Sorta figured we needed a broader thread for politics. Gurrilla, I respect your right to post here but please don't clutter this with links to all of your arguments

To statefan91, most dems are running with free healthcare free education and some are spouting off about livable wage guarantee. For me I think the government should just let the free market flow as it should and not give out anything (that includes subsidies). I will admit something needs to be done with the healthcare, I do not have the answer. In a perfect world we would just chip in to help one another but that will never happened and it shouldn't be forced. Also believe that there needs to be a discussion on AI in the workplace. We are going to get to a dangerous point where only a handful of people control things and jobs are going to disappear.

PackDaddy said:

---

To statefan91, most dems are running with free healthcare free education and some are spouting off about livable wage guarantee. For me I think the government should just let the free market flow as it should and not give out anything (that includes subsidies). I will admit something needs to be done with the healthcare, I do not have the answer. In a perfect world we would just chip in to help one another but that will never happened and it shouldn't be forced. Also believe that there needs to be a discussion on AI in the workplace. We are going to get to a dangerous point where only a handful of people control things and jobs are going to disappear.

---

I think the issue is that you leave corporations (hospitals, service providers, insurance companies) to manage something like healthcare and you can see where that goes. Focus on profits and executive salaries over providing life-saving benefits to people.

Also, new news that the Trump administration is proposing to roll-back pre-existing condition protections from the ACA. At that point, what do you tell someone who has cancer? Sorry, you lost out on the lottery of life and your lifetime max has hit so you need to go bankrupt if you want to survive?

Just seems like there's a lot of opportunity for improvement in how our society takes care of its citizens. I can't vote for this administration and their focus on deregulation making it easier for healthcare companies to drop those that need it the most.

Also worth mentioning that President Trump was initially a proponent of Universal Healthcare. Seems like everything he's done since getting elected is an effort to take healthcare coverage away from people:

PackDaddy said:

---

To statefan91, most dems are running with free healthcare free education and some are spouting off about livable wage guarantee. For me I think the government should just let the free market flow as it should and not give out anything (that includes subsidies). I will admit something needs to be done with the healthcare, I do not have the answer. In a perfect world we would just chip in to help one another but that will never happened and it shouldn't be forced. Also believe that there needs to be a discussion on AI in the workplace. We are going to get to a dangerous point where only a handful of people control things and jobs are going to disappear.

---

The problem with healthcare is you have a free rider problem. We aren't going to let uninsured just die. Unless you turn people away from care, you need some way to ensure that everyone has a stake in their healthcare. Conservative economist proposed ideas similar to Obamacare decades earlier.
Biggest issue with American healthcare IMO, is cost transparency. Your Dr. should be able to tell you exactly how much they charge for a procedure.

Good thread PackDaddy. Allows for broader discussion and doesn't derail other, more specific threads. Good work sir. Good political work.

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Good thread PackDaddy. Allows for broader discussion and doesn't derail other, more specific threads. Good work sir, good work.

---

Sir this thread is about politics. Please don't derail the thread with talk of derailing threads.

---

Edited my comment. Hope it meets your criteria.

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Good thread PackDaddy. Allows for broader discussion and doesn't derail other, more specific threads. Good work sir, good work.

---

Sir this thread is about politics. Please don't derail the thread with talk of derailing threads.

---

Well played, Ise!

Yea I just don't want it to become what some other threads on the water cooler have when it comes to politics.

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackDaddy said:

---

To statefan91, most dems are running with free healthcare free education and some are spouting off about livable wage guarantee. For me I think the government should just let the free market flow as it should and not give out anything (that includes subsidies). I will admit something needs to be done with the healthcare, I do not have the answer. In a perfect world we would just chip in to help one another but that will never happened and it shouldn't be forced. Also believe that there needs to be a discussion on AI in the workplace. We are going to get to a dangerous point where only a handful of people control things and jobs are going to disappear.

---

Conservative economist proposed ideas similar to Obamacare decades earlier.

---

This is a huge issue IMO. We shouldn't let people's healthcare, and access/affordability to such, be political. This is an instance where all should be able to come to some agreement for the betterment of the population. Isn't that a main pillar of government?

Not based on the current batch of Republicans (in my opinion). Their focus is deregulation, tax cuts, and minimizing government programs or support of programs that have impactful benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Welfare, Special Olympics) in favor of Military spending. I was once a registered Republican and these guys ain't it.

I like your threads. Always interesting to read.

statefan91 said:

---

Not based on the current batch of Republicans (in my opinion). Their focus is deregulation, tax cuts, and minimizing government programs or support of programs that have impactful benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Welfare, Special Olympics) in favor of Military spending. I was once a registered Republican and these guys ain't it.

---

I agree with you about the current Republican leadership in congress. However, I think it's pretty bad with Democrats as well.

