Caecus

Healthcare: Why Bernie Sanders is MARGINALLY better than Trump

67 posts in this topic

On 1/7/2018 at 0:40 PM, Caecus said:

God damn it Milton. 

Besides the fact that there is no legal basis for nationalizing an entire private sector without declaring war or a national emergency (and we haven't done so since fighting the Nazis in the 1940's), such a move would cause chaos, Congress can handle that. and ironically more people would be without affordable healthcare than to begin with.  More people would not receive medical care if it were single-payer? You make restructuring a fifth of our entire economy sound so easy. Also, your claim for the "infrastructure already being there" is false. What was a big problem with Obamacare? Sign-ups and claims ta an increase in the risk pool necessitated growing premiums. People already have Social Security cards and are de facto already signed up. Get I'm not sure if you know, but for people to get Social Security benefits, they have to apply directly through the SSA. Yes, they do, sort of. Another thing that can be pretty easily changed. Besides the fact that the SSA is ridiculously understaffed (and still outperforming the private sector by 50% in administrative costs already.) and that taking on the rest of the 270 million people in the US would be an impossible task Not at all. We're really the only place that does healthcare this way, currently. Every nation both larger and smaller than us have had no issues, but good ones. for that size of an administration, you're also missing out on the fact that there is no mechanism for enforcement to have people sign up. People would be confused at the onset, suddenly uninsured because now the government wants you to jump through bureaucratic hoops for health insurance.  "Have your Social Security card? Cool, now let's get you treated."

You should expect that implementing a single-payer now would have the same (if not more) political opposition and sabotage. Besides, I was talking about how complicated it was to get a website going, not the actual system. Who needs a website? This isn't something people would need to sign-up for, it's already in place, just needs a few more laws to alter it a tad to cover everyone. We don't have the infrastructure. We don't have the experience.  Is this looming cost no longer going to happen with the elderly if we don't reduce rates? I'm pretty sure people are still going to become elderly whether or not we take the intelligent approach and make the costs reduce significantly.

Where in god's name has the SSA outperformed the private sector? Administrative costs. You can't just "fold" shit into another agency and expect things to basically happen. Let me give you an example: The VA had a crisis back in 2010 where vets couldn't get the healthcare they needed within 6 weeks. Like, people who needed liver transplants were on wait lists. It's obvious that the VA needs more funding to expand their facilities and staff to accommodate a larger flow of individuals. Since 2010, we've dumped almost $1 Trillion (with an annual increase of about $20 Billion each year) into improving the VA. That's excluding the money dropped on the bandaid "Veteran's Choic Program," which still struggles to deal with the crisis. How many years do you plan on implementing single-payer, even if it was politically feasible? Overnight? Probably more like a four or five year program adoption to avoid shocking the economy quite as much. Another simplification, SSA health-care can be established by importing the customer base and costs from the dissolution of the VA.

Yeah, and I'm telling you that France had decades to do it. We could do it over a decade if you like. It wasn't easy for them either, they spent a lot of time and money in a political environment that was conducive for it to happen. Even then, they still !@#$ed up time to time. For example, they still have to deal with supplementary health insurance similar to medicare. France had to slowly add people into the system over 3 decades, each time accumulating more debt between 1945 and 1973. In the late 1970s, France had to scale back its universal coverages because it was running up the deficit. All the while increasing taxes and reducing coverages. Right now, it's a decent system, but France had to play with it (and have the political motivation to do so) for decades during a time when the population demographic hadn't skewed towards a growing elderly population and France wasn't $20 Trillion in debt.  It's happened to every country except ours. It will work for ours. They pay a lower rate of tax with their current single-payer system than we do for the hyper expensive ER costs the poor can't pay that we then pay for them. ER is the most expensive part of medical care. I'm not sure why you're so concerned with debt. Absorption of the VA would already reduce funding, skimming a bit off of the DoD would help, and no longer needing a trillion per year on Bush's wars is going to stop soon. Right now debt is useful and it's never going to be called in for the reasons I already explained. It's a non-issue.

