Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Rustic]

I don't have the slightest idea of what your point is. My point is simply that the republicans, by blocking single payer health insurance, have, instead, saddled employers with the cost of health insurance, making manufacturers uncompetitive in the world market, and then blaming unions for the decline in sales of American cars.

Try to focus.

Single payer has to be paid by somebody... they will object

Single payer actually means everyone will be paying for the single higher government types getting all the healthcare and everyone else get's nothing. But you get to pay for it so maybe the term should be changed to single beneficiary.

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

No, you're delusional.
No one Can afford these socialist entitlement programs...
Only ******* inbred morons like yourself would trust the federal government.

Every other modern country does, and without our advantages in natural resources. Don't worry, we can still be loudmouth rubes lol. If you GOP dupes would study actual facts the gov't wouldn't be screwing us all now with pander to the rich GOP garbage.

Every other country that does it cannot afford it, we would be in the same boat....

 

[francoHFW]

No one starts/runs a business just to hire people… Dip shit

I don't have the slightest idea of what your point is. My point is simply that the republicans, by blocking single payer health insurance, have, instead, saddled employers with the cost of health insurance, making manufacturers uncompetitive in the world market, and then blaming unions for the decline in sales of American cars.

Try to focus.

Single payer has to be paid by somebody... they will object

Single payer actually means everyone will be paying for the single higher government types getting all the healthcare and everyone else get's nothing. But you get to pay for it so maybe the term should be changed to single beneficiary.

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

And yet that has never happened anywhere in the world. There is no single payer system on the planet that let's the average person get the same healthcare as the government official. As a matter of fact a lot of these government official's get to come to the US for treatment at their tax payers expense. Everyone paying in simply means you get to pay for something you will never receive. You're paying for anyone but you.

Only if they're independently wealthy...so much bs misinformation... All other modern countries have better life spans than us and we spend 18% of GDP on health care. France is closest with 11%- UK is less than 8%. That's why our premiums and deductibles have to be so high- or we can do it the old GOP way, with scams, cut-offs, a half million bankruptcies a year, and 40k deaths a year.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Unless the single payer plan is as draconian as Cuba, how would you prevent doctors from going into private practice for cash? A lot of cash.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Venezuela is the model of the left.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Not that it is any of your business, but what should he be making? how much does he get to keep? do you pay more in taxes than he does?

Because if you are to be taken seriously, at $37,000/hr he pays far more in taxes than you even make...far more, which under the left wing system means he does far more for the poor than you do, if you really want to hurt the poor, let that guy pay what you pay in taxes, that would be hurting them.

And he's paying far less than what he should be.

says who...he does far more for the poor than you do, want to hurt the poor, let him pay what you pay

 

[francoHFW]

Somebody needs to inform him that the conservatives of the past were even more "selfish" and to drop his faux philosopher act.

So does that mean that today's selfishness is ok because it is of a lesser degree?

Your party is a lying cheating disgrace, and you're an idiot. LOL

It's like you've never heard of a democrat before specifically a Clinton.

LOVED Carter, JFK, RFK, Truman, FDR, and LBJ. The only Good GOPers were Lincoln and TR. Ike was an Indie.

I'm a hypocrite? I'm lying? BS. I never call you a liar, just a dupe. I call Murdoch, Adelson, Moon, Scaife, Bannon liars. Read the book.

Loved Carter. Anyone else need more information to know why we're dealing with a moron dupe? Anyone?

HE didn't kill the Golden Goose- Reaganists did, dupe.
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Damn, a repost. Still not meaning much here but congrats on keeping your talking points handy.

And I am kind of wondering how you're going to spin the Clinton years. You always claim they were the best so if that was true but Reagan's boom years weren't then how did it all get worse under Clinton?

Reagan's boom was built on debt and an S+L bubble. Clinton on a Dot Com bubble but no combat deaths, like Carter. Obama got ACA thru, averted ANOTHER GOP corrupt world depression. As far as I'm concerned, the country's been going downhill since Raygun sold it to the rich... see above.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Republicans are Cruel to The Poor because the poor have

NO RIGHT TO LIFE.

