Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[dblack]

Hardly an excuse at all. What is your plan, no government at all?Government plays a part when there are things happening we have no control over.

This is exactly the same crap I hear from leftists when people push back against their regulatory ambitions. The purpose of government isn't to make other people do what you want. It's not there control "things happening we have no control over." It's there to protect your rights, your freedom. Not to force your preferences on others. Liberals don't get this. Neither do you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hardly an excuse at all. What is your plan, no government at all?Government plays a part when there are things happening we have no control over.

This is exactly the same crap I hear from leftists when people push back against their regulatory ambitions. The purpose of government isn't to make other people do what you want. It's not there control "things happening we have no control over." It's there to protect your rights, your freedom. Not to force your preferences on others. Liberals don't get this. Neither do you.

I get it just fine. Companies should not be in a position to rip people off. That's why we have laws against it.

If you pay a roofer to rip off and replace your roof, and he rips off the roof but never replaces it, do you not turn to government to get your money back? Can you not sue the party for rain damage done to your home? Of course you can. But the idea that you can sue, do you consider that big government?

In my city, they check out anybody wanting to do work here. They do it for the protection of the citizens. They do what they can to make sure they are not con men out to get the people. You cannot do work in our city unless you are a professional in your field and bonded. Is that big government?

Government is there for more than to protect liberty and rights. It's to keep peace between the people as well. Otherwise I would be able to light that gas station on fire and nobody from the government could do anything to me because it has nothing to do with rights or liberty. I got ripped off, so my way to get back is to destroy the place.

 

[Flopper]

The Bottom Line....

If we totally BLEW UP all government health care and made it a totally FREE MARKET with posted online prices for reference....

PRICES WOULD DROP 70% in a year....


Want to cut the cost of health care??

Then CUT GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT, because for the duration of government's interference with health care starting with LBJ, health care costs have vastly outpaced inflation, and that's putting it mildly... Nurses make $150k per year!!!

Health care prices are not isolated, it's a problem no matter what country you go to. But government is a huge problem in our particular situation. Government is not the solution. Look at what Commie Care did to this country. Look what happened when DumBama had the government takeover school loans. Look at the problems government created in the lending institutions.

Democrats are behind government running things, but when they do, they make it better for some, and worse for most others. The people that get the advantages are likely Democrat voters, and the people who get screwed are likely Republicans. The problems are never solved, just moved from one entity to another.

In any case, many of our representatives on either side are former lawyers. They are not about to regulate to make things harder on their industry, even if it's better for the country.

Actually, quite the opposite.

Lack of government intervention is the issue.

Germany pays out of pocket + in government spending about half of what we do.
Yet, they live longer.

The issue is that the free market leads to jacked up prices, besides we already have the most inefficient form of national healthcare, one where the government pays for peoples ER tabs who can't pay it.

A real free market does not guarantee a low price. It will delivery a fair market price provided there is adequate completion in all areas. The price may be high or low because it will depend on the completion. If there is a shortage of endocrinologist or neurosurgeons, the cost of their services will rise until demand falls off. And those that could not afford their prices would just become sicker and die. In theory, that would bring more people into the field and thus costs would fall. Of course this is just theory. Whether the high prices causes by the shortages would increases supply would be determined by a number factors external to the market, such as the skill level of potential healthcare workers and doctors, the cost of education, and the desire to work in that field.

The most likely outcome would be areas in which supply is low would only be available to the wealthy, until such time supply increases. The rich would have great healthcare and the poor would have little or nothing in those areas. However, even worse the long term health of citizens would be of no real concern the the healthcare industry. Production and use of vaccines keep people more healthy and thus have less need of medical care. In fact the sicker people are the more money healthcare providers would make, not much incentive to keep patients healthy.

 

[Flopper]

Hardly an excuse at all. What is your plan, no government at all?Government plays a part when there are things happening we have no control over.

This is exactly the same crap I hear from leftists when people push back against their regulatory ambitions. The purpose of government isn't to make other people do what you want. It's not there control "things happening we have no control over." It's there to protect your rights, your freedom. Not to force your preferences on others. Liberals don't get this. Neither do you.

I get it just fine. Companies should not be in a position to rip people off. That's why we have laws against it.

