What is the most destructive Conservative policy in the US today?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How much do I have to TRANSFER to you to make it equal?

Not much, really. You're not rich. I doubt your taxes would have to go up much at all. And everyone would pay less for, for instance, healthcare, if we had single payer. That includes you. And, with better schools, much of what you already spend on the penal system would simply be spent, instead, on schools. So you aren't looking at it the right way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Expanding the federal government in an booming economy.... Never a good thing

Worked for me!

Signed,

Saint Ronnie

 

[forkup]

Actually, what you guys really hate is not socialism. You hate a more equal society.

Anything you dont like gets the label "socialism".

Now that is RIDICULOUS, and your statement is as phony as the day is long.

An equal society is where everyone has the same opportunity, not the same outcome. What you do with your opportunity is YOUR choice. Do not come back to me and claim I owe you something, because you screwed the pooch!

Getting sick and needing medicine is not screwing the pooch. Yet the GOP is actively trying to destroy the ability of a significant portion of the populace to get health care. You don't like socialism? I live in Europe. Here everyone has the same opportunity. Not everybody has the same outcome. What we do better, not by any means perfectly is making sure that that opportunity is the same for everybody. Healthcare is available to all, education on all levels is available to all. This is an equal society by your definition is it not?

In America, we do NOT DENY ANYONE healthcare. Did you know that? They can walk right in to any healthcare center, and they are INSTANTLY taken care of! From what I understand, that is a whole lot faster than you are-)

What YOU are talking about, is HEALTH INSURANCE. Health insurance, is NOT healthcare!

Now my European friend, let me ask you a question-----------> You are sick, really sick! You have your charming and delightful National Healthcare insurance. You go to a facility, and they tell you they will run tests, in 4 months.

I go to MY healthcare facility, and they run the tests the next day, or within 5 days.

YOU DIE because the tests are to late to diagnose your problem. They pay.

I live, but they send me a bill!

Who is better off?

And if you say YOU are, you must be French, because they always surrender-)

I did know one can get primary care in any hospital. My wife is American by the way. No it's not faster then in my country ( although I can't vouch for other European countries). It's actually after that that the US lacks. What you guy do is making it economical unfeasible for certain segments of the populace to receive decent care. I know this because exactly that happened to my brother in law.
As to your question. Again I can't speak for all of Europe honestly, because I don't know how it is in every country in Europe. What I do know that here,( Belgium) . You get seen by a doctor quickly. One even comes to your house if you are not mobile. If you get really sick or hurt care is immediate. As an example I've been having headaches lately a lot. My GP send me to get a CT scan in my local hospital. At no point was there cause for alarm yet I got my scan in 2 weeks. My wife on the other hand, (this was before we got married, so no insurance), broke her ankle here pretty badly. She got seen, operated on in one hectic afternoon. Nobody asked her how she would pay for it and they even made a follow up. This of course is all anecdotal. What isn't that the US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world by far. Yet for most health indicators the US score below most of Europe

Well, at least you are real.

Let me put it to you this way, and I hope you really read this----------------> In a perfect world, I believe that healthcare should be a mix of government subsidies, AND personal control of cost, with the recipient being able to KEEP 1/2 of the subsidy, if he/she comes in UNDER the subsidy, returning the other 1/2 to the government.

Why?

Because then the patient will attempt to get the LOWEST cost for their care, forcing healthcare facilities to COMPETE for their business, just as if you are purchasing a car, or beef, or oil, or natural gas.

Without the patient being given incentives to lower costs to themselves, nobody wins. The providers know if they give good or bad service, they get the same amount, or the patient knowing that no matter the service they receive, the government pays it, no entity has incentive to do anything.

FREEDOM is choice, plain and simple. You will only CHOOSE something different, if it benefits you! Those giving YOU healthcare will want those dollars, so they will alter what they provide by price, or care, so as YOU choose them.

Do you like money? So do they! So by competition, they will try to get more people to spend their healthcare dollars there. And there is only 2 ways to do it. Lower prices, or better care. That is a win-win! And then, you will get facilities who will offer lower prices, and BETTER than average care! If you get to keep 50% of the subsidy, you WILL be looking for that!

This is why SOCIALISM does NOT work! As long as something is free, the product doesn't have to get better, and as long as somebody else pays for it, the price never has to come down!