I take issue with some of your examples though. There is too much here to dive into analysis on each one so here are some high level thoughts:
1. Deregulation - In general*, one of the few things I've applauded the Trump admin for. We have a very high regulatory burden on business, mostly due to a patchwork of laws ( I say in general because this is a super broad category and there are specific roll backs I do and do not like)
2. Tax cuts - Tax reform was absolutely needed and has been for years. However, as someone concerned principally about debt, IMO it should have been revenue neutral and paired with spending cuts. Tax cuts that increased the deficit were asinine
3. Military - No arguments here. We spend far too much on the military. We need to re-prioritize where we operate and where we have troops to reduce spending. Stop jumping into new overseas conflicts

4. Medicare/Medicaid - These programs are going bankrupt. Bipartisan reform is needed or the nation is screwed. How we go about it is it's own discussion but every year we wait, reform get's more painful
5. Special Olympics - I don't really have a hard opinion wither way on this, but the Hysteria over proposed cuts by DeVos is comical. Cutting Federal funding will not end the special Olympics. Most funding comes from private sources now, and they would be able to weather a loss of Federal funding. There are many, many worthy organizations that support people with special needs. Should we subsidize some and not others? If we make hard choices about the budget, is this high priority? IMO more needs to be allocated to support housing and basic of adults with special needs who's family do not have the financial means to provide for them.

My guess is that if we sat down together we'd realize we're talking a lot of the same language or at least be able to find commonalities.

1. Deregulation - I see your asterisk and it's likely your asterisk is what I'm focused on. In my opinion, regulation is necessary, especially with the potential to do incredible harm. I feel like scaling back CFPB to barebones is a terrible decision having felt the pain of the 2008 recession. Scaling back environmental regulations and expecting companies to be stewards of the environments is asinine. Taking away regulations to ensure net neutrality is also baffling in that it opens up the internet to be sliced and diced when people have little opportunity to use more than one ISP at their connection point. That's the regulation i'm talking about that I think is important.

2. No argument.
3. No argument.
4. The only reform put forward so far is making significant cuts. I'm not seeing an effort to reform the programs.
5. I guess we all choose what to get worked up over. For me, Special Education and significant cuts to it (it wasn't just Special Olympics, btw), is hitting at the most vulnerable of the populous. These families already have such a significant challenge ahead of them, and this proposal aims to take money previously affirmed. If the DoE can find millions to spend on starting new Charter schools I'd hope they can find a way to support this vulnerable population.

statefan91 said:

---

My guess is that if we sat down together we'd realize we're talking a lot of the same language or at least be able to find commonalities.

1. Deregulation - I see your asterisk and it's likely your asterisk is what I'm focused on. In my opinion, regulation is necessary, especially with the potential to do incredible harm. I feel like scaling back CFPB to barebones is a terrible decision having felt the pain of the 2008 recession. Scaling back environmental regulations and expecting companies to be stewards of the environments is asinine. Taking away regulations to ensure net neutrality is also baffling in that it opens up the internet to be sliced and diced when people have little opportunity to use more than one ISP at their connection point. That's the regulation i'm talking about that I think is important.

2. No argument.
3. No argument.
4. The only reform put forward so far is making significant cuts. I'm not seeing an effort to reform the programs.
5. I guess we all choose what to get worked up over. For me, Special Education and significant cuts to it (it wasn't just Special Olympics, btw), is hitting at the most vulnerable of the populous. These families already have such a significant challenge ahead of them, and this proposal aims to take money previously affirmed. If the DoE can find millions to spend on starting new Charter schools I'd hope they can find a way to support this vulnerable population.

---

Yes, I agree we'd likely find some commonality. Just to be clear, so far I find your posts respectful in in the spirit of civic debate. I find these type of arguments fun as long as all sides stay civil. Cheers!

1. Deregulation is really hard to talk about at a high level because so much is discrete and in the weeds. In general we have too many overlapping laws, regulation by multiple agencies, etc. that increases the regulatory burden and acts as a barrier to entry for competition.
I'm honestly not familiar with every change that's been made with CFPB and financial institutions. I am generally in favor of letting smaller institutions face less stringent reporting requirements than the big banks.
As far as environmental regulations, we will probably agree here. This is the the policy area I am most "liberal" in.

4. I'm not seeing any proposed cuts for medicare and Medicaid. Most of what I've seen from Trump is him promising to preserve these programs. I really don't see ANYONE except a few random congressman talking about reform.

5. What other cuts were proposed beside the special Olympics? Genuine question. The last I saw said there were no proposed cuts to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act which is the source of the majority of special education funding. IMO, we nationally need to take a serious look on what commitments we, as a society have to those with special needs. With rising rates of Autism (among other conditions) in recent decades, we are approaching an explosion in the need for adult care. Adult care is astronomically expensive and most government facilities either lack capacity or have substandard care.