If you pay a roofer to rip off and replace your roof, and he rips off the roof but never replaces it, do you not turn to government to get your money back? Can you not sue the party for rain damage done to your home? Of course you can. But the idea that you can sue, do you consider that big government?

In my city, they check out anybody wanting to do work here. They do it for the protection of the citizens. They do what they can to make sure they are not con men out to get the people. You cannot do work in our city unless you are a professional in your field and bonded. Is that big government?

Government is there for more than to protect liberty and rights. It's to keep peace between the people as well. Otherwise I would be able to light that gas station on fire and nobody from the government could do anything to me because it has nothing to do with rights or liberty. I got ripped off, so my way to get back is to destroy the place.

When you apply that thinking to all goods and services produced, Yes,it is big government. Most government expenditures are done for good reason. The problem is we as taxpayers do not understand exactly how the money is being spent. We are asked to trust the government which most people today don't.

 

[Flopper]

In 2008 Democrats said they fixed healthcare.

How’d that work out here 11 years later?

Good enough that you assfuck Republicans can't come up with anything better.

BTW lying piece of shit, Democrats said it needed improvements. Like any major piece of legislation.

Then why didn't they make the improvements before implementing the plan?

No one knew what improvements were needed until the plan was implemented. By then, republicans were fighting to repeal the plan and and blocking democrats attempts to fix it.

Obamacare was not really a failure. It just did not delivery everything promised. It eliminated prexisting conditions so insurance companies had to provide insurance regardless of serious illnesses. It eliminated junk insurance that allow insurance companies to sell plans that paid for low cost common medical care but failed to provide healthcare for really serious problems. It eliminated long waiting periods, up to two years of employment in some cases, and many other rather deceptive practices in the insurance industry. It required insurance companies to provide standardize benefits, making insurance easy to understand and compare. It added a lot of preventive care and provided the largest increase ever in mental health and substance abuse coverage, which was long overdue. And lastly, it increased the number insured.

It's primary failure was high cost to the insured. Insurance companies were promised subsides to keep prices low and a mandatory requirement for insurance designed increase number of customers. Obama was not able to increase subsidies significantly without congress support and republicans blocked any attempt to do so. Many exemptions were granted to the mandatory requirement and finally republicans repealed it. The result was many insurance companies exited the market in areas of the country where competition was badly needed. Needless to say premiums went up making the insurance even less affordable.

If congress had increased subsidies and maintained a mandate that everyone have insurance, rates would have been much lower and the cost to government far less than Medicare for All.

It's ironic that republican work to destroy Obamacare, a healthcare system far less socialist that most healthcare plans in the world, has created a large demand for Medicare for All, a plan far more socialist and a far bigger hit on government revenue.

Obamacare was an epic failure that gutted our healthcare system and caused the huge spike in costs we see today.
But I hope Democrats run on it.

More likely they will run on Medicare for All. After republicans succeeded in blocking all attempts by democrats to increase subsidies and completion, you are going to to get Medicare for All, the next step toward socialized medicine.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In 2008 Democrats said they fixed healthcare.

How’d that work out here 11 years later?

Good enough that you assfuck Republicans can't come up with anything better.

BTW lying piece of shit, Democrats said it needed improvements. Like any major piece of legislation.

Then why didn't they make the improvements before implementing the plan?

No one knew what improvements were needed until the plan was implemented. By then, republicans were fighting to repeal the plan and and blocking democrats attempts to fix it.

Obamacare was not really a failure. It just did not delivery everything promised. It eliminated prexisting conditions so insurance companies had to provide insurance regardless of serious illnesses. It eliminated junk insurance that allow insurance companies to sell plans that paid for low cost common medical care but failed to provide healthcare for really serious problems. It eliminated long waiting periods, up to two years of employment in some cases, and many other rather deceptive practices in the insurance industry. It required insurance companies to provide standardize benefits, making insurance easy to understand and compare. It added a lot of preventive care and provided the largest increase ever in mental health and substance abuse coverage, which was long overdue. And lastly, it increased the number insured.

It's primary failure was high cost to the insured. Insurance companies were promised subsides to keep prices low and a mandatory requirement for insurance designed increase number of customers. Obama was not able to increase subsidies significantly without congress support and republicans blocked any attempt to do so. Many exemptions were granted to the mandatory requirement and finally republicans repealed it. The result was many insurance companies exited the market in areas of the country where competition was badly needed. Needless to say premiums went up making the insurance even less affordable.

