Democratic Presidential candidates


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mores
On 6/27/2019 at 10:46 AM, Godless said:

I think Liz Warren will be the dark horse of this race. I desperately wanted her to run in 2016.

You're the third liberal from Texas that I've heard that from.  While you're entitled to your opinions, I have a hard time understanding how you get past her fraud over her supposed race.

Regardless of whether she believed "family lore", she obviously was never disadvantaged because of race.  No one in a million years would have pegged her as any kind of minority. 

So, how do you get past it?

And you call her a moderate when she was one of only two candidates who raised her hand approving the abolition of private health insurance.  How's that work?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores

Here's what I got from the debate as being the issues:

TRUMP:  America First.  Make/keep the economy strong.  

DEMOCRATS:  Intersectionality, climate change, a bunch of free stuff (esp abortions, healthcare, college, food, and freebies to illegals) get rid of guns, hate conservatives no matter what.

No matter which Democrat some hope to vote for, I didn't see any of them running away from these positions.  Only Tulsi Gabbard was one who sort of shied away from any of it.  But even she seems to support all these positions.

My real question is whether there is any ability to negotiate or compromise on any of these positions.  For me?  No.  All of it is complete nonsense.  That is what is dividing the country.  We've set ourselves up on such positions in such a manner that there is no longer anything to compromise on.  It seems all or nothing on all of these.  That's why bakers are libeled for calling the police on a black shoplifter.  That's why bakers are sued for not decorating a cake supporting a gay wedding or a trans - transitioning party.

Everything has been pushed so far and lawsuits are everywhere to push an agenda rather than to right a wrong anymore.  There's nothing left to compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Godless said:

I love how people in both parties are begging to see more of Marianne Williamson:

The vid didn’t play for me.

Anyway, Williamson wins the prize for “Most Sensible” comment of both nights.

She’s the one that correctly stated that Dems and Repubs are all arguing about SickCare (basically who pays when you get sick) rather than Healthcare.  Clap clap.

Then she had to blow it with the... When I get into office, the first thing I’m gonna do is call the PM of New Zealand and tell her she sucks.  Ok ok... that’s not exactly what she said... but imagine that - you just elected the most powerful person of the free world and the first thing she’s gonna do is call the PM of New Zealand to tell her NZ is not the best country for children anymore, it’s the US.  First thing she’s gonna do.  Before she does anything else for children or otherwise... Clown World.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
1 hour ago, Mores said:

You're the third liberal from Texas that I've heard that from.  While you're entitled to your opinions, I have a hard time understanding how you get past her fraud over her supposed race.

I'm not from Texas. I just lived there for a while. The race gaffe was unfortunate, but not a deal breaker for me. 

Similarly, I often find myself wondering how so many Republic were able to get past Trump's multiple failed business ventures, his grab 'em by the 🐈 remarks, and, on day one of his candidacy, suggesting that an overwhelming majority of Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers, and theives. But hey, at least he didn't try to pass himself off as Native American, amirite?

Quote

And you call her a moderate when she was one of only two candidates who raised her hand approving the abolition of private health insurance.  How's that work?

I didn't call her a moderate. I I said she's a middle ground between Biden's watered-down, establishment-soaked brand of liberal and Bernie's communist brand of liberal. She's absolutely a liberal.

Also, keep in mind that at this stage of the race, Dems are trying to win over as many liberals as they can. A few of them seem determined to convert some Bernie bros, but that's about as likely as me voting for Trump. Once the field has thinned, they'll start shifting their focus on the swing voters to gain some traction in the race against Trump. 

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The vid didn’t play for me.

 

 

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I understand why someone who is a liberal would like Elizabeth Warren and look past her racial gaffe, and I don't understand how someone can be a social conservative and look past Trumps comments and behavior. So I agree totally with you on that @Godless. But, it's politics. If you, @Godless agreed with Trump, you'd look over his behavior too, and if @Vort agreed with Joe Biden, he'd look over the plagiarism scandals, the creepy behavior, etc. 

Morality doesn't matter (except in rare cases like John Edwards. Remember him?) , your views do. If Robert Francis O'Rourke was a republican, your side would jump all over him for trying to make his name sound hispanic. If Donald Trump was a democrat, the right would go ballistic over his history of infidelity/sexual assault. 