According to Lefty Logic the only Rights they have are to be Wards/Slaves of The State and then die paying taxes or die sucking up tax dollars from someone else.

Just abort the poor. Now that would be a real War On Poverty Lefty would totally be down with.

They need the votes. They have to keep them barely alive with the promise they are going to take someone else's money and hand it over to them for the sweet life. No need to earn anything just vote for a dem and sit back and wait for the riches to roll in. You can get a limo ride to the doctor if we get single payer. You can make 15 bucks an hour if we just take all the owners money away. We can have electric cars as long as someone else pays for them so you can afford one. That dude in the shower with your daughter is actually feeling like a girl so ignore the hard on. That illegal who is going to force her in the toilet stall and rape her with his friend isn't your problem, it's your racism. Those muslims that blow shit up aren't muslims you hater. They are just trying to belong. That warm day we had is probably global warming, we should tax something for that. Holy shit it's cold, probably global warming. We should tax something for that. Eventually we can tax our way to the entire country having nothing but sunshine and 70 degree days.

Oh yeah, and if we don't get all this shit we want we will riot and burn things and kill cops and attack people while wearing masks because we don't want anyone to know who we are.

That's the left. You want any part of that?

 

[Flopper]

Not knowing the specifics of your church, I'll try not to discourage your efforts to do good. However, from my experience GENERALLY, church charities shelter tax revenues that would go as far or farther in providing for the poor if they were collected.

how do you figure that?

I base my information on the predominant local church. They collect 10% from their members which is tax exempt meaning that given an average tax rate of 15%, they prevent 1.5% from being collected. The church spends about 1% of what they collect on charity. There's a shortfall of 0.5%.

Which part is tithe which part is offering?

What's the difference?

Tithe is the 10% of their earnings members of a church pledge to give each pay period. This money goes to pay the Pastor, up keep
Of the church, pay missionaries,teachers if they have an affiliated school etc...

Offering is money Christians choose to give outside of tithe. This usually goes to their charitable organizations or to raise money to help needy members.

Some churches also have thrift stores that help raise money for their food panties, urban gardens, outreach programs etc...Members also donate money,time and goods to these. Outside of tithe and offering.

The churches provide less than 1/10 of the funds that go to the poor in the US.

 

[francoHFW]

Venezuela is the model of the left.

That's a poor 3rd word country that crashed with oil prices. The socialists DID cut homelessness and illiteracy to the bone in 8 years...ACTUALLY, we go with France, Germany, Scandinavia, Canada, OZ, and NZ. All MUCH happier than here in the New BS GOP land of the Rich A-Hole.

 

[francoHFW]

Republicans are Cruel to The Poor because the poor have

NO RIGHT TO LIFE.

According to Lefty Logic the only Rights they have are to be Wards/Slaves of The State and then die paying taxes or die sucking up tax dollars from someone else.

Just abort the poor. Now that would be a real War On Poverty Lefty would totally be down with.

They need the votes. They have to keep them barely alive with the promise they are going to take someone else's money and hand it over to them for the sweet life. No need to earn anything just vote for a dem and sit back and wait for the riches to roll in. You can get a limo ride to the doctor if we get single payer. You can make 15 bucks an hour if we just take all the owners money away. We can have electric cars as long as someone else pays for them so you can afford one. That dude in the shower with your daughter is actually feeling like a girl so ignore the hard on. That illegal who is going to force her in the toilet stall and rape her with his friend isn't your problem, it's your racism. Those muslims that blow shit up aren't muslims you hater. They are just trying to belong. That warm day we had is probably global warming, we should tax something for that. Holy shit it's cold, probably global warming. We should tax something for that. Eventually we can tax our way to the entire country having nothing but sunshine and 70 degree days.

