Anyone else find it odd that
- Thread starter Huey Grey
- Start date
Each state has different variations of those issues, and others as well. A one-size-fits-all solution is not better than solutions tailored to each state's specific problems/priorities.
Oh, and climate change.... LOL. We can't control the climate.
You understand that when I create a thread about the lack of Republican solutions and you lay out a post like this, it just proves my point that you guys really don't have many ideas, right?
But the wealth gap spans state lines. Michigan can't simply create their own solution and expect it to work without the help of Wisconsin or Iowa. If their solution is in opposition with other states, it's likely the whole attempt, for all the states, will crumble since there is no cohesive solution. It's like trying to make forward progress with a team of cats. If they're all going in different directions, the whole carriage is unlikely to go anywhere.
The way you attack the wealth gap is by attracting employers with high-paying jobs to your state. Competition between the states is more effective in moving the needle than any sort of federal mandate affecting everybody.
The reason for this is that conservatives want to wear big boy pants, and liberals want to wear diapers and have big brother clean them up their "messes" .
Oh wait so you are saying that you don't like one line answers - you need it laid out for you in baby steps (like Dave Ramsey's budgeting). I get it. Let me put something together for you (yes I am trying to appease your request) and get it back out in a bit.
Sincerely,
VROOM.
Competition across state lines is certainly a way for individual states to bolster their economies, improve wages, and create a more prosperous citizenry. But it comes at a cost. And that cost is that the other state has to lose all these things. Because competition only works when you have winners and losers. And I, for one, am not comfortable with having a certain percentage of our states fail so that others can prosper. We are called the United States of America, not the Divided States of America.
I love concise one line answers. Unfortunately telling someone that if they don't like the wealth gap, they should just move to another country, isn't exactly a good example of all the great ideas the GOP is supposed to have.
There was more in my one line than wealth gap but regardless... What "great" ideas does the Democratic party have to offer other than "free everything"?
No, the wealth gap is different in every state. Bet its the worst in liberal bastions like California and New York, too.
50 laboratories for success is better than some bureaucrat in D.C. trying to come up with a solution for everybody.
All of these would be far worse without the government. Take poverty rates, for example. Poverty plummeted after Social Security. It has undoubtedly been a good thing for seniors.
Actually, most people today would be better off without social security. Social security is investing for idiots(liberals).
To begin, I reject your assertion that the Democratic platform is about making everything "free."
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of economists would disagree with you on this point.
No, you are right, liberals want the rich to pay for everything for everyone else. Not free for them!
Well when the rich are the only ones with the money to pay, who else is going to foot the bill? It's kind of the whole complaint behind the wealth gap.
Poverty exists right? Didn't we start a war on poverty 40 years ago? 25 years after SS? All you have pointed out is that seniors are dependents of the state by sustaining them at just above the government determined poverty level.All of these would be far worse without the government. Take poverty rates, for example. Poverty plummeted after Social Security. It has undoubtedly been a good thing for seniors.
This is so false in so many ways... Go talk to doctors about government involvement... THEY HATE IT. It exponentially increases the difficulty of getting ANYTHING done.
And? Take SS away and poverty among seniors will skyrocket. How is that preferable to less seniors in poverty?
I give you Bernie... he IS your Democratic platform (regardless of how you want to spin his affiliation).
It's indisputable that the ACA has both slowed costs and gotten way more insured. It has problems, but it still seems to be a net benefit. What did less government get us? The world's most expensive healthcare, denial for pre-existing conditions, and 50 million without coverage. I wouldn't exactly call that a win.
A balanced budget that cuts wasteful spending. Transparency in the bills that are passed so the "average joe" can read the bill and see what money is being spent on.
Ensure that every law that is passed - no one is exempt from, especially its creators.
Job creation - allowing small businesses to prosper with less taxes and empowerment to go after ideas without fear of government overreach.
Redo the VA so our veterans have a place to go where they are seen within hours, not months. Provide housing for homeless vets and opportunities for training them to cross over into civilian jobs upon discharge.
Social Security reform. Out of all our programs, SS should NEVER run out of money (yet our government holds that over the working mans head and yet keeps funding welfare for life).