If congress had increased subsidies and maintained a mandate that everyone have insurance, rates would have been much lower and the cost to government far less than Medicare for All.

It's ironic that republican work to destroy Obamacare, a healthcare system far less socialist that most healthcare plans in the world, has created a large demand for Medicare for All, a plan far more socialist and a far bigger hit on government revenue.

Obamacare was an epic failure that gutted our healthcare system and caused the huge spike in costs we see today.
But I hope Democrats run on it.

More likely they will run on Medicare for All. After republicans succeeded in blocking all attempts by democrats to increase subsidies and completion, you are going to to get Medicare for All, the next step toward socialized medicine.

I don't see how when there's no reasonable way to fund it. Most Americans know that once you introduce a social program, you're stuck with it, just like we are with Commie Care today.

I won't say that there is no support for it. Employers dealing with the cost of rising health insurance bills, individuals forced on the program because DumBama robbed them of their employer benefits, and even people that have always funded their own, are pretty sick of dealing with it, and just wish they didn't have to any longer.

Whether you tax the rich, tax the middle-class, it's going to have a major economic impact on this country, and unlike the past, not be reversible.

 

[pknopp]

Good enough that you assfuck Republicans can't come up with anything better.

BTW lying piece of shit, Democrats said it needed improvements. Like any major piece of legislation.

Then why didn't they make the improvements before implementing the plan?

No one knew what improvements were needed until the plan was implemented. By then, republicans were fighting to repeal the plan and and blocking democrats attempts to fix it.

Obamacare was not really a failure. It just did not delivery everything promised. It eliminated prexisting conditions so insurance companies had to provide insurance regardless of serious illnesses. It eliminated junk insurance that allow insurance companies to sell plans that paid for low cost common medical care but failed to provide healthcare for really serious problems. It eliminated long waiting periods, up to two years of employment in some cases, and many other rather deceptive practices in the insurance industry. It required insurance companies to provide standardize benefits, making insurance easy to understand and compare. It added a lot of preventive care and provided the largest increase ever in mental health and substance abuse coverage, which was long overdue. And lastly, it increased the number insured.

It's primary failure was high cost to the insured. Insurance companies were promised subsides to keep prices low and a mandatory requirement for insurance designed increase number of customers. Obama was not able to increase subsidies significantly without congress support and republicans blocked any attempt to do so. Many exemptions were granted to the mandatory requirement and finally republicans repealed it. The result was many insurance companies exited the market in areas of the country where competition was badly needed. Needless to say premiums went up making the insurance even less affordable.

If congress had increased subsidies and maintained a mandate that everyone have insurance, rates would have been much lower and the cost to government far less than Medicare for All.

It's ironic that republican work to destroy Obamacare, a healthcare system far less socialist that most healthcare plans in the world, has created a large demand for Medicare for All, a plan far more socialist and a far bigger hit on government revenue.

Obamacare was an epic failure that gutted our healthcare system and caused the huge spike in costs we see today.
But I hope Democrats run on it.

More likely they will run on Medicare for All. After republicans succeeded in blocking all attempts by democrats to increase subsidies and completion, you are going to to get Medicare for All, the next step toward socialized medicine.

I don't see how when there's no reasonable way to fund it. Most Americans know that once you introduce a social program, you're stuck with it, just like we are with Commie Care today.

I won't say that there is no support for it. Employers dealing with the cost of rising health insurance bills, individuals forced on the program because DumBama robbed them of their employer benefits, and even people that have always funded their own, are pretty sick of dealing with it, and just wish they didn't have to any longer.

Whether you tax the rich, tax the middle-class, it's going to have a major economic impact on this country, and unlike the past, not be reversible.

Who did we tax to pay for Trump's Socialist Farm bail out program?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hardly an excuse at all. What is your plan, no government at all?Government plays a part when there are things happening we have no control over.

This is exactly the same crap I hear from leftists when people push back against their regulatory ambitions. The purpose of government isn't to make other people do what you want. It's not there control "things happening we have no control over." It's there to protect your rights, your freedom. Not to force your preferences on others. Liberals don't get this. Neither do you.