Actually not true. There is incentive to make it cheap. If healthcare is expensive the government has to make up the shortfall. They have to raise taxes then. You think that wouldn't effect their ability to get reelected. I'll give you a few practical examples, forgive me that they will be again anecdotal. My town population around 35000 is serviced by about 15 people who administrate our health insurance.( State run). Between the people who administer your several health insurance providers, pharmacy techs who's sole job it is to call those providers to fill scrips, medical billing and coders and other staff. How many people does it take to service 35000 people in the US? My GP doesn't have a secretary in fact almost none of them do. That simply isn't possible in the US. Most of the middle men between patient and doctor has been eliminated here, all people you don't have to pay. So is most of the for profit motive. One of my wives friends in the US had a lapband surgery 2 years ago. It took her 2 years, countless doctors visit, and thousands of dollars to get it done. My wife had a gastric bypass last year. It took her 4 months, 1 doctors visit and 1 full day of tests. What's cheaper and more efficient?

 

[dblack]

There is incentive to make it cheap. If healthcare is expensive the government has to make up the shortfall. They have to raise taxes then.

No, they don't. And that's the problem.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Any thoughts?

The military industrial complex.

~S~

Why do you hate good paying middle class Union Jobs?


.

 

[forkup]

There is incentive to make it cheap. If healthcare is expensive the government has to make up the shortfall. They have to raise taxes then.

No, they don't. And that's the problem.

Lol yes they do. Running up a deficit is even worse in Belgium then raising taxes for reelection.

 

[imawhosure]

How much do I have to TRANSFER to you to make it equal?

Not much, really. You're not rich. I doubt your taxes would have to go up much at all. And everyone would pay less for, for instance, healthcare, if we had single payer. That includes you. And, with better schools, much of what you already spend on the penal system would simply be spent, instead, on schools. So you aren't looking at it the right way.

Dude/Dudette, you JUST DON'T GET IT!

Listen to me------------------> You think you are screwing the rich, lol. You are screwing YOU!

EXAMPLE-------------------> Suppose (pretend) I have 20 million dollars invested in a business. My salary is for arguments sake, 10%. My income is-------->2 million dollars a year because of profit.

You raise taxes to 50% on anyone making over 100,000 a year, so I pay----------> 1 million, leaving me with 1 million a year, AND my 20 million dollar business!

Now YOU are making 100,000 a year. That leaves you with 50,000, and you have to pay to live. How you EVER going to get to open a business that equals mine?

Now, of course, because of stepped tax rates, this example isn't 100% accurate, and I understand that, but the truth is-----------> Those who already HAVE their money made, are the ones in the drivers seat, because under those rules, you will NEVER get wealthy. In essence, you can tax me to the tune of 80%, and I will STILL have my 20 million dollar company. If they tax YOU at 80%, you will NEVER have a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out of.

Are you willing to bet on YOURSELF? Let me give you a bit of advice, take it or leave it as you wish------------------> In a America as we have now, as you age, if you work, your assets GROW! Before long, you are considered the EVIL wealthy, if being considered wealthy is a net worth over say 750,00. It just happens, unless you are absolutely stupid!

And how can it not! If your house is paid off because you are older, you have next to nothing in debt, have a 401K or retirement worth a couple hundred thousand dollars, and you are worth 700,000 or above in most any part of this country. If you are in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, you are pushing 1.5 million or above! All that because you got OLDER!

Eventually, that is going to be YOU, and all you have to do is work, and live your life! Are sure those people are evil? Are you sure, you want to make them BAD people? Are you sure, you want to make YOUR life miserable when you get to that age?

Ever heard the phrase------> "you can pay now, or pay later!" So, when do YOU want to pay? When you are young, and can run, work, and play, all at the same time? Or when you are old, and can't do much of anything?

Your decision is totally yours, but remember----------------> You will NEVER get rich if you choose the latter, EVER! No matter how hard you try! How much do you believe in yourself? That is the billion dollar question!

 

[Kondor3]

I'll try a companion thread to the one on liberal policies.

My response to that thread was "The worst liberal policy is the same it's always been: Lowering standards & expectations for groups it decides are oppressed, and in turn enabling that group's worst behaviors, hurting them and the country in the future."

For this thread, I'd say: The worst conservative policy is their absolute refusal to admit and accept the fact that, in any given socioeconomic system, there will be people who function better within it, and those who function worse within it. And those people are being left behind, FAR behind, with this absolutist anti-government madness that began when the Right took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.

The hardcore Left wrecked our culture; the hardcore Right has wrecked our socioeconomics. A pox on both houses.

Any thoughts?
.