Oh yeah, and if we don't get all this shit we want we will riot and burn things and kill cops and attack people while wearing masks because we don't want anyone to know who we are.

That's the left. You want any part of that?

Crazy bs...How bout cheaper education and training and spending something on infrastructure for a change. MUST SAVE THE RICH....rw idiocy. Keep voting for tax cuts on the rich and stupid wars...

 

[Flash]

[Q

They don't want your once in a blue moon charity, dupe. They want good jobs, cheap training and ed, and a good safety net for the next corrupt GOP world economic meltdown and day to day misfortune.

Yea, "they" want things given to them, don't they? That training and safety net cost somebody else their hard earned money.

They sure as hell didn't get what they wanted by voting for Obama, did they? All they got was more poverty, less family income, dismal economic growth and tremendous debt for their children.

If "they" wanted prosperity they never should never have voted for Liberals. Liberals only deliver empty promises and class warfare.

 

[Flopper]

100+ pages and we still have over half the people arguing that you can't care about the poor unless you are liberal and giving the money of others to them.

Government will never be the mechanism to best help the poor. And no matter how many people want to pretend you are not justified in ignoring the poor because government programs exist. Go out and feed someone.

There is one thing we've never tried (at least in my lifetime) to end poverty, and that is to end the handouts.

If you get hungry enough, you'll take one of those jobs posted at every corner of every street in the US. If your income is not enough, you will work more hours to bring in that income. If there is nothing incentivizing you to not work more hours, you may end up working 60 plus hours a week.

I would love to see all handouts stopped for a period of two years just to see the end results. I'd bet a months paycheck we would reduce poverty more that way than giving people money they didn't work for. I bet with no handouts, less people would enter poverty in the first place. Like I said, it's never been tried. The closest we came to that was in the 90's with welfare reform, and that was a huge success.

But why look back at what worked? Just listen to liberals to solve poverty.

Take away food from the poor and you have a lot hungry people.
Take away housing from the poor and you have a lot more homeless people.
Take away healthcare from the poor and you have more sick people.

In the US you have 9 million single parent families on welfare which includes 19 million kids. Take away government support and you'll have more runaways, child prostitution, and juvenile crime. With very rare exception, a single mother in poverty can not make enough money to support a family and care for the kids.

I'm quite aware of that, and do you know why? Because these are the same promises liberals made to us before welfare reform began. Between the time the law passed until it's implementation, we were promised riots in the streets, decomposed bodies of people from starvation, children running naked with no place to live, stores closed down and boarded up so nobody got any food.............. It never happened.

What will hungry people do with no food? Earn money to buy food.
What will people do with no HUD home in the suburbs? Seek shelter in the inner-city

How do we know most people would react this way? Because it's a basic law of electricity which also applies to people.

Electricity will take it's least path of resistance to travel. People do the exact same to survive.

You need food, and you have two choices A) government giving you food, or B) Go out and work for food. Now, what's is that path of least resistance to obtain food? What about shelter? What about utilities?

You on the left don't give people enough credit. If forced to, people would rather live another day to fight than to give up, crawl into a corner and die just because government isn't there to take care of them.

First off, 50% of those receiving government welfare have jobs, mostly par time and temp jobs.

Secondly, the majority of those that do not work at all either have to care for a number of children, have drug or alcohol addiction problems, mental problems, physical disabilities, lack of education, lack of any job training, or a criminal background. They are poor candidates for even minimum wage jobs. I have worked around these people in food banks and a homeless shelter. Believe me you would not even consider hiring most of them.

The biggest misconception about the poor on welfare is they prefer to sit on their butt watching TV all day, in crappy apartments in crime filled neighborhoods, with little money, and no future.

My major concern with a proposal to stop all goverment assistance to the poor is not so much for the poor but for the effect it would have on all society. However, the chance of this happens is about zero so it's hardly worth discussing.

BTW Welfare Reform Act did not take away all welfare. It simply reduced the amount time a family could stay on welfare. Many programs such Medicaid, food stamps, and other programs it had no effect.

