Article II

[AZGrizFan]

It was written with a built in mechanism for changing it, Treep

You seem to prefer just whining about democracy while the amendment process is as democratic as it gets

Instead of trying to overrule by fiat those Americans you obviously hate, why not seek out a system that caters to your tastes?

I can think of a couple


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Will you remember your own words when things take a U-turn?

Why would you want the country to take a U-turn away from the greatest economy it’s ever experienced?

[SDHornet]

Will you remember your own words when things take a U-turn?

Why would you want the country to take a U-turn away from the greatest economy it’s ever experienced?

Whoops.

[SDHornet]

I'm not disagreeing with YOU. I'm disagreeing with the statement.

Ah, got you.

Yeah. Amend or STFU. We have a way of changing the laws in the country. Let's use them.

[∞∞∞]

Why would you want the country to take a U-turn away from the greatest economy it’s ever experienced?

Whoops.

I guess we're just ignoring the spiking deficit, or deficit-to-growth ratio.

I can borrow a ton of money too and make my life instantly better...even more so when I can just push it on my children. But I'm sure the question of debt is only applicable to Donks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ficit-now/

...The real problem with Trump’s fiscal stewardship (if you can call it that) isn’t that he’s increasing the deficit, it’s that we aren’t getting much for it: no infrastructure, no improved health, nothing that will constitute a good investment that yields dividends for years to come. A bunch of corporations are padding their bottom lines, which is good for wealthy shareholders. And the military spending is good for the defense industry. But we’re not getting nearly the long-term returns from spending that we could if we invested in some of the things Democrats are asking for...

...if it’s becoming more accepted that 1) Republicans don’t care about deficits and never did; they merely use the specter of debt as a weapon to keep Democrats from spending money on programs that will be popular, and 2) deficits aren’t as much of a problem as we’ve been led to believe, then how about we change the way we talk about those programs Democrats advocate?

I’m not saying we should never discuss how much something such as universal health care or a Green New Deal will cost. But at the moment, those kinds of proposals are inevitably greeted with “How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to raise taxes? Are you? Are you? Answer the question!!!”...

...Democrats should just start saying the same thing about all their proposals. Universal pre-K? Don’t worry about how much it costs; it’s going to pay for itself. National health care? Oh, that’ll pay for itself. Forgiving all student debt? Yep, it’ll pay for itself.

As Republicans have shown, what matters isn’t whether it’s true, it’s whether you say it with confidence. Do that, and eventually people will stop asking.

[Baldy]

Whoops.

I guess we're just ignoring the spiking deficit, or deficit-to-growth ratio.

I can borrow a ton of money too and make my life instantly better...even more so when I can just push it on my children. But I'm sure the question of debt is only applicable to Donks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ficit-now/

...The real problem with Trump’s fiscal stewardship (if you can call it that) isn’t that he’s increasing the deficit, it’s that we aren’t getting much for it: no infrastructure, no improved health, nothing that will constitute a good investment that yields dividends for years to come. A bunch of corporations are padding their bottom lines, which is good for wealthy shareholders. And the military spending is good for the defense industry. But we’re not getting nearly the long-term returns from spending that we could if we invested in some of the things Democrats are asking for...

...if it’s becoming more accepted that 1) Republicans don’t care about deficits and never did; they merely use the specter of debt as a weapon to keep Democrats from spending money on programs that will be popular, and 2) deficits aren’t as much of a problem as we’ve been led to believe, then how about we change the way we talk about those programs Democrats advocate?

I’m not saying we should never discuss how much something such as universal health care or a Green New Deal will cost. But at the moment, those kinds of proposals are inevitably greeted with “How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to raise taxes? Are you? Are you? Answer the question!!!”...

...Democrats should just start saying the same thing about all their proposals. Universal pre-K? Don’t worry about how much it costs; it’s going to pay for itself. National health care? Oh, that’ll pay for itself. Forgiving all student debt? Yep, it’ll pay for itself.