A total and complete departure from the constitution, the rule of law and regular order.
At it's wost with McConnell.

The idea that a SCOTUS seat should be refused for an entire year is anathema to the constitutional norms underpinning our democracy. Complete disregard by the administration for the oversight authority of the congress is another.

Republicans have shown time and again that they have no desire or ability to govern within the prescribed lanes.

Using the filibuster-buster that Harry Reid invented, I believe?

 

[Kondor3]

Worst Conservative policy? That's easy... Trickle-Down Economics.

Never has worked... isn't working now... never will work.

 

[deanrd]

I’ve got it:

Republicans asking foreign governments for help in American elections.

Now we are seeing Trump sending people off to the Ukraine to ask them to provide information for our next election.

 

[imawhosure]

Now that is RIDICULOUS, and your statement is as phony as the day is long.

An equal society is where everyone has the same opportunity, not the same outcome. What you do with your opportunity is YOUR choice. Do not come back to me and claim I owe you something, because you screwed the pooch!

Getting sick and needing medicine is not screwing the pooch. Yet the GOP is actively trying to destroy the ability of a significant portion of the populace to get health care. You don't like socialism? I live in Europe. Here everyone has the same opportunity. Not everybody has the same outcome. What we do better, not by any means perfectly is making sure that that opportunity is the same for everybody. Healthcare is available to all, education on all levels is available to all. This is an equal society by your definition is it not?

In America, we do NOT DENY ANYONE healthcare. Did you know that? They can walk right in to any healthcare center, and they are INSTANTLY taken care of! From what I understand, that is a whole lot faster than you are-)

What YOU are talking about, is HEALTH INSURANCE. Health insurance, is NOT healthcare!

Now my European friend, let me ask you a question-----------> You are sick, really sick! You have your charming and delightful National Healthcare insurance. You go to a facility, and they tell you they will run tests, in 4 months.

I go to MY healthcare facility, and they run the tests the next day, or within 5 days.

YOU DIE because the tests are to late to diagnose your problem. They pay.

I live, but they send me a bill!

Who is better off?

And if you say YOU are, you must be French, because they always surrender-)

I did know one can get primary care in any hospital. My wife is American by the way. No it's not faster then in my country ( although I can't vouch for other European countries). It's actually after that that the US lacks. What you guy do is making it economical unfeasible for certain segments of the populace to receive decent care. I know this because exactly that happened to my brother in law.
As to your question. Again I can't speak for all of Europe honestly, because I don't know how it is in every country in Europe. What I do know that here,( Belgium) . You get seen by a doctor quickly. One even comes to your house if you are not mobile. If you get really sick or hurt care is immediate. As an example I've been having headaches lately a lot. My GP send me to get a CT scan in my local hospital. At no point was there cause for alarm yet I got my scan in 2 weeks. My wife on the other hand, (this was before we got married, so no insurance), broke her ankle here pretty badly. She got seen, operated on in one hectic afternoon. Nobody asked her how she would pay for it and they even made a follow up. This of course is all anecdotal. What isn't that the US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world by far. Yet for most health indicators the US score below most of Europe

Well, at least you are real.

Let me put it to you this way, and I hope you really read this----------------> In a perfect world, I believe that healthcare should be a mix of government subsidies, AND personal control of cost, with the recipient being able to KEEP 1/2 of the subsidy, if he/she comes in UNDER the subsidy, returning the other 1/2 to the government.

Why?

Because then the patient will attempt to get the LOWEST cost for their care, forcing healthcare facilities to COMPETE for their business, just as if you are purchasing a car, or beef, or oil, or natural gas.

Without the patient being given incentives to lower costs to themselves, nobody wins. The providers know if they give good or bad service, they get the same amount, or the patient knowing that no matter the service they receive, the government pays it, no entity has incentive to do anything.

FREEDOM is choice, plain and simple. You will only CHOOSE something different, if it benefits you! Those giving YOU healthcare will want those dollars, so they will alter what they provide by price, or care, so as YOU choose them.

Do you like money? So do they! So by competition, they will try to get more people to spend their healthcare dollars there. And there is only 2 ways to do it. Lower prices, or better care. That is a win-win! And then, you will get facilities who will offer lower prices, and BETTER than average care! If you get to keep 50% of the subsidy, you WILL be looking for that!

This is why SOCIALISM does NOT work! As long as something is free, the product doesn't have to get better, and as long as somebody else pays for it, the price never has to come down!