Something Trump is very good at is convincing the average American that he is "one of them". He's not of course, but he can convince others he is. Elizabeth Warren, like her or not, agree with her or not, has the reputation of an out of touch elitist who lied about her heritage to get a job at Harvard. Good luck convincing "Joe Six Pack" otherwise. 
 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

if @Vort agreed with Joe Biden, he'd look over the plagiarism scandals, the creepy behavior, etc.

I don't know why you say this. It is untrue. I don't ignore or overlook the character flaws or moral failings of those I support politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Vort said:

I don't know why you say this. It is untrue. I don't ignore or overlook the character flaws or moral failings of those I support politically.

Fair enough, I meant people on the right, not you specifically. Apologies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1998 my high school civics teacher observed that presidential candidates run to the extreme during the primaries, and then to the center during the general election.

That seems generally to be the case again this year; though the Overton window of what constitutes “extreme” does seem to have moved—at least on the left.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In 1998 my high school civics teacher observed that presidential candidates run to the extreme during the primaries, and then to the center during the general election.

That seems generally to be the case again this year; though the Overton window of what constitutes “extreme” does seem to have moved—at least on the left.  

That doesn’t work anymore.

When my 15-yr old shows me this picture showing me what AOC cried about on the other side of the fence - a vacant parking lot - within minutes of MSM making hay over that pic, that game is over.

Oh, and he also showed me the yearbook photos of integrated Berkley circa 1963 - before Kamala Harris was born less than 24 hours after her tweet.

15 years old.  Capturing and archiving video evidence of political statements... it will be pretend-centrists versus teenagers who does this like it’s a fun videogame.

3E3B5061-3ABF-40D2-AB52-593838B4AD34.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In 1998 my high school civics teacher

We seem to be the same age. Why does this depress me so much? 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
15 hours ago, Godless said:

I didn't call her a moderate. I I said she's a middle ground between Biden's watered-down, establishment-soaked brand of liberal and Bernie's communist brand of liberal. She's absolutely a liberal.

My mistake.  I guess I read that too fast.

You make the point that essentially any candidate will have flaws.  Some greater than others.  So, let me address each in turn.  And then I'll address the overall point.

15 hours ago, Godless said:

Similarly, I often find myself wondering how so many Republic were able to get past Trump's multiple failed business ventures

Anyone with MANY business ventures will have some that fail.  That's the nature of entrepreneurship.  But with business there is a sure fire way to figure out if that person is still a successful businessman.  Money balances it all.  Is he still in business today?  His businesses are still running.  They are turning a profit.  On the balance, he's still making money and employing thousands of people.

Similarly, in the largest economy in the world, we're still going to have some unemployment and some businesses that fail -- even with record employment levels, and tremendous GDP growth.  There are still failures in the midst of the greatest boom we've seen in many decades.

15 hours ago, Godless said:

The race gaffe was unfortunate, but not a deal breaker for me. 

The Left seems to make EVERYTHING about race.  Some pundits and politicians have even gone so far as to say that racist policies are what have created global warming.  And there she is lying about her race to get an advantage and STEAL that advantage from a minority that would have otherwise gotten that position.  Yet no one is upset about that on the left?  Because she's a Democrat, she gets a pass.  Hypocrisy (that is the big deal with this one).

15 hours ago, Godless said:

his grab 'em by the 🐈 remarks,

Most conservatives do NOT overlook his immorality. MAAANNNNNYYYY conservatives chose to not vote or vote third party because of it (and he still won without their votes).  Still more only begrudgingly voted for Trump as a lesser of two evils.  Pundits, politicians, and the voting populace all had a BIG problem with Trump's moral failings.  Far from hypocritical.  Many conservatives had a problem with this.  It WAS a dealbreaker.

15 hours ago, Godless said:

and, on day one of his candidacy, suggesting that an overwhelming majority of Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers, and theives.

Nope.  He never did.  You read that in his words.  I'd guess you considered it a dog whistle.  But he said what he said to get a point across.  And he did.

He said that such bad people come across the border.  He never said "an overwhelming majority" (that I'm aware of).  And you can't deny it's happening.  You want it both ways. 

  • Trump is lying about rapists coming across the border.
  • Decry the border detention facilities because Women are getting raped as they cross the border.

What, are they being raped by the border patrol agents?  Are they being raped by Americans?  Why do you think that mothers and fathers are sending their 10 year old girls with morning after pills as they cross the border?

And you want to spread news to actually encourage MORE of these crossings? 