I get it just fine. Companies should not be in a position to rip people off. That's why we have laws against it.

If you pay a roofer to rip off and replace your roof, and he rips off the roof but never replaces it, do you not turn to government to get your money back? Can you not sue the party for rain damage done to your home? Of course you can. But the idea that you can sue, do you consider that big government?

In my city, they check out anybody wanting to do work here. They do it for the protection of the citizens. They do what they can to make sure they are not con men out to get the people. You cannot do work in our city unless you are a professional in your field and bonded. Is that big government?

Government is there for more than to protect liberty and rights. It's to keep peace between the people as well. Otherwise I would be able to light that gas station on fire and nobody from the government could do anything to me because it has nothing to do with rights or liberty. I got ripped off, so my way to get back is to destroy the place.

When you apply that thinking to all goods and services produced, Yes,it is big government. Most government expenditures are done for good reason. The problem is we as taxpayers do not understand exactly how the money is being spent. We are asked to trust the government which most people today don't.

And there is good reason for that. Government uses our tax dollars for political advantage.

Every problem has a solution in my opinion, but in the US, those solutions can't be realized without getting politics involved. The border problem has a solution, but the Democrats won't allow it. Our healthcare problem has solutions, but actors on both sides would have to give up a little or a lot. Crime has a solution, but it would require tough measures and what some might consider inhumane treatment of prisoners. Everything has a solution.

Now when I say solution, I don't mean a total elimination of a problem. What I mean is a drastic reduction of the problem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then why didn't they make the improvements before implementing the plan?

No one knew what improvements were needed until the plan was implemented. By then, republicans were fighting to repeal the plan and and blocking democrats attempts to fix it.

Obamacare was not really a failure. It just did not delivery everything promised. It eliminated prexisting conditions so insurance companies had to provide insurance regardless of serious illnesses. It eliminated junk insurance that allow insurance companies to sell plans that paid for low cost common medical care but failed to provide healthcare for really serious problems. It eliminated long waiting periods, up to two years of employment in some cases, and many other rather deceptive practices in the insurance industry. It required insurance companies to provide standardize benefits, making insurance easy to understand and compare. It added a lot of preventive care and provided the largest increase ever in mental health and substance abuse coverage, which was long overdue. And lastly, it increased the number insured.

It's primary failure was high cost to the insured. Insurance companies were promised subsides to keep prices low and a mandatory requirement for insurance designed increase number of customers. Obama was not able to increase subsidies significantly without congress support and republicans blocked any attempt to do so. Many exemptions were granted to the mandatory requirement and finally republicans repealed it. The result was many insurance companies exited the market in areas of the country where competition was badly needed. Needless to say premiums went up making the insurance even less affordable.

If congress had increased subsidies and maintained a mandate that everyone have insurance, rates would have been much lower and the cost to government far less than Medicare for All.

It's ironic that republican work to destroy Obamacare, a healthcare system far less socialist that most healthcare plans in the world, has created a large demand for Medicare for All, a plan far more socialist and a far bigger hit on government revenue.

Obamacare was an epic failure that gutted our healthcare system and caused the huge spike in costs we see today.
But I hope Democrats run on it.

More likely they will run on Medicare for All. After republicans succeeded in blocking all attempts by democrats to increase subsidies and completion, you are going to to get Medicare for All, the next step toward socialized medicine.

I don't see how when there's no reasonable way to fund it. Most Americans know that once you introduce a social program, you're stuck with it, just like we are with Commie Care today.

I won't say that there is no support for it. Employers dealing with the cost of rising health insurance bills, individuals forced on the program because DumBama robbed them of their employer benefits, and even people that have always funded their own, are pretty sick of dealing with it, and just wish they didn't have to any longer.

Whether you tax the rich, tax the middle-class, it's going to have a major economic impact on this country, and unlike the past, not be reversible.

Who did we tax to pay for Trump's Socialist Farm bail out program?

Why do you ask? Are you paying more for tax? Am I? If I am, I certainly didn't notice it.

 

[pknopp]

No one knew what improvements were needed until the plan was implemented. By then, republicans were fighting to repeal the plan and and blocking democrats attempts to fix it.