I would recommend you watch "The Big Short" if you haven't already. It's obviously embellished some, but it's a good view into what happened during the leadup to the 2008 crash.

RE: Medicare and Medicaid proposed cuts - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/trump-2020-budget-proposes-reduced-medicare-and-medicaid-spending.html

RE: Cuts to additional Special Education related programs - https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2019/03/what_are_the_real_special_education_cuts.html

"...For the other part of Pocan's comments, the Education Department is proposing a $7 million cut to the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (not "Blind,") which would leave its funding at $70 million. Gallaudet University would see a cut in federal funding from $134 million to $121 million, and the American Printing House for the Blind would be cut from about $30 million to about $25 million.
(One cut that hasn't gotten much attention: the proposed elimination of $12 million in funding for research on behalf of gifted students.)
All of those cuts are necessary to "support the President's goal of increasing support for national security and public safety without adding to the Federal budget deficit," the budget proposal says."

Thanks for those links.

On the Medicare/Medicaid cuts, I honestly complexly ignored his budget proposal outside of individual articles I saw on specific programs. Presidential budgets are mostly symbolic anyways and Trump's isn't worth the paper it's written on, especially with Democrats controlling the house.

That said, these aren't really huge cuts when you are dealing with the size of these pots of money. We need to cut or raise taxes to balance these programs, probably both since any reform would have to be bipartisan. I'd be more partial to cutting on Medicare/SS, and raising taxes for Medicaid.


For the other special education cuts, I can't really comment one way or the other without diving down a research rabbit hole I just dont have time for. I am inclined to agree with you in that there is no way we should be cutting these programs while wasting money on the wall or policing the world. However, in my perfect world, we all get together to solve our debt crisis and some good programs like these may have to face cuts in order to bring back fiscal sanity. I realize that's not reality though

Just watch the hour long Q&A with former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. Honestly didn't know much about him beforehand but I came away somewhat impressed with what he had to say to the questions that were ask of him. Interested to do more research on him and learn more about where he stands on certain issues. At least with him, I feel like he could(not will) be someone I could consider voting for.

I haven't been impressed so far. He seems like a rich guy that likes to think of himself as a Social Liberal and Fiscal Conservative which is a hard line to straddle.

statefan91 said:

---

I haven't been impressed so far. He seems like a rich guy that likes to think of himself as a Social Liberal and Fiscal Conservative which is a hard line to straddle.

---

Maybe that is why I like him because, as an independent, I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

I probably most align with Schultz on policy but have not been particularly impressed by his speaking performances. It's the type of candidate I would support but I don't think he has the force of personality to make a successful 3rd party run. He also would only have a chance if Democrats nominate someone from the far left like Bernie.

statefan, why do you think socially liberal and fiscally conservative is a hard line to straddle? Polling shows it's less common than I thought, but it's still a substantial minority of the population. I mostly align with this too.

I think because if you really want to be socially liberal, then in my opinion I think you have to be open to investing in social programs. There is a significant population of individuals in this country that are in situations that can't be improved without government help, and in many cases they can barely survive without government help. I don't know about percentages, but I have to think a lot of those people are in that situation through no fault of their own. Being born into poverty / low income is such an incredible handicap in life, as born out through countless studies of economic mobility.

Now you could say you're socially liberal in the sense that you just don't care what other people do with their sex lives and think the government should stay out of it. Or maybe you're pro-choice as well. But I think to really be socially liberal, you have to be on the side of the fence where you want to see social programs available and improved to help give people opportunities to improve their station.

If you want to do any of the above but then also be fiscally conservative, you really hit a crossroads. At some point you have to decide between the two.

See I think a lot of what you are describing comes under the umbrella of being fiscally liberal.

I've never liked the poles of amerian political parties. They both contain a mix of libertarian and authoritarian policies. Many, many people do not fit well in either party as it currently exists. That's especially true after the Trump takeover of the Republican party.

IseWolf22 said:

---

See I think a lot of what you are describing comes under the umbrella of being fiscally liberal.

I've never liked the poles of amerian political parties. They both contain a mix of libertarian and authoritarian policies. Many, many people do not fit well in either party as it currently exists. That's especially true after the Trump takeover of the Republican party.

---

Yep - I understand where you're coming from. I think this is why the country needs something like Ranked Choice Voting. It would give opportunity to 3rd party candidates that have absolutely no shot during a general election. It would allow for more ideas, and would force more congeniality between candidates because they are dependent upon being the 2nd or 3rd choice for independent voters.

Schultz has no shot at either major party nomination. He talks more fiscally as a Republican, probably more so than Trump or anyone with an (R) after their name currently. He may want to show himself as an Independent, but I haven't really seen what values he holds to make him different from a Republican outside of being open to things like gay marriage and pro-choice.