Actually not true. There is incentive to make it cheap. If healthcare is expensive the government has to make up the shortfall. They have to raise taxes then. You think that wouldn't effect their ability to get reelected. I'll give you a few practical examples, forgive me that they will be again anecdotal. My town population around 35000 is serviced by about 15 people who administrate our health insurance.( State run). Between the people who administer your several health insurance providers, pharmacy techs who's sole job it is to call those providers to fill scrips, medical billing and coders and other staff. How many people does it take to service 35000 people in the US? My GP doesn't have a secretary in fact almost none of them do. That simply isn't possible in the US. Most of the middle men between patient and doctor has been eliminated here, all people you don't have to pay. So is most of the for profit motive. One of my wives friends in the US had a lapband surgery 2 years ago. It took her 2 years, countless doctors visit, and thousands of dollars to get it done. My wife had a gastric bypass last year. It took her 4 months, 1 doctors visit and 1 full day of tests. What's cheaper and more efficient?

Point taken!

How many people reside in Belgium?

Do you have an influx of legal, or illegal aliens, that your government wans to give free healthcare to also?

Do you belong to NATO? And if so, how much does your country pay, allowing more money for social services?

What is YOUR personal tax rate. and are you personally considered middle class?

All these things are pertinent. I am NOT trying to delve into your personal life, that is NOT my objective. Rather, it is to show the stark contrast, between our life and yours, if there is such a disparity.

EXAMPLE----------------> As I type this, because of my (as I believe) lower tax rates, I am a former blue collar worker, partially retired, living in a paid of 2200 square foot house, in my rec room that has a wet bar, on 1/4 acre, with 3 vehicles in my driveway, AND a 36 foot RV(recreational vehicle) I can travel my beautiful country with, whenever I choose.

This is my life, with low tax rates, without NATIONAL HEALTHCARE!

Of course, I DO have healthcare, because I worked, retired, and my former employer pays for it!

Sooooooooooooooooo, if I live better than you do being just a former blue collar worker, you are suggesting that I live less, so that those who made BAD decisions in life, have healthcare, while I give up my stuff to make them happy.

Is that how the world is supposed to work?

And I will inform you---------->while working where I worked, I watched THOUSANDS of people hire in, and QUIT! The work was NOT worth the pay, or benefits they were to receive. NOW you want me to SUBSIDIZE those same people? You are kidding me, correct!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You think you are screwing the rich, lol.

No I don't. You think that. I think the rich will still be rich. And I think there will be more of them.

 

[Darkwind]

I'll try a companion thread to the one on liberal policies.

My response to that thread was "The worst liberal policy is the same it's always been: Lowering standards & expectations for groups it decides are oppressed, and in turn enabling that group's worst behaviors, hurting them and the country in the future."

For this thread, I'd say: The worst conservative policy is their absolute refusal to admit and accept the fact that, in any given socioeconomic system, there will be people who function better within it, and those who function worse within it. And those people are being left behind, FAR behind, with this absolutist anti-government madness that began when the Right took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.

The hardcore Left has wrecked our culture; the hardcore Right has wrecked our socioeconomics. A pox on both houses.

Any thoughts?
.

There are no conservative policies currently being in effect in the U.S. today.

 

[dblack]

There is incentive to make it cheap. If healthcare is expensive the government has to make up the shortfall. They have to raise taxes then.

No, they don't. And that's the problem.

Lol yes they do. Running up a deficit is even worse in Belgium then raising taxes for reelection.

Ahh.. my mistake. I thought you were talking about the US. There's no balanced budget requirement here. Politicians can push this stuff off on future administrations, so there is very little incentive for government to save money.

 

[sparky]

Sooooooooooooooooo, if I live better than you do being just a former blue collar worker, you are suggesting that I live less, so that those who made BAD decisions in life, have healthcare, while I give up my stuff to make them happy.

Is that how the world is supposed to work?

I'm a blue collar red neck , living large off the sweat of my brow. In fact i built my pwn farm, my own biz, owe nuthin' to nobody .

And i could pat myself on the back, call myself a self made man, anyone who visits me would agree i've played my cards right, where i could be smug and claim it so.

But nothing could be further from truth, there are no self made men, libertopia isn't reality, and by far and large the game is rigged in America

Nothing here is a meritocracy.

Nothing about us is moral.

We'd eat each other in a cocaine heartbeat to gain a leg up

We're all about lauding winners , while demonizing loosers, in a system designed for failure.