Obamacare was not really a failure. It just did not delivery everything promised. It eliminated prexisting conditions so insurance companies had to provide insurance regardless of serious illnesses. It eliminated junk insurance that allow insurance companies to sell plans that paid for low cost common medical care but failed to provide healthcare for really serious problems. It eliminated long waiting periods, up to two years of employment in some cases, and many other rather deceptive practices in the insurance industry. It required insurance companies to provide standardize benefits, making insurance easy to understand and compare. It added a lot of preventive care and provided the largest increase ever in mental health and substance abuse coverage, which was long overdue. And lastly, it increased the number insured.

It's primary failure was high cost to the insured. Insurance companies were promised subsides to keep prices low and a mandatory requirement for insurance designed increase number of customers. Obama was not able to increase subsidies significantly without congress support and republicans blocked any attempt to do so. Many exemptions were granted to the mandatory requirement and finally republicans repealed it. The result was many insurance companies exited the market in areas of the country where competition was badly needed. Needless to say premiums went up making the insurance even less affordable.

If congress had increased subsidies and maintained a mandate that everyone have insurance, rates would have been much lower and the cost to government far less than Medicare for All.

It's ironic that republican work to destroy Obamacare, a healthcare system far less socialist that most healthcare plans in the world, has created a large demand for Medicare for All, a plan far more socialist and a far bigger hit on government revenue.

Obamacare was an epic failure that gutted our healthcare system and caused the huge spike in costs we see today.
But I hope Democrats run on it.

More likely they will run on Medicare for All. After republicans succeeded in blocking all attempts by democrats to increase subsidies and completion, you are going to to get Medicare for All, the next step toward socialized medicine.

I don't see how when there's no reasonable way to fund it. Most Americans know that once you introduce a social program, you're stuck with it, just like we are with Commie Care today.

I won't say that there is no support for it. Employers dealing with the cost of rising health insurance bills, individuals forced on the program because DumBama robbed them of their employer benefits, and even people that have always funded their own, are pretty sick of dealing with it, and just wish they didn't have to any longer.

Whether you tax the rich, tax the middle-class, it's going to have a major economic impact on this country, and unlike the past, not be reversible.

Who did we tax to pay for Trump's Socialist Farm bail out program?

Why do you ask? Are you paying more for tax? Am I? If I am, I certainly didn't notice it.

Why do I ask? You said there was no reasonable way to fund this. If we do not have to actually fund other programs, why do we have to fund this?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Obamacare was an epic failure that gutted our healthcare system and caused the huge spike in costs we see today.
But I hope Democrats run on it.

More likely they will run on Medicare for All. After republicans succeeded in blocking all attempts by democrats to increase subsidies and completion, you are going to to get Medicare for All, the next step toward socialized medicine.

I don't see how when there's no reasonable way to fund it. Most Americans know that once you introduce a social program, you're stuck with it, just like we are with Commie Care today.

I won't say that there is no support for it. Employers dealing with the cost of rising health insurance bills, individuals forced on the program because DumBama robbed them of their employer benefits, and even people that have always funded their own, are pretty sick of dealing with it, and just wish they didn't have to any longer.

Whether you tax the rich, tax the middle-class, it's going to have a major economic impact on this country, and unlike the past, not be reversible.

Who did we tax to pay for Trump's Socialist Farm bail out program?

Why do you ask? Are you paying more for tax? Am I? If I am, I certainly didn't notice it.

Why do I ask? You said there was no reasonable way to fund this. If we do not have to actually fund other programs, why do we have to fund this?

We don't have to fund anything. That's what voting is for. But you are talking about a multi-trillion dollar new social program compared to a 10 billion dollar program that is not only temporary, but may be an investment for the country.

 

[pknopp]

More likely they will run on Medicare for All. After republicans succeeded in blocking all attempts by democrats to increase subsidies and completion, you are going to to get Medicare for All, the next step toward socialized medicine.

I don't see how when there's no reasonable way to fund it. Most Americans know that once you introduce a social program, you're stuck with it, just like we are with Commie Care today.

I won't say that there is no support for it. Employers dealing with the cost of rising health insurance bills, individuals forced on the program because DumBama robbed them of their employer benefits, and even people that have always funded their own, are pretty sick of dealing with it, and just wish they didn't have to any longer.