You can't say at the same time:

  • We've got so many problems in this country, that we're totally justified in taking a knee at the national anthem and denying that we're the greatest nation on earth.
  • It is the duty of the United States as the most powerful and wealthiest nation on earth to take care of all the world's problems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an observation.  Just about everything the Democrats say about Trump is absolutely true even though likely with some exaggeration.   The problem is that the Democrats do not seem to understand why Trump was elected.  Most of the country considered Hillary Clinton to be worse.  The deal breaker for me was that Hillary was in charge when Ambassador Stevens was killed in Benghazi and Hillary refused any responsibility.

I would love it if someone else - anyone else would take responsibility and work to fix what is obviously broken in Washington DC.  Here is my opinion about many broken policies:

#1. If people cannot be responsible for themselves - they cannot live in a free society.  I believe our country and government should support a free society.  I believe in helping people in need but I do not believe in taking over a person's responsibility especially if they refuse to be responsible.  Especially for health care

#2. Many institutions in the USA are failing because of government involvement - Health care is at the top of the list along with after high school education (especially but in essence all our education institutions are failing.   So also the banking institution has failed concerning student loans.  Next is law enforcement beginning with immigration.  If a law is on the books then it is the duty of everybody in government to see that all laws on the books are enforced.   It is the job of legislators to fix and change the laws - not to criticize  anyone that is upholding and enforcing the laws.

#3. Government institutions need to serve the citizens - it is as much of a problem that a presidential candidate make concessions to foreign government leaders to be elected as it is for any elected official to make concessions to any foreigner trying to come into this country outside of prescribed laws. 

#4.  No one should be able to seek asylum in our country if we have friendly diplomatic relationships with that country - diplomacy should be tried before we robe a country of its citizens.   If we do not have friendly diplomatic relationships with a country - that should be public knowledge and well known - and should affect our trade policies with such a country.

This is enough for now.   If someone that favors the Democrats wants more input - I will be glad to point out more problems.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

If people cannot be responsible for themselves - they cannot live in a free society

The physically, intellectually and educationally handicapped?  Where do they go?  

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

Many institutions in the USA are failing because of government involvement - Health care is at the top of the list

Health care in the U.S. was failing for millions before Obamacare.  All I can say is, as an American ex-pat,  the Canadian, universal health care system can be extremely frustrating and Canadians are always complaining about it: long waits, irregular coverage between provinces, limited access to cutting-edge treatments etc.  BUT try to take it away......and they would bring out their pitchforks and blunderbusses to protect it.  The socialized system is flawed but Canadians would rather have the imperfect, universal care than the free-market (US) alternative.  We never have to wonder if we can afford to take our sick kids to the doctor.    

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

No one should be able to seek asylum in our country if we have friendly diplomatic relationships with that country

The US has friendly, diplomatic relationships with many countries that have brutally oppressive and corrupt governments, rampant crime, lawlessness and in which countries the citizens have little hope for a reasonable quality of life due to situations beyond their control.   I do not like unlawful activity including unlawful entry to any country.  However, if I were poor and in fear of my life, I might try to get my kids to a safe place even if I had to be sneaky.   I don't know the solution.  But  as a developing disciple of Jesus, unconditionally rejecting he who "putteth up his petition" to me (Mosiah 4: 16-23) --  in this case thousands of people who are "putting up petitions"  -- makes me uncomfortable.  Maybe instead of 5000 National Guards, we need 5000 more immigration workers, healthcare providers, counselors, educators etc. at our borders?

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

all our education institutions are failing

This is a pretty broad statement.  However, as a former teacher, I do believe there is a decline in educational efficacy.  Certainly access to higher education is becoming more difficult (I paid $600 a semester 35 years ago for tuition, my son pays $6000+).  My only thoughts on this is that the new church emphasis on learning in the home, and not just Gospel learning, is key --  if only for our own kids.

IN SUMMARY..... I'm not disagreeing with you entirely but the biggest problem with the political environment today (and some of your comments above) is over-simplification of problems and their solutions (e.g tariffs on EVERYTHING).   This why we need dialogue between parties and meaningful discussion (councils?) to find multi-faceted and functional solutions.   Too bad there really are no moderates running that can reach the minds and hearts of the people.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jdf135 said:

The physically, intellectually and educationally handicapped?  Where do they go?  

First they go to their families.  Second they go to their neighbors/churches.  Then there's Private Charities.  There's a bunch of them.  All run by private donations.

That is, people who TRULY want to help others rather than be forced to help others.  Some smart guy once said, "“There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as 'caring' and 'sensitive' because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- but only if forced to do so.”