 

[francoHFW]

Single payer has to be paid by somebody... they will object

Single payer actually means everyone will be paying for the single higher government types getting all the healthcare and everyone else get's nothing. But you get to pay for it so maybe the term should be changed to single beneficiary.

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

No, you're delusional.
No one Can afford these socialist entitlement programs...
Only ******* inbred morons like yourself would trust the federal government.

Every other modern country does, and without our advantages in natural resources. Don't worry, we can still be loudmouth rubes lol. If you GOP dupes would study actual facts the gov't wouldn't be screwing us all now with pander to the rich GOP garbage.

Every other country that does it cannot afford it, we would be in the same boat....

They were doing great until the GOP blew up the world in 2008. And couldn't frack their way out of it so fast...

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I don't have the slightest idea of what your point is. My point is simply that the republicans, by blocking single payer health insurance, have, instead, saddled employers with the cost of health insurance, making manufacturers uncompetitive in the world market, and then blaming unions for the decline in sales of American cars.

Try to focus.

Single payer has to be paid by somebody... they will object

Single payer actually means everyone will be paying for the single higher government types getting all the healthcare and everyone else get's nothing. But you get to pay for it so maybe the term should be changed to single beneficiary.

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

And yet that has never happened anywhere in the world. There is no single payer system on the planet that let's the average person get the same healthcare as the government official. As a matter of fact a lot of these government official's get to come to the US for treatment at their tax payers expense. Everyone paying in simply means you get to pay for something you will never receive. You're paying for anyone but you.

Only if they're independently wealthy...so much bs misinformation... All other modern countries have better life spans than us and we spend 18% of GDP on health care. France is closest with 11%- UK is less than 8%. That's why our premiums and deductibles have to be so high- or we can do it the old GOP way, with scams, cut-offs, a half million bankruptcies a year, and 40k deaths a year.

In socialism nobody is independently wealthy you moron. The government took all of that. The only rich people are government officials who obviously didn't create their wealth they just stole it form the people they claim to be helping.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

100+ pages and we still have over half the people arguing that you can't care about the poor unless you are liberal and giving the money of others to them.

Government will never be the mechanism to best help the poor. And no matter how many people want to pretend you are not justified in ignoring the poor because government programs exist. Go out and feed someone.

There is one thing we've never tried (at least in my lifetime) to end poverty, and that is to end the handouts.

If you get hungry enough, you'll take one of those jobs posted at every corner of every street in the US. If your income is not enough, you will work more hours to bring in that income. If there is nothing incentivizing you to not work more hours, you may end up working 60 plus hours a week.

I would love to see all handouts stopped for a period of two years just to see the end results. I'd bet a months paycheck we would reduce poverty more that way than giving people money they didn't work for. I bet with no handouts, less people would enter poverty in the first place. Like I said, it's never been tried. The closest we came to that was in the 90's with welfare reform, and that was a huge success.

But why look back at what worked? Just listen to liberals to solve poverty.

Take away food from the poor and you have a lot hungry people.
Take away housing from the poor and you have a lot more homeless people.
Take away healthcare from the poor and you have more sick people.

In the US you have 9 million single parent families on welfare which includes 19 million kids. Take away government support and you'll have more runaways, child prostitution, and juvenile crime. With very rare exception, a single mother in poverty can not make enough money to support a family and care for the kids.

I'm quite aware of that, and do you know why? Because these are the same promises liberals made to us before welfare reform began. Between the time the law passed until it's implementation, we were promised riots in the streets, decomposed bodies of people from starvation, children running naked with no place to live, stores closed down and boarded up so nobody got any food.............. It never happened.

What will hungry people do with no food? Earn money to buy food.
What will people do with no HUD home in the suburbs? Seek shelter in the inner-city

How do we know most people would react this way? Because it's a basic law of electricity which also applies to people.

Electricity will take it's least path of resistance to travel. People do the exact same to survive.