As Republicans have shown, what matters isn’t whether it’s true, it’s whether you say it with confidence. Do that, and eventually people will stop asking.

ALL this coming from the free college, free health care, free universal basic income cheerleader.

[∞∞∞]

ALL this coming from the free college, free health care, free universal basic income cheerleader.

Free? I've always argued an increase of taxes for them. I've simply argued that the majority of the tax increase would be directed towards ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations.

This is in addition to reforming college/health care to be more efficient.

Stop spending so much on corporate welfare and the damn military.

[Baldy]

ALL this coming from the free college, free health care, free universal basic income cheerleader.

Free? I've always argued an increase of taxes for them. I've simply argued that the majority of the tax increase would be directed towards ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations.

Whose taxes, and by how much?
Show your work.

Unless you plan to widen the tax base by a w-i-d-e margin (Donks will never let that happen), the majority of people who receive won't be paying for those "benefits" ... i.e. FREE.

[∞∞∞]

Free? I've always argued an increase of taxes for them. I've simply argued that the majority of the tax increase would be directed towards ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations.

Whose taxes, and by how much?
Show your work.

Unless you plan to widen the tax base by a w-i-d-e margin (Donks will never let that happen), the majority of people who receive won't be paying for those "benefits" ... i.e. FREE.

No thanks.

I'm going to ignore the mathematics explanations like conservatives do with their policies.

[Ibanez]

ALL this coming from the free college, free health care, free universal basic income cheerleader.

Free? I've always argued an increase of taxes for them. I've simply argued that the majority of the tax increase would be directed towards ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations.

This is in addition to reforming college/health care to be more efficient.

Stop spending so much on corporate welfare and the damn military.

I’d be interested in universal healthcare. But I’m not sure where the numbers that were thrown out came from. 20% of paychecks go to insurance? A 4% tax to replace then insurance premiums? I’d like to see the math.



I’d also like to see how many people in the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical industries will lose their jobs over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

Free? I've always argued an increase of taxes for them. I've simply argued that the majority of the tax increase would be directed towards ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations.

This is in addition to reforming college/health care to be more efficient.

Stop spending so much on corporate welfare and the damn military.

I’d be interested in universal healthcare. But I’m not sure where the numbers that were thrown out came from. 20% of paychecks go to insurance? A 4% tax to replace then insurance premiums? I’d like to see the math.



I’d also like to see how many people in the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical industries will lose their jobs over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The answer is..........not everyone.
There is no way that a supplemental insurance won't be necessary (See Canada). People on Medicare right now know that it doesn't pay for everything and that a supplemental is necessary.
Insurance companies will still have their doors open. And it will be a slow creep towards where we are right now.

[kalm]

I guess we're just ignoring the spiking deficit, or deficit-to-growth ratio.

I can borrow a ton of money too and make my life instantly better...even more so when I can just push it on my children. But I'm sure the question of debt is only applicable to Donks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ficit-now/

ALL this coming from the free college, free health care, free universal basic income cheerleader.

None of its free but all of it can provide an ROI.

[kalm]

I’d be interested in universal healthcare. But I’m not sure where the numbers that were thrown out came from. 20% of paychecks go to insurance? A 4% tax to replace then insurance premiums? I’d like to see the math.



I’d also like to see how many people in the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical industries will lose their jobs over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The answer is..........not everyone.
There is no way that a supplemental insurance won't be necessary (See Canada). People on Medicare right now know that it doesn't pay for everything and that a supplemental is necessary.
Insurance companies will still have their doors open. And it will be a slow creep towards where we are right now.

But what about the buggy makers?

[CAA Flagship]

ALL this coming from the free college, free health care, free universal basic income cheerleader.

None of its free but all of it can provide an ROI.

How would it compare to the ROI now?

[Ibanez]

I’d be interested in universal healthcare. But I’m not sure where the numbers that were thrown out came from. 20% of paychecks go to insurance? A 4% tax to replace then insurance premiums? I’d like to see the math.