7 hours ago, jdf135 said:

Health care in the U.S. was failing for millions before Obamacare.  All I can say is, as an American ex-pat,  the Canadian, universal health care system can be extremely frustrating and Canadians are always complaining about it: long waits, irregular coverage between provinces, limited access to cutting-edge treatments etc.  BUT try to take it away......and they would bring out their pitchforks and blunderbusses to protect it.  The socialized system is flawed but Canadians would rather have the imperfect, universal care than the free-market (US) alternative.  We never have to wonder if we can afford to take our sick kids to the doctor.  

Of course they're going to bring out their pitchforks.  It's the human condition - you take money from someone to give to someone else, those someone elses will fight to the death to keep a bad system going because the alternative is - they might just have to pay for it.

But that political debate is so a decade ago.  That's not what the Dems are debating anymore.  This time, they're debating giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants.  Remember, this is the same political party who designed a healthcare system where you go to jail if you don't pay for health insurance even if you can't use it just a decade ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

First they go to their families.  Second they go to their neighbors/churches. 

Actually, the Church actually has shifted positions on this.  At least in the US, we are to get help from government resources prior to getting aid from the Church now.  The logic being that we are all paying into this system (forcibly).  We may as well take advantage of what we're paying for. -- That was what the bishop just said in a meeting on self-reliance yesterday.  I'm not sure what the source was.  But he said it like everyone knew the set hierarchy of sources to go to -- like it was written somewhere.  But this was the first I'd heard of it.

But considering multiple conditions, it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mores said:

Actually, the Church actually has shifted positions on this.  At least in the US, we are to get help from government resources prior to getting aid from the Church now.  The logic being that we are all paying into this system (forcibly).  We may as well take advantage of what we're paying for. -- That was what the bishop just said in a meeting on self-reliance yesterday.  I'm not sure what the source was.  But he said it like everyone knew the set hierarchy of sources to go to -- like it was written somewhere.  But this was the first I'd heard of it.

But considering multiple conditions, it makes sense.

I don't think this is "the Church" (as in, universally) but might be just an American/European thing.  It sure is not adviced in the Philippines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
8 hours ago, jdf135 said:

Health care in the U.S. was failing for millions before Obamacare. 

Because of government involvement.

We had a proper system when I was a child.  But with each passing decade, the government got more and more involved, causing more and more problems.  Finally, people cried out "The System IS BROKEN!!!"  Yeah, guess who broke it.

Government caused the problem.  Now they want MORE government (Obamacare) to fix it.  That makes sense.

Let me break it down for you.

Cost, Coverage, Quality:  You can only have two of the three.  All three are mathematically impossible. Canada has apparently chosen to sacrifice quality for affordability and coverage.  That's their choice.  Norway (and now the US) spends tremendous amounts of money on healthcare.  So, they get coverage and quality by sacrificing economy.

A true free market system would have low costs, pretty decent coverage, and about the highest quality.  We're saying that we'd rather have 90% or more (often times over 98%) in ALL three categories than to have universal coverage with only 40% scores in the other two. 

The fact that no system is perfect is acceptable only when YOUR system fails in some way.  But looking at the overall package, the free-market wins all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jdf135 said:

The physically, intellectually and educationally handicapped?  Where do they go?   

Those that cannot care for themselves must be cared for - handing them cash is not caring.  Turning over control to the highests federal levels of government is not caring either.  There appears to be at least 5 kinds of poor - each with very different needs.  A one size fits all attitude is obviously broken at the start.

Quote

Health care in the U.S. was failing for millions before Obamacare.  All I can say is, as an American ex-pat,  the Canadian, universal health care system can be extremely frustrating and Canadians are always complaining about it: long waits, irregular coverage between provinces, limited access to cutting-edge treatments etc.  BUT try to take it away......and they would bring out their pitchforks and blunderbusses to protect it.  The socialized system is flawed but Canadians would rather have the imperfect, universal care than the free-market (US) alternative.  We never have to wonder if we can afford to take our sick kids to the doctor.    

The two biggest health care problems in the USA is overweight and lack of exercise.  The two primary government supported treatments are drugs and surgery.   The USA has the best catastrophic emergency care in the world but for anything else the government has not helped but rather disconnected individuals from personal responsibility.  A person that can not or does not take personal responsibility - there is no liberty or freedom nor can there be.  The biggest threat to liberty and freedom in the USA is our own government.