Whether you tax the rich, tax the middle-class, it's going to have a major economic impact on this country, and unlike the past, not be reversible.

Who did we tax to pay for Trump's Socialist Farm bail out program?

Why do you ask? Are you paying more for tax? Am I? If I am, I certainly didn't notice it.

Why do I ask? You said there was no reasonable way to fund this. If we do not have to actually fund other programs, why do we have to fund this?

We don't have to fund anything. That's what voting is for. But you are talking about a multi-trillion dollar new social program compared to a 10 billion dollar program that is not only temporary, but may be an investment for the country.

Odd, earlier you said social programs never end. Now you are arguing the one you support might.

Which is it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't see how when there's no reasonable way to fund it. Most Americans know that once you introduce a social program, you're stuck with it, just like we are with Commie Care today.

I won't say that there is no support for it. Employers dealing with the cost of rising health insurance bills, individuals forced on the program because DumBama robbed them of their employer benefits, and even people that have always funded their own, are pretty sick of dealing with it, and just wish they didn't have to any longer.

Whether you tax the rich, tax the middle-class, it's going to have a major economic impact on this country, and unlike the past, not be reversible.

Who did we tax to pay for Trump's Socialist Farm bail out program?

Why do you ask? Are you paying more for tax? Am I? If I am, I certainly didn't notice it.

Why do I ask? You said there was no reasonable way to fund this. If we do not have to actually fund other programs, why do we have to fund this?

We don't have to fund anything. That's what voting is for. But you are talking about a multi-trillion dollar new social program compared to a 10 billion dollar program that is not only temporary, but may be an investment for the country.

Odd, earlier you said social programs never end. Now you are arguing the one you support might.

Which is it?

Farm subsidies are a never ending social program? I don't recall Trump making claim that this funding was permanent. What he is doing is helping farmers through this process. Hardly what I would consider a social program.

 

[pknopp]

Who did we tax to pay for Trump's Socialist Farm bail out program?

Why do you ask? Are you paying more for tax? Am I? If I am, I certainly didn't notice it.

Why do I ask? You said there was no reasonable way to fund this. If we do not have to actually fund other programs, why do we have to fund this?

We don't have to fund anything. That's what voting is for. But you are talking about a multi-trillion dollar new social program compared to a 10 billion dollar program that is not only temporary, but may be an investment for the country.

Odd, earlier you said social programs never end. Now you are arguing the one you support might.

Which is it?

Farm subsidies are a never ending social program? I don't recall Trump making claim that this funding was permanent. What he is doing is helping farmers through this process. Hardly what I would consider a social program.

I didn't ask you what Trump claimed. I asked you about what you claimed. And yes, farm subsidies seem to be never ending.

Why is it OK to not fund some programs but not others?

 

[RealDave]

Hardly an excuse at all. What is your plan, no government at all?Government plays a part when there are things happening we have no control over.

This is exactly the same crap I hear from leftists when people push back against their regulatory ambitions. The purpose of government isn't to make other people do what you want. It's not there control "things happening we have no control over." It's there to protect your rights, your freedom. Not to force your preferences on others. Liberals don't get this. Neither do you.

I get it just fine. Companies should not be in a position to rip people off. That's why we have laws against it.

If you pay a roofer to rip off and replace your roof, and he rips off the roof but never replaces it, do you not turn to government to get your money back? Can you not sue the party for rain damage done to your home? Of course you can. But the idea that you can sue, do you consider that big government?

In my city, they check out anybody wanting to do work here. They do it for the protection of the citizens. They do what they can to make sure they are not con men out to get the people. You cannot do work in our city unless you are a professional in your field and bonded. Is that big government?

Government is there for more than to protect liberty and rights. It's to keep peace between the people as well. Otherwise I would be able to light that gas station on fire and nobody from the government could do anything to me because it has nothing to do with rights or liberty. I got ripped off, so my way to get back is to destroy the place.

When you apply that thinking to all goods and services produced, Yes,it is big government. Most government expenditures are done for good reason. The problem is we as taxpayers do not understand exactly how the money is being spent. We are asked to trust the government which most people today don't.

And there is good reason for that. Government uses our tax dollars for political advantage.