THAT is socially engineered from the womb here, so much that we're literally blinded by our own gestalt

~S~

 

[Weatherman2020]

I'll try a companion thread to the one on liberal policies.

My response to that thread was "The worst liberal policy is the same it's always been: Lowering standards & expectations for groups it decides are oppressed, and in turn enabling that group's worst behaviors, hurting them and the country in the future."

For this thread, I'd say: The worst conservative policy is their absolute refusal to admit and accept the fact that, in any given socioeconomic system, there will be people who function better within it, and those who function worse within it. And those people are being left behind, FAR behind, with this absolutist anti-government madness that began when the Right took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.

The hardcore Left has wrecked our culture; the hardcore Right has wrecked our socioeconomics. A pox on both houses.

Any thoughts?
.

What is the most destructive Conservative policy in the US today?

To capitulate to leftist policies:
Unions in government
Spending
Taxes
Etc etc

 

[imawhosure]

Sooooooooooooooooo, if I live better than you do being just a former blue collar worker, you are suggesting that I live less, so that those who made BAD decisions in life, have healthcare, while I give up my stuff to make them happy.

Is that how the world is supposed to work?

I'm a blue collar red neck , living large off the sweat of my brow. In fact i built my pwn farm, my own biz, owe nuthin' to nobody .

And i could pat myself on the back, call myself a self made man, anyone who visits me would agree i've played my cards right, where i could be smug and claim it so.

But nothing could be further from truth, there are no self made men, libertopia isn't reality, and by far and large the game is rigged in America

Nothing here is a meritocracy.

Nothing about us is moral.

We'd eat each other in a cocaine heartbeat to gain a leg up

We're all about lauding winners , while demonizing loosers, in a system designed for failure.

THAT is socially engineered from the womb here, so much that we're literally blinded by our own gestalt

~S~

I do not know what you are trying to say.

But, if it is somehow everyone else got screwed because you got ahead, feel free to give any amount of your stuff away. Nobody is stopping you!

In America, everyone can do with their stuff whatever they wish. (unless of course their wife says no, lol) I/we have no problem if someone decides to just give whatever they have accrued away; after all, it is their stuff!

What we DO have a problem with is----------------->when they decide that because THEY decide to give their personal stuff away, that we to should just give it away, because they decided to!

What kind of car you got sparky? I want to drive it TODAY...…………..no wait, let me get to you, then I will demand you let me drive it! Maybe even your tractor!

You say no? Why not?!?!?!?!?!?! It is YOUR stuff, and you are just going to give it away any how-)

What you say? Wait until I die, correct?

Oh, IC, now you want to put on restrictions that fit YOU! Funny how that works, when it is YOUR stuff!

 

[Dekster]

I'll try a companion thread to the one on liberal policies.

My response to that thread was "The worst liberal policy is the same it's always been: Lowering standards & expectations for groups it decides are oppressed, and in turn enabling that group's worst behaviors, hurting them and the country in the future."

For this thread, I'd say: The worst conservative policy is their absolute refusal to admit and accept the fact that, in any given socioeconomic system, there will be people who function better within it, and those who function worse within it. And those people are being left behind, FAR behind, with this absolutist anti-government madness that began when the Right took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.

The hardcore Left has wrecked our culture; the hardcore Right has wrecked our socioeconomics. A pox on both houses.

Any thoughts?
.

Their refusal to fully fund any social safety net program at levels that truly take burdens off people.

 

[Care4all]

THIS BELOW is the most destructive Conservative policy that will destroy our Nation, if it hasn't already. Republicans turning a blind eye to it, MAKES IT their policy.


At the turn of the 18th century, a newly elected president of the United States—only the second in the nation’s then-brief history—cautioned the American people about “the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.” In particular, John Adams pointed to threats from abroad, warning that if a changed election outcome “can be obtained by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror, intrigue, or venality, the Government may not be the choice of the American people, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations who govern us, and not we, the people, who govern ourselves.” Speaking before a joint session of Congress, he thus pleaded with the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives to “[preserve] our Constitution from its natural enemies,” including “the profligacy of corruption, and the pestilence of foreign influence, which is the angel of destruction to elective governments.” Following the Money: Trump and Russia-Linked Transactions From the Campaign to the Presidential Inauguration - Center for American Progress

 

[Hutch Starskey]

To some degree the GOP is also rigged.

Nonsense. The GOP is rigged to the exact same degree as the Dems.

LOL...
Sure...show us the map of gerrymandered districts by party.