Quote

The US has friendly, diplomatic relationships with many countries that have brutally oppressive and corrupt governments, rampant crime, lawlessness and in which countries the citizens have little hope for a reasonable quality of life due to situations beyond their control.   I do not like unlawful activity including unlawful entry to any country.  However, if I were poor and in fear of my life, I might try to get my kids to a safe place even if I had to be sneaky.   I don't know the solution.  But  as a developing disciple of Jesus, unconditionally rejecting he who "putteth up his petition" to me (Mosiah 4: 16-23) --  in this case thousands of people who are "putting up petitions"  -- makes me uncomfortable.  Maybe instead of 5000 National Guards, we need 5000 more immigration workers, healthcare providers, counselors, educators etc. at our borders?

That is exactly the point - why should we think our government stands for liberty and justice for all when we have FRIENDLY relationships with countries that brutally oppress what our government stand for and upholds?  Plus we should have learned from experience that oppressive and corrupt governments (like Castro - Cuba) will only help and assist criminal elements to migrate from their country to anywhere else.  They certainly will not assist those that desire in any way to change or usurp their power from succeeding in going anywhere that they could continue in any way from being and influence in the world.  Brutal dictators just are not that stupid - else they would have never achieved the power that they have.

Quote

This is a pretty broad statement.  However, as a former teacher, I do believe there is a decline in educational efficacy.  Certainly access to higher education is becoming more difficult (I paid $600 a semester 35 years ago for tuition, my son pays $6000+).  My only thoughts on this is that the new church emphasis on learning in the home, and not just Gospel learning, is key --  if only for our own kids.

Our education institutions are failing - the primary reason as I see it - is that control has been shifted for the local levels to federal levels.  The highest paid individuals in our education institution do not teach but insure that the local schools qualify for federal monies and meet federal standards.  What happens in the classroom cannot endure and maintain any level of education success when the focus is somewhere else.

Quote

IN SUMMARY..... I'm not disagreeing with you entirely but the biggest problem with the political environment today (and some of your comments above) is over-simplification of problems and their solutions (e.g tariffs on EVERYTHING).   This why we need dialogue between parties and meaningful discussion (councils?) to find multi-faceted and functional solutions.   Too bad there really are no moderates running that can reach the minds and hearts of the people.   

Almost never are problems so complex that simple solutions cannot work.  It is a play by oppressors to make simple things to appear to be too complex and unrelated to reality.  The truth is that reality is very simple when the truth is not being hidden or ignored.  The two primary political parties are more devoted to party politics than to the citizens they are supposed to serve.   I have recommended over and over that the short pamphlet "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat be read - it is over 200 years old and still applies as if it was written today - you really should read it.  Then lets have this conversation again.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mores said:

Because of government involvement.

We had a proper system when I was a child.  But with each passing decade, the government got more and more involved, causing more and more problems.  Finally, people cried out "The System IS BROKEN!!!"  Yeah, guess who broke it.

Government caused the problem.  Now they want MORE government (Obamacare) to fix it.  That makes sense.

This is the EXACT SAME THING with College Student Loans.  Government created the problem in the first place through student grants and government subsidies and now the Dems are now clamoring to "fix the problem" by telling people who succeeded without going to college or succeeded after paying off their student debt to pay other people's massive student loans because... hey, why not?

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mores said:

Because of government involvement.

We had a proper system when I was a child.  But with each passing decade, the government got more and more involved, causing more and more problems.  Finally, people cried out "The System IS BROKEN!!!"  Yeah, guess who broke it.

Government caused the problem.  Now they want MORE government (Obamacare) to fix it.  That makes sense.

Let me break it down for you.

Cost, Coverage, Quality:  You can only have two of the three.  All three are mathematically impossible. Canada has apparently chosen to sacrifice quality for affordability and coverage.  That's their choice.  Norway (and now the US) spends tremendous amounts of money on healthcare.  So, they get coverage and quality by sacrificing economy.

A true free market system would have low costs, pretty decent coverage, and about the highest quality.  We're saying that we'd rather have 90% or more (often times over 98%) in ALL three categories than to have universal coverage with only 40% scores in the other two. 

The fact that no system is perfect is acceptable only when YOUR system fails in some way.  But looking at the overall package, the free-market wins all the time.

Everyone needs help when a catastrophic event occurs to threaten someone's health and live - but that is what insurance and the government should do.   Help where there are catastrophic uncommon events.  Each individual should be responsible for day to day - week to week and year to year standard and normal events.  When insurance or government are expected to cover normal and expected things - individual liberty and justice is always the price paid - the money involved is just an illusion of benefit. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is the EXACT SAME THING with College Student Loans.  Government created the problem in the first place through student grants and government subsidies and now the Dems are now clamoring to "fix the problem" by telling people who succeeded without going to college or succeeded after paying off their student debt to pay other people's massive student loans because... hey, why not?