Every problem has a solution in my opinion, but in the US, those solutions can't be realized without getting politics involved. The border problem has a solution, but the Democrats won't allow it. Our healthcare problem has solutions, but actors on both sides would have to give up a little or a lot. Crime has a solution, but it would require tough measures and what some might consider inhumane treatment of prisoners. Everything has a solution.

Now when I say solution, I don't mean a total elimination of a problem. What I mean is a drastic reduction of the problem.

No, building a 40' concrete wall is not a solution.

Gun violence has a solution but you NRA fed Trumpettes won't allow it.

Using federal money to bribe foreign officials for personal gain is political.

 

[RealDave]

Who did we tax to pay for Trump's Socialist Farm bail out program?

Why do you ask? Are you paying more for tax? Am I? If I am, I certainly didn't notice it.

Why do I ask? You said there was no reasonable way to fund this. If we do not have to actually fund other programs, why do we have to fund this?

We don't have to fund anything. That's what voting is for. But you are talking about a multi-trillion dollar new social program compared to a 10 billion dollar program that is not only temporary, but may be an investment for the country.

Odd, earlier you said social programs never end. Now you are arguing the one you support might.

Which is it?

Farm subsidies are a never ending social program? I don't recall Trump making claim that this funding was permanent. What he is doing is helping farmers through this process. Hardly what I would consider a social program.

Trump's trade war is hurting & bankrupting farmers. He is using tax money to help farmers because he needs their vote.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do you ask? Are you paying more for tax? Am I? If I am, I certainly didn't notice it.

Why do I ask? You said there was no reasonable way to fund this. If we do not have to actually fund other programs, why do we have to fund this?

We don't have to fund anything. That's what voting is for. But you are talking about a multi-trillion dollar new social program compared to a 10 billion dollar program that is not only temporary, but may be an investment for the country.

Odd, earlier you said social programs never end. Now you are arguing the one you support might.

Which is it?

Farm subsidies are a never ending social program? I don't recall Trump making claim that this funding was permanent. What he is doing is helping farmers through this process. Hardly what I would consider a social program.

Trump's trade war is hurting & bankrupting farmers. He is using tax money to help farmers because he needs their vote.

We are in a trade war and Trump is trying to make sure to minimize the damage on our side. Like I said, temporary aid as something will have to break. I don't like trade wars, but I also don't like our country being taken advantage of either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hardly an excuse at all. What is your plan, no government at all?Government plays a part when there are things happening we have no control over.

This is exactly the same crap I hear from leftists when people push back against their regulatory ambitions. The purpose of government isn't to make other people do what you want. It's not there control "things happening we have no control over." It's there to protect your rights, your freedom. Not to force your preferences on others. Liberals don't get this. Neither do you.

I get it just fine. Companies should not be in a position to rip people off. That's why we have laws against it.

If you pay a roofer to rip off and replace your roof, and he rips off the roof but never replaces it, do you not turn to government to get your money back? Can you not sue the party for rain damage done to your home? Of course you can. But the idea that you can sue, do you consider that big government?

In my city, they check out anybody wanting to do work here. They do it for the protection of the citizens. They do what they can to make sure they are not con men out to get the people. You cannot do work in our city unless you are a professional in your field and bonded. Is that big government?

Government is there for more than to protect liberty and rights. It's to keep peace between the people as well. Otherwise I would be able to light that gas station on fire and nobody from the government could do anything to me because it has nothing to do with rights or liberty. I got ripped off, so my way to get back is to destroy the place.

When you apply that thinking to all goods and services produced, Yes,it is big government. Most government expenditures are done for good reason. The problem is we as taxpayers do not understand exactly how the money is being spent. We are asked to trust the government which most people today don't.

And there is good reason for that. Government uses our tax dollars for political advantage.

Every problem has a solution in my opinion, but in the US, those solutions can't be realized without getting politics involved. The border problem has a solution, but the Democrats won't allow it. Our healthcare problem has solutions, but actors on both sides would have to give up a little or a lot. Crime has a solution, but it would require tough measures and what some might consider inhumane treatment of prisoners. Everything has a solution.

Now when I say solution, I don't mean a total elimination of a problem. What I mean is a drastic reduction of the problem.

No, building a 40' concrete wall is not a solution.

