all that technology and mission authority under the military. NASA after all does pesky things like study global climate change which Trump knows is just a hoax so clearly the military (IE, private military contractors) would be better suited to the mission.
Click to expand...
US Defense/Military actually classes climate change as the number one threat to the country. They actively work to combat against it.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...es-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change/
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/...rming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/
 
Jake Tapper did not actually fact check Bernie Sanders but merely argued back with some assumptions from the author of the report from the Mercatus institute. If you compare the Australian or Canadian universal health care system to the American private insurance based one then the total cost per capita clearly shows which system is far cheaper. This is indeed a fact and not an assumption that Jake Tapper neglect to mention. Jake Tapper here is seriously misleading as he say Bernies assumptions are hugely untrue as he finish the video saying that your are not entitled to your own facts, yet all he counters with are merely assumptions from the Mercatus institute him self. There are assumptions on both sides here and Jake Tapper can not debunk assumptions with assumptions him self.

The government would end up spending more on health care that is true but that is because people would end up pay more in tax that would be collected to sustain the universal health care system. But at the same time the money people spend on private health care insurance plans would disappear and thus reduce a lot of cost for health care as for-profit business would be eliminated. More people would get health care but then also everyone would be paying into the program as well, and that would help finance or sustain the new health care system to help counter the bigger increase in demand for health care. He also say in the video at 2.14 that health care providers would be reimbursed 40% less than what they currently get from the private health insurance companies, and that is misleading as the the 40% cost reduction of health care cost comes from mainly reducing the overall price on drugs + less administration + removing for-profit business from the health care system ( private insurance health care plans etc ) rather than paying medical staff 40% lower that Jake Tapper insinuates here in this video. Jake Tapper did not do his research thoroughly and thus need to take his own advice when he says that you are not entitled to your own facts.

The first part of the front page of the report here is:

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf

"The cost of adopting a national single payer healthcare system is a critical factor in assessing whether such a system is desirable or practicable. The leading current bill to establish single-payer health insurance, Senator Bernie Sanders’s(I-VT) Medicare for All Act (M4A), would under conservative estimates increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031), assuming enactment in 2018. This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately10.7 percent of GDP in 2022, rising to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and further thereafter."

The report should mention that the rise from 10.7 percent of GDP in 2018 to 12,7 percent of GDP in 2031 could be caused by inflation + population growth amongst other factors so the Mercatus author are al ready trying to mislead by not mentioning the cause of the rise of cost in GDP over time and that would be de academic correct thing to do here to mention the cause of the rise in GDP. They are effectively scaremongering here. This is important information to leave out and it tells me this is not a genuine report trying to give an objective report on the M4A proposal.
 
Last edited:
 
Florida Man said:
It doesn’t change the fact that climate change is still a top concern for them.
Click to expand...

It certainly was. I just wonder how much it continues to be now the commander in chief and his administration are completely in denial about it, and have even removed mentions of climate change from countless government websites.
 
Learn from these people.

NC Republicans change what voters will see on ballots about their amendments
BY LYNN BONNER

RALEIGH
Six proposed constitutional amendments likely will be on the fall ballot without titles after Republican state lawmakers decided that the questions would be accompanied only by the words “Constitutional Amendment.”

A 2016 law gave responsibility for writing the titles to the Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission. Republicans said they were taking over the job because they were worried that the commission was under pressure to politicize them.

The House passed the bill 67-36. The Senate passed it 27-14. If Gov. Roy Cooper vetoes it, the legislature is prepared to override the veto quickly.

Republicans who control the North Carolina legislature called a special session for Tuesday with less than 24 hours notice to write the captions. They also proposed a change to judicial elections that would require state Supreme Court candidate Chris Anglin to run without a party affiliation next to his name. Anglin was a Democrat who changed his party affiliation and filed to run as a Republican. The state GOP executive director called Anglin “the enemy” in an interview.
...
The proposed constitutional amendments:

  • Require voters to present photo ID.

  • Set a 7 percent ceiling on the state income tax, lowering the cap from 10 percent. The personal income tax rate is now 5.499 percent.

  • Give legislators a major role in choosing who should fill judicial vacancies, limiting the governor’s power.

  • Protect hunting and fishing, and make hunting and fishing “a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.”

  • Have the legislature choose eight members to make up the Bipartisan State Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement, with nominees coming from each party. Take away the governor’s power to appoint members to nearly 400 boards, and give that power to the legislature.

  • Add rights in the legal system for victims of felony crimes.
Click to expand...

NC GOP leader raises possibility of impeaching justices over amendment ruling
The state Republican Party executive director raised the possibility that state Supreme Court justices could be impeached if they ruled against legislative leaders in a lawsuit over constitutional amendments.

Dallas Woodhouse made the remarks at an NC Free Enterprise Foundation event Friday. In a later interview with The News & Observer, he said he wasn’t threatening the justices, but is concerned about what would happen if they rule against legislative leaders. “It would be an evisceration of separation of powers,” he said.
Click to expand...

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article216886935.html
 
CA_vampire said:
Photo ID should be mandatory in all States. I don't care what used to happen 50, 100 or 200 years ago. Today, everyone should be able to get a free state ID and then vote only with this photo ID. This is not complicated.
Click to expand...

What if you have no fixed address? What if your wallet was stolen that day? What if you get to the polling centre and the guy on the door says "doesn't look anything like you"? What if you lost your birth certificate by no fault of your own?

There's any number of reasons why they shouldn't bring it in and a very weak reason to actually bring it in. Voter fraud is absolutely minuscule and bringing in compulsory ID for voters would disproportionately skew the vote far more than any fraud that might happen.
 
Grinner said:
That should be a law. The conflict potential is too great.
Click to expand...

It should be...but it would require a majority of Congress to divest portions of the portfolios which suggests they would have no interest in voting on something like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.