I’d also like to see how many people in the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical industries will lose their jobs over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The answer is..........not everyone.
There is no way that a supplemental insurance won't be necessary (See Canada). People on Medicare right now know that it doesn't pay for everything and that a supplemental is necessary.
Insurance companies will still have their doors open. And it will be a slow creep towards where we are right now.

I know it won't be total. I would make the assumption that many of them would find work in the massive new bureaucracy that was just created. More people working for the government. It'll be a mess.

But that sort of goes to my point - you won't destroy these companies however you will take a boat load of money out of their pockets. With lobbying being what it is, do we really believe that President Sanders or Warren will be able to accomplish Universal Healthcare?

[kalm]

None of its free but all of it can provide an ROI.

How would it compare to the ROI now?

Good question. For example, a bunch of middle men profit from student loans and health insurance under the current system. Does that money go back into the economy? Sure. Given the amount of student loan debt alone I’m not sure If that’s much more efficient or not.

[Ibanez]

How would it compare to the ROI now?

Good question. For example, a bunch of middle men profit from student loans and health insurance under the current system. Does that money go back into the economy? Sure. Given the amount of student loan debt alone I’m not sure If that’s much more efficient or not.

Maybe we need to just revamp the systems and proclaim a Jubilee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)

[CAA Flagship]

How would it compare to the ROI now?

Good question. For example, a bunch of middle men profit from student loans and health insurance under the current system. Does that money go back into the economy? Sure. Given the amount of student loan debt alone I’m not sure If that’s much more efficient or not.

Another piece is the stats on Pell grants. A low number of recipients ever graduate. And this happens when they know they have to pay back the loan (or at least should know). Opening up college to anyone for free, without personal risk, will lead to even lower graduation rates of the marginally committed/qualified.

[Baldy]

Whose taxes, and by how much?
Show your work.

Unless you plan to widen the tax base by a w-i-d-e margin (Donks will never let that happen), the majority of people who receive won't be paying for those "benefits" ... i.e. FREE.

No thanks.

I'm going to ignore the mathematics explanations like conservatives do with their policies.

World Record surrender.

Are you sure you're not French?

[∞∞∞]

No thanks.

I'm going to ignore the mathematics explanations like conservatives do with their policies.

World Record surrender.

Are you sure you're not French?

Nah, your statement is the exact same one mocked by the piece I posted.

I don't need to justify anything; I trust economists when the majority say that investing into infrastructure and people (healthcare, welfare, education) has a larger ROI than corporate welfare, military spending, and tax cuts for the wealthy. When the best MBA programs teach you that investing in people has the best ROI for an organization, it's not hard to figure out that society as a whole benefits from that thinking too.

But I know conservatives don't actually give a sh*t about science, economics, real-world examples, or the knowledge of people who dedicate endless hours to becoming experts in their fields.

The conks and mods can continue circle-jerking themselves off as they do the same thing over-and-over while the nation falls further into debt and real-world wages stagnate, even as labor-value increases.

"It's the economy stupid" doesn't really work when the economy is benefiting a few people. Polls reflect it. But there'll always be the bootlickers satisfied they're the house slave and not the field slave.

[Baldy]

World Record surrender.

Are you sure you're not French?

Nah, your statement is the exact same one mocked by the piece I posted.

I don't need to justify anything; I trust economists when the majority say that investing into infrastructure and people (healthcare, welfare, education) has a larger ROI than corporate welfare, military spending, and tax cuts for the wealthy. When the best MBA programs teach you that investing in people has the best ROI for an organization, it's not hard to figure out that society as a whole benefits from that thinking too.

But I know conservatives don't actually give a sh*t about science, economics, real-world examples, or the knowledge of people who dedicate endless hours to becoming experts in their fields.

The conks and mods can continue circle-jerking themselves off as they do the same thing over-and-over while the nation falls further into debt and real-world wages stagnate, even as labor-value increases.