Welfare reform. It is NOT a lifestyle, you are allotted 2 years of welfare to get back on your feet and contribute to society. Mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients. If illegal, non-prescribed drugs are found in your results your welfare is terminated, you are entered into a rehab program and must earn your way back.
Shore up the border. Utilize the NG\Reserves to patrol the border, construct a wall that cannot be crossed. Ensure those that follow the immigration and naturalization laws are the ones that become American citizens.
Make the tax code simpler. Something in the line of a Flat tax which may have different % based on income. Income reviews based on "where" you live should also be accounted for (living in Iowa is not the same as living in NY).
Reel in Rx and medical prices (ACA does not do this). Expedite the ingestion of life saving drugs to the market, punish the Rx\Medical companies that want to live off the dying by keeping medicines out of reach (financially and physically - cancer can be cured).
Make up our minds on the Middle East. We cannot have one boot in and boot out. Either we are there - permanently (yes a permanent presence) or we get out. I am for the latter as the factions have been fighting for as long as we have kept track of dates, nothing we do will stop this.
Become energy independent. This will allow more (sustainable) jobs right here in the US, I know the Left hates oil but for now we can drill our own, create jobs and continue to work on alternatives (incentivize alternatives).
Tear at it - have a great weekend. GO HAWKS!!!
Alot of talking points there...
In discussions with my Orthopedic surgeon, my brother-in-law (surgeon), my neighbor (PA director) and my own Family doctor - they all disagree with your "wins".
Are you running?
As someone who works on the front lines, I can tell you that a lot of these problems are complex and the truth is not always what it appears to be.
The question can be boiled down to; When does the market not work? and what level of intervention if any is required?
There's no way to tell if it "slowed costs"... nor can we tell if it decreased uninsured people. The improving economy could have achieved both of those accomplishments with or without the ACA.
Please explain how reducing taxes for the rich while raising them on the poor will reduce the wealth gap?
How will making bills more transparent reduce the wealth gap?
How will figuring out what to do in the Middle East reduce the wealth gap?
How will taking away welfare reduce the wealth gap?
I will agree, however, that limiting prices on healthcare will help. More government involvement on healthcare price setting is precisely what we need.
Concerning costs, you may be right. But it does seem clear that it cut uninsured rates.
The ACA is not perfect. Its a start. Lets just do single payer. The market does a bad job with health care. When you look at the conditions of a market in a micro economic sense, health care care fails. Consumers have poor information, providers do not easily come into the market, etc etc. Single payer will hold down costs more. It works in other countries and they pay less for it. Not sure why people here are so afraid of it.
Not to mention that a balanced budget for a balanced budget's sake is not only unnecessary, it's downright foolish and irrational most of the time.
Because if you don't like United HealthCare, you can buy a plan from Cigna instead.
With single payer, if you don't like your insurance company, you're stuck with your insurance company.
Answers above.
Anyone else feel like putting Huey on "ignore" but just can't because its too funny to see his retorts?
Health care is the good here, not insurance. Under a single payer, if you didn't like your doctor, you can go to a different one.
Yet your side props up the fact that the budget is balanced under their leaders... hypocritical I see.
No, the health insurance is the "good" here. Every company has differences in policy language, appeals processes, doctors in the network, customer service, billing practices, quality of the internet and app experience.
With single payer, you get whatever you get. There's no choice for consumers.
That just isn't true. We have a single payer already called Medicare for people 65 and older. You can buy supplements from various insurance companies. You absolutely have choice in your doctors.
If your doctor doesn't participate in Medicare, then no, you have no coverage to see that doctor.
I am an accountant. I have actually run the numbers for almost 40 years of work. It is not even close. My monthly benefit would be almost 4 times higher than what social security tells me they will give me.
So you would like government to come in and take wealth away from the more fortunate? In a forceful manner of course.
It seems as if every time that government has come in and attempted to change things they have had their actions backfire on them. If in fact you believe they were giving an honest effort.
What makes you think that government actually cares to do this at all?
By all means, put me on ignore. However, if you are unable to explain how ideas like cutting taxes on the rich while raising them on the poor will reduce the wealth gap, then that is your failing, not mine.
Most of your list would do nothing to address the wealth gap. Some would actually make it worse.