I'd love to see ranked choice voting as well. I agree with you on the benefits.

On Schultz, I agree that he is more fiscally Republican than Trump. By a wiiide margin. However as a CEO, he was one of the first to massivley expand healthcare for workers (good coverage for anyone over 20 hours per week) and has college assistance and stock sharing programs for the lowest employees. He seems to truely care about workers and more than the bottom line. How that translates to what he'd do in office? I don't know. When I last gave him a hard look (when he announced), he had not really articulated his positions on much more than the national debt.

For fear of sounding dumb, please explain more to me about ranked voting. Thanks!

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

For fear of sounding dumb, please explain more to me about ranked voting. Thanks!

---

Not dumb at all, I hadn't heard of it until a couple years ago. It's popular in the UK which gives berth to all the different parties that they have that form coalitions.

"How RCV Works

Ranked choice voting (RCV) describes voting systems that allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference, and then uses those rankings to elect candidates able to combine strong first choice support with the ability to earn second and third choice support.
RCV is straightforward for voters: rank candidates in order of choice. Voters can rank as many candidates as they want, without fear that ranking others will hurt the chances of their favorite candidate. Exit polls and ballot analyses from ranked choice voting elections demonstrate that voters overwhelmingly understood how to rank candidates.

How the votes are counted depends on whether RCV is used to elect a single office, like a mayor or governor, or if it is used to elect more than one position at once, like for a city council or state legislature or for Congress in a multi-winner district.

When Electing One Candidate to Office

For a single office, like for a mayor or governor, RCV helps to elect a candidate more reflective of a majority of voters in a single election even when several viable candidates are in the race. It does this by counting the votes in rounds:

Voters get to rank candidates in order of choice. If a candidate receives more than half of the first choices, they win, just like any other election. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who picked that candidate as 'number 1' will have their votes count for their next choice. This process continues until a candidate wins with more than half of the votes."

[url=https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used]https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#how_rcv_works[/url]

statefan91 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

For fear of sounding dumb, please explain more to me about ranked voting. Thanks!

---

Not dumb at all, I hadn't heard of it until a couple years ago. It's popular in the UK which gives berth to all the different parties that they have that form coalitions.

"How RCV Works

Ranked choice voting (RCV) describes voting systems that allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference, and then uses those rankings to elect candidates able to combine strong first choice support with the ability to earn second and third choice support.
RCV is straightforward for voters: rank candidates in order of choice. Voters can rank as many candidates as they want, without fear that ranking others will hurt the chances of their favorite candidate. Exit polls and ballot analyses from ranked choice voting elections demonstrate that voters overwhelmingly understood how to rank candidates.

How the votes are counted depends on whether RCV is used to elect a single office, like a mayor or governor, or if it is used to elect more than one position at once, like for a city council or state legislature or for Congress in a multi-winner district.

When Electing One Candidate to Office

For a single office, like for a mayor or governor, RCV helps to elect a candidate more reflective of a majority of voters in a single election even when several viable candidates are in the race. It does this by counting the votes in rounds:

Voters get to rank candidates in order of choice. If a candidate receives more than half of the first choices, they win, just like any other election. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who picked that candidate as 'number 1' will have their votes count for their next choice. This process continues until a candidate wins with more than half of the votes."

[url=https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used]https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#how_rcv_works[/url]

---

Thanks for that info. Very interesting idea indeed. I have longed for the day when a viable 3rd party candidate showed up but with ranked voting, that could work in the favor of a 3rd party candidate. As of right now, it's damn near impossible for a 3rd party to have any chance at all.

Yep - I listened to a really interesting podcast by Radiolab that talked about it (https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/tweak-vote).

I'm sure it has its downside as well, but from what I've read the positives are really interesting. They've introduced it in Maine (I think).

Yep it's being used in Maine now. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. I really like the idea so hopefully its well received

IseWolf22 said:

---

I'd love to see ranked choice voting as well. I agree with you on the benefits.

On Schultz, I agree that he is more fiscally Republican than Trump. By a wiiide margin. However as a CEO, he was one of the first to massivley expand healthcare for workers (good coverage for anyone over 20 hours per week) and has college assistance and stock sharing programs for the lowest employees. He seems to truely care about workers and more than the bottom line. How that translates to what he'd do in office? I don't know. When I last gave him a hard look (when he announced), he had not really articulated his positions on much more than the national debt.

---

As a CEO, he can do whatever he want for the employees. In fact, applaud him if you agree. That being said, every business has different set of circumstances; therefore, can and/or will do that's best for them or not.

As president and Congress, they should be constrained by the constitution. Unfortunately, no one understands the original intent laid out by the founders and create laws that feel good and unconstitutional.