Gun violence has a solution but you NRA fed Trumpettes won't allow it.

Using federal money to bribe foreign officials for personal gain is political.

Show me this personal gain. And if you come up with Biden being in the race, that's not personal gain because nobody knows if he'll be the nominee yet. You just let Democrats brainwash you into believing their BS.

Building a wall is part of the solution. Barriers have worked every place they've been tried here and around the globe. But Democrats are not smart enough to look at results of other places. They know the sheep will buy into any BS they are fed, and that's why you think a wall, fence or other barriers won't work. The reason the Democrats shut down the government for the longest period in our history over the wall is because it's not like policy they could change if ever in power again. Once the wall is up, it's there for good. But along with the wall we need to make being here illegally a felony, carrying a minimum of five years in prison for the first offense; minimum, as in the judge could sentence somebody up to ten years. Such a penalty will not only keep people out, it would get people who are here illegally out as well. Self deportation.

Gun violence does not have a solution. And disarming the public is the dumbest idea of all. That's why Democrats thought of it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Hardly an excuse at all. What is your plan, no government at all?Government plays a part when there are things happening we have no control over.

This is exactly the same crap I hear from leftists when people push back against their regulatory ambitions. The purpose of government isn't to make other people do what you want. It's not there control "things happening we have no control over." It's there to protect your rights, your freedom. Not to force your preferences on others. Liberals don't get this. Neither do you.

I get it just fine. Companies should not be in a position to rip people off. That's why we have laws against it.

If you pay a roofer to rip off and replace your roof, and he rips off the roof but never replaces it, do you not turn to government to get your money back? Can you not sue the party for rain damage done to your home? Of course you can. But the idea that you can sue, do you consider that big government?

In my city, they check out anybody wanting to do work here. They do it for the protection of the citizens. They do what they can to make sure they are not con men out to get the people. You cannot do work in our city unless you are a professional in your field and bonded. Is that big government?

Government is there for more than to protect liberty and rights. It's to keep peace between the people as well. Otherwise I would be able to light that gas station on fire and nobody from the government could do anything to me because it has nothing to do with rights or liberty. I got ripped off, so my way to get back is to destroy the place.

When you apply that thinking to all goods and services produced, Yes,it is big government. Most government expenditures are done for good reason. The problem is we as taxpayers do not understand exactly how the money is being spent. We are asked to trust the government which most people today don't.

And there is good reason for that. Government uses our tax dollars for political advantage.

Every problem has a solution in my opinion, but in the US, those solutions can't be realized without getting politics involved. The border problem has a solution, but the Democrats won't allow it. Our healthcare problem has solutions, but actors on both sides would have to give up a little or a lot. Crime has a solution, but it would require tough measures and what some might consider inhumane treatment of prisoners. Everything has a solution.

Now when I say solution, I don't mean a total elimination of a problem. What I mean is a drastic reduction of the problem.

No, building a 40' concrete wall is not a solution.

Gun violence has a solution but you NRA fed Trumpettes won't allow it.

Using federal money to bribe foreign officials for personal gain is political.

Building a 40’ wall works. Ask the Israelis.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do you ask? Are you paying more for tax? Am I? If I am, I certainly didn't notice it.

Why do I ask? You said there was no reasonable way to fund this. If we do not have to actually fund other programs, why do we have to fund this?

We don't have to fund anything. That's what voting is for. But you are talking about a multi-trillion dollar new social program compared to a 10 billion dollar program that is not only temporary, but may be an investment for the country.

Odd, earlier you said social programs never end. Now you are arguing the one you support might.

Which is it?

Farm subsidies are a never ending social program? I don't recall Trump making claim that this funding was permanent. What he is doing is helping farmers through this process. Hardly what I would consider a social program.

I didn't ask you what Trump claimed. I asked you about what you claimed. And yes, farm subsidies seem to be never ending.

Why is it OK to not fund some programs but not others?

No, it's temporary until our trade issues are settled. Our economy is booming, and China has a lot of economic problems right now. It's just a matter of when they'll agree to Trump's terms.

If you don't have farm subsides, then don't get pissed when a head of lettuce costs ten bucks, or oranges are eight bucks a pound. Farm subsidies not only help farmers, but they help everybody from coast to coast.