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
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.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.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.
Sir this thread is about politics. Please don't derail the thread with talk of derailing threads.RunsWithWolves26 said:
Good thread PackDaddy. Allows for broader discussion and doesn't derail other, more specific threads. Good work sir, good work.
IseWolf22 said:Sir this thread is about politics. Please don't derail the thread with talk of derailing threads.RunsWithWolves26 said:
Good thread PackDaddy. Allows for broader discussion and doesn't derail other, more specific threads. Good work sir, good work.
Well played, Ise!IseWolf22 said:Sir this thread is about politics. Please don't derail the thread with talk of derailing threads.RunsWithWolves26 said:
Good thread PackDaddy. Allows for broader discussion and doesn't derail other, more specific threads. Good work sir, good work.
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?IseWolf22 said:Conservative economist proposed ideas similar to Obamacare decades earlier.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 agree with you about the current Republican leadership in congress. However, I think it's pretty bad with Democrats as well.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.
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!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.
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.
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.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.
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.RunsWithWolves26 said:
For fear of sounding dumb, please explain more to me about ranked voting. Thanks!
statefan91 said: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.RunsWithWolves26 said:
For fear of sounding dumb, please explain more to me about ranked voting. Thanks!
"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]
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.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.