Not quite the whole picture - our educational institutions conspired with the government to create Student Loans and then our educational institutions deliberately created ways that they could obtain monies void of any responsibility or accountability.  Our government did not think this up on their own - and the great secret is - that they never do.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2019 at 8:46 AM, Traveler said:

our educational institutions conspired with the government to create Student Loans

I think conspired is a bit strong.  Fake moon landings and JFK killed by CIA too?

On 7/1/2019 at 8:30 AM, Traveler said:

Almost never are problems so complex that simple solutions cannot work.

Not sure this is an eternal truth.  As has been alluded to above, no one solution fits every situation.  I only hope the Lord looks at all MY complexities before making a final judgement.  People are complex and their difficult situations are complex.  Not every physically, intellectually and educationally handicapped person (or child of God, for that matter) needs the same type of help. And,  @anatess2  not all of them has family or church or even charitable organizations (a huge number of which are for profit despite claims) to help them and my heart aches for those terrified migrants clutching on to the slimmest of hopes that they will find something better for their children. 

I know my taxes are not used efficiently.  That has always been the case since taxes were invented.  However, frankly, I am happy to pay taxes to help my defective Canadian health care system;  it's better than no system.  I am so glad my special needs daughter gets community support through government-funded agencies because I just don't have the knowledge and resources to best to help her all the time.  And, as deficient as the education system is, I am glad the government helps out so I don't have to come up with tuition to pay for elementary schooling for my kids (e.g. most of Africa). 

On 7/1/2019 at 8:20 AM, Mores said:

We had a proper system when I was a child

And  @Mores, I am not sure what you define as proper.  I don't know when you were a child and what country you lived in but I am not sure there was EVER a system that "worked."   All I know is that in the early 30's, when 25% or more of the US population was unemployed, a gajillion banks went defunct and took hundreds of millions of dollars of hard-earned money with them and the soup lines when around the block, the system was NOT great.  The "free" market didn't work for them. In fact, a vast majority of people of my mother's generation were so incredibly grateful for FDR and his social programs -- so grateful in fact that they elected him three times (the commie, Democrat rascal).  

I am sorry y'all.   I am open for discussion but there are just too many generalizations here about how horrible "government" has been.  Less of it is not always better. Try Libyan/Sudanses/Somalian anarchy for awhile and you may decide governments are not so bad.  I am as cynical as the next guy about politicians.  They are mostly self-serving, ignoramuses.  But this democracy stuff is still the best we have until the rapture and we should be glad we have it.  We just have to keep pushing to have government work FOR us not around us.  And, this may actually mean you vote Democrat.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
5 hours ago, jdf135 said:

And  @Mores, I am not sure what you define as proper.  I don't know when you were a child and what country you lived in but I am not sure there was EVER a system that "worked."   All I know is that in the early 30's, when 25% or more of the US population was unemployed, a gajillion banks went defunct and took hundreds of millions of dollars of hard-earned money with them and the soup lines when around the block, the system was NOT great.  The "free" market didn't work for them. In fact, a vast majority of people of my mother's generation were so incredibly grateful for FDR and his social programs -- so grateful in fact that they elected him three times (the commie, Democrat rascal). 

The "proper system" I refer to was the way we as consumers related to the medical industry.  Culturally we took it upon ourselves to be in charge of "healthcare" and go to doctors when it was beyond the layman's abilities.  People knew a lot more about first aid.  So we didn't go to the emergency room because some one slit their finger while cooking dinner.  We also reserved insurance for major medical rather than the common cold.

As stated before, there's no such thing as a flawless system.  Something gets messed up.  But what is the most efficient way to serve the most people with minimal loss of freedom?  The fee market.

Your reference to the great depression is a typical liberal talking point.  Whether you're actually liberal or not, the talking point comes fro the likes of Paul Krugman.  And it is wrong.  You need to read more Thomas Sowell. 

The free market did not fail the US.  The government choked the free market.  You'll find that a simple, temporary panic ( which was caused by a huge government miscalculation) was further exacerbated into a depression due to government.  Then that depression morphed into the GREAT depression due to that "commie Democrat rascal" constantly implementing socialist policies.

Get your facts straight, and you might make a valid argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share