"It's the economy stupid" doesn't really work when the economy is benefiting a few people. Polls reflect it. But there'll always be the bootlickers satisfied they're the house slave and not the field slave.

*Polls reflect it*



Keep looking at polls, kid. I'll keep looking at the real-world numbers. Thanks to capitalistic free-market economies, the world has never been as prosperous as it is now.

Massive increases in technological innovation, medical sciences, capital, wages while seeing drastic reductions in worldwide violence and poverty all due to free people running free economies.

Keep living in your self-loathing statist bubble down in your moms basement. Just stay out of the way as we...the free thinking freedom loving citizens of the globe make this world a better place.

[89Hen]

"It's the economy stupid" doesn't really work when the economy is benefiting a few people.

I've only had a few drinks officer.

[∞∞∞]

Keep looking at polls, kid. I'll keep looking at the real-world numbers. Thanks to capitalistic free-market economies, the world has never been as prosperous as it is now.

Massive increases in technological innovation, medical sciences, capital, wages while seeing drastic reductions in worldwide violence and poverty all due to free people running free economies.

Keep living in your self-loathing statist bubble down in your moms basement. Just stay out of the way as we...the free thinking freedom loving citizens of the globe make this world a better place.

I won't argue capitalism doesn't have its merits nor can't it lift people out of poverty. That said, I don't consider what we have now in the United States in any discernible way, good capitalism (fiscally or morally). People are certainly not compensated for the labor they're putting into society, wealth is being sent upwards at an increasing rate, the poor are thrown crumbs to "improve" their lives, and no investments are being made into the future (in fact, today's capitalists simply borrow from the future).

This whole thing has become a corporatocracy parading itself as capitalism and democracy.

In the end, I'd rather trust the real PhDs of Economics rather than the pretend economists on here.

[AZGrizFan]

ALL this coming from the free college, free health care, free universal basic income cheerleader.

Free? I've always argued an increase of taxes for them. I've simply argued that the majority of the tax increase would be directed towards ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations.

This is in addition to reforming college/health care to be more efficient.

Stop spending so much on corporate welfare and the damn military.

What happened to all those "shove ready" infrastructure jobs Obama had earmarked?

Instead, he just funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Solyndra-type crooks who helped finance his campaign.

This ain't a conk/donk thing, skippy. It's a GOVERNMENT thing. And the fact that you firmly believe donks are going to somehow change that approach simply because they SAY they are, you're dumber than I've given you credit for.

[Ivytalk]

Keep looking at polls, kid. I'll keep looking at the real-world numbers. Thanks to capitalistic free-market economies, the world has never been as prosperous as it is now.

Massive increases in technological innovation, medical sciences, capital, wages while seeing drastic reductions in worldwide violence and poverty all due to free people running free economies.

Keep living in your self-loathing statist bubble down in your moms basement. Just stay out of the way as we...the free thinking freedom loving citizens of the globe make this world a better place.

In the end, I'd rather trust the real PhDs of Economics rather than the pretend economists on here.

Yeah, guys like Paul Krugman, who get it spectacularly wrong in print three times a week!

[∞∞∞]

Free? I've always argued an increase of taxes for them. I've simply argued that the majority of the tax increase would be directed towards ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations.

This is in addition to reforming college/health care to be more efficient.

Stop spending so much on corporate welfare and the damn military.

What happened to all those "shove ready" infrastructure jobs Obama had earmarked?

Instead, he just funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Solyndra-type crooks who helped finance his campaign.

This ain't a conk/donk thing, skippy. It's a GOVERNMENT thing. And the fact that you firmly believe donks are going to somehow change that approach simply because they SAY they are, you're dumber than I've given you credit for.

Yeah, that's cause Donks are conservative, and Conks are super conservative.

I'm a critic of Obama. He talked like a progressive liberal and acted like a moderate. I mean he's way better than the garbage in office now, and I respect that he took his job seriously, but I'm annoyed at the right turn he took after being voted into office.