You need food, and you have two choices A) government giving you food, or B) Go out and work for food. Now, what's is that path of least resistance to obtain food? What about shelter? What about utilities?

You on the left don't give people enough credit. If forced to, people would rather live another day to fight than to give up, crawl into a corner and die just because government isn't there to take care of them.

First off, 50% of those receiving government welfare have jobs, mostly par time and temp jobs.

Secondly, the majority of those that do not work at all either have to care for a number of children, have drug or alcohol addiction problems, mental problems, physical disabilities, lack of education, lack of any job training, or a criminal background. They are poor candidates for even minimum wage jobs. I have worked around these people in food banks and a homeless shelter. Believe me you would not even consider hiring most of them.

My major concern with a proposal to stop all goverment assistance to the poor is not so much for the poor but for the effect it would have on all society. However, the chance of this happens is about zero so it's hardly worth discussing.

Then let me ask: why is it I can support myself because I never had children, never became addicted to alcohol or drugs, had a lack of education or job training, or have a criminal record?

You see..... these are called choices. We all make choices in life. As for those legitimately physically or mentally incapable of taking care of themselves, we as a society do take care of those people.

Our government can't create programs to rectify bad choices in life. When somebody makes a bad choice, they have to live with the consequences. If you are a 18 year old punk who doesn't know any better and tries to rob a bank, you may end up in prison for over 20 years. if you make the mistake of murdering somebody, it may cost you your life.

 

[francoHFW]

[Q

They don't want your once in a blue moon charity, dupe. They want good jobs, cheap training and ed, and a good safety net for the next corrupt GOP world economic meltdown and day to day misfortune.

Yea, "they" want things given to them, don't they? That training and safety net cost somebody else their hard earned money.

They sure as hell didn't get what they wanted by voting for Obama, did they? All they got was more poverty, less family income, dismal economic growth and tremendous debt for their children.

If "they" wanted prosperity they never should never have voted for Liberals. Liberals only deliver empty promises and class warfare.

We HAD a progressive golden age 1945-80, dupe. Since then down the drain except for the rich. And we HAD all that stuff until we had to save the rich. Reaganism rolls on...At least Obama had no S+L or real estate bubble..

 

[Missouri_Mike]

100+ pages and we still have over half the people arguing that you can't care about the poor unless you are liberal and giving the money of others to them.

Government will never be the mechanism to best help the poor. And no matter how many people want to pretend you are not justified in ignoring the poor because government programs exist. Go out and feed someone.

There is one thing we've never tried (at least in my lifetime) to end poverty, and that is to end the handouts.

If you get hungry enough, you'll take one of those jobs posted at every corner of every street in the US. If your income is not enough, you will work more hours to bring in that income. If there is nothing incentivizing you to not work more hours, you may end up working 60 plus hours a week.

I would love to see all handouts stopped for a period of two years just to see the end results. I'd bet a months paycheck we would reduce poverty more that way than giving people money they didn't work for. I bet with no handouts, less people would enter poverty in the first place. Like I said, it's never been tried. The closest we came to that was in the 90's with welfare reform, and that was a huge success.

But why look back at what worked? Just listen to liberals to solve poverty.

Take away food from the poor and you have a lot hungry people.
Take away housing from the poor and you have a lot more homeless people.
Take away healthcare from the poor and you have more sick people.

In the US you have 9 million single parent families on welfare which includes 19 million kids. Take away government support and you'll have more runaways, child prostitution, and juvenile crime. With very rare exception, a single mother in poverty can not make enough money to support a family and care for the kids.

I'm quite aware of that, and do you know why? Because these are the same promises liberals made to us before welfare reform began. Between the time the law passed until it's implementation, we were promised riots in the streets, decomposed bodies of people from starvation, children running naked with no place to live, stores closed down and boarded up so nobody got any food.............. It never happened.

What will hungry people do with no food? Earn money to buy food.
What will people do with no HUD home in the suburbs? Seek shelter in the inner-city

How do we know most people would react this way? Because it's a basic law of electricity which also applies to people.

Electricity will take it's least path of resistance to travel. People do the exact same to survive.

You need food, and you have two choices A) government giving you food, or B) Go out and work for food. Now, what's is that path of least resistance to obtain food? What about shelter? What about utilities?

You on the left don't give people enough credit. If forced to, people would rather live another day to fight than to give up, crawl into a corner and die just because government isn't there to take care of them.

First off, 50% of those receiving government welfare have jobs, mostly par time and temp jobs.

Secondly, the majority of those that do not work at all either have to care for a number of children, have drug or alcohol addiction problems, mental problems, physical disabilities, lack of education, lack of any job training, or a criminal background. They are poor candidates for even minimum wage jobs. I have worked around these people in food banks and a homeless shelter. Believe me you would not even consider hiring most of them.

My major concern with a proposal to stop all goverment assistance to the poor is not so much for the poor but for the effect it would have on all society. However, the chance of this happens is about zero so it's hardly worth discussing.

So you spend/waste all of your time doing all you can for people you don't think are even capable of standing on their own. Actually you never said you did that. You just want all of us to pay for someone else to do it.

 

[francoHFW]

Single payer has to be paid by somebody... they will object

Single payer actually means everyone will be paying for the single higher government types getting all the healthcare and everyone else get's nothing. But you get to pay for it so maybe the term should be changed to single beneficiary.

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

And yet that has never happened anywhere in the world. There is no single payer system on the planet that let's the average person get the same healthcare as the government official. As a matter of fact a lot of these government official's get to come to the US for treatment at their tax payers expense. Everyone paying in simply means you get to pay for something you will never receive. You're paying for anyone but you.

Only if they're independently wealthy...so much bs misinformation... All other modern countries have better life spans than us and we spend 18% of GDP on health care. France is closest with 11%- UK is less than 8%. That's why our premiums and deductibles have to be so high- or we can do it the old GOP way, with scams, cut-offs, a half million bankruptcies a year, and 40k deaths a year.

In socialism nobody is independently wealthy you moron. The government took all of that. The only rich people are government officials who obviously didn't create their wealth they just stole it form the people they claim to be helping.

There are plenty of rich people in socialist EU, Canada, OZ, NZ, dupe. Just not on the backs of the non-rich like here...

 

[francoHFW]

Unless the single payer plan is as draconian as Cuba, how would you prevent doctors from going into private practice for cash? A lot of cash.

That's not single payer, that's COMMUNISM, Canada is, and they love it...and everywhere else that's modern.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The facts are the industrialists cashed in short term profits while they refused to invest in the modernization of their facilities. It was management who designed and built crappy cars nobody wanted.....the workers just did what they were told

Short term? How many decades was the auto industry based in and around Detroit building plants and turning out tens of millions of automobiles?

You have yet to point out how those manufacturers "used up" Detroit. The Unions forced our cars to be more expensive, leaving a huge market for lower priced moving into the market.

To be competitive, they were forced out of Detroit causing the collapse of a formerly great city.

Ford has been paying more for health insurance for their employees and families than they have been paying for steel, since 1977. Oddly enough, that system of employer group health plans, instead of single payer plans, like Medicare for all, is just peachy with the Right. But, when I hear that the Right blames the unions of the demise of American auto manufacturers, instead of on the ridiculous employer group health plan system, I marvel at the hypocrisy.

No one starts/runs a business just to hire people… Dip shit

I don't have the slightest idea of what your point is. My point is simply that the republicans, by blocking single payer health insurance, have, instead, saddled employers with the cost of health insurance, making manufacturers uncompetitive in the world market, and then blaming unions for the decline in sales of American cars.

Try to focus.

Single payer has to be paid by somebody... they will object

Then when American manufacturers can not compete in the world market, don't go whining about unions. Every other nation in the industrialized world taxes citizens who are insured, rather than making employers pay, and be uncompetitive.