That's the !@#$ing point about all this! Almost two decades of war, gross mismanagement of the government budget, and a massive economic crisis has put America on a rocky fiscal foundation. Risky how? Clinton left a balanced budget for W when he left office. You do realize that the pool of money in Medicare is borrowed money from China, right? You do realize that as we pay into the entitlements via deductions from our income, it's going into a pool that is being drained faster than it fills, right? It's a giant !@#$ing ponzi scheme, where Chinese money is now paying for 65-year-olds going to the doctor.  China, in reality, doesn't actually own that much American debt. A lot of it's held domestically. It's not an issue because if anyone did anything more than trading it like a commodity they'd lose all of that which they use as an asset and completely wreck the economy into a hard-care worldwide economic Depression.

We shouldn't be giving tax breaks to the corporate wealthy. We shouldn't be trying to implement a system that we don't know works, and would take decades and a shit ton of money to invest in. We should be raising taxes, reducing coverages on medicare, relook at entitlements, and come up with a sound fiscal policy that will get us out of this deficit death spiral within the next 30 years. Anything other than that is going to bankrupt our country within the next half-century. We do know it works. It wouldn't take decades. We should absolutely not be reducing coverage or other entitlements unless you'd like to see what the US turning into the wonder of Victorian England.

 By 2021, interest payments will surpass all other discretionary spending combined. I'm not really sure why you're concerned about this. It's not something that's going to happen unless one of the major countries would like to lose the value of all the US debt they hold overnight or to have to deal with a massive economic depression.

Anyone who tells you our debt isn't going to be a problem is a short-sighted dumb !@#$ who can't even see 4 years into the future. Contrary to popular belief, right now, entitlement spending costs almost twice the military spending we have now. DoD budget allocations are pathetic in comparison to what the debt rate will be when Trump leaves office.  If we can afford the DoD, we can definitely fund SSA as a manager of single-payer healthcare. Remember we already have some degree of socialism involved in our healthcare system and the reasons it is so high is a lot of people can't afford healthcare and have to the ER for treatments on an emergency basis, using the most expensive healthcare option that we have available and when they can't pay the hospital, we do it for them. With a single-payer system that's finally permitted to negotiate how much various things are going to cost as private insurance agencies may do costs should be going down slightly. No more people too poor to try for preventative care, fewer people utilizing the ER as their doctor's office and the ability to negotiate rates for various things like any other healthcare body it reduces how much we have to spend to cover the uninsured within the ER, at better prices, and reduced usage with preventative taking a lot of the burden we currently experience costs in that area are going to be reduced, which is a good idea. Absorbing the VA healthcare and automatically instituting single-payer the risk pool is absolutely enormous and the costs should be reduced even more with that.

Also, I swear to god, Milton, if you pull this colored shit again, I'm going to kill someone.  Now you're thinking about how to reduce single-payer costs. Probably, for the record, don't kill people.

 

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

Yeah, but why? Reducing the corporation tax when the economy is booming is counterproductive. The idea behind reducing taxes for large corporations is the supply-side economics version of a stimulus package. Why would the US economy, which is sitting at 3.2% GDP growth and 4.1% unemployment, need a stimulus package now? 

Correct. We should return to a 1950s tax system where the top bracket is 90%, corporate taxes should increase, elimination of subsidies to a number of farmers to artificially manage the economy and prevent reductions in costs for the various farming produce we pay to not produce things.  Subsidizing Wal*Mart, for example, in allowing them to pay such a low rate that they seem to consider the welfare system a part of their total compensation package could stop; reduction in permitted ratios of executives to workers to their previous rate would be very helpful, as would preventing the obscene bonuses granted to executives currently. Eisenhower knew his stuff. I've often felt he and FDR would've made a really impressive team.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Caecus said:

You said Trump backed Strange every single time I confronted you about Trump supporting Moore. You are implying that Trump didn't back Moore and are trying to diminish the fact that Trump openly supported an accused pedophile for senate. The next thing you are going to say is "don't assume anything," and it was so obvious too, setting up for this line. I love how you try so hard not to sound like an amoral sociopath who supports pedophiles and molesters because said pedophiles and molesters like wrestling. It's so disgusting how simple-minded your morals are. You are the one being hypocritical. For someone who hates the Clinton dynasty for all the vile things Bill Clinton allegedly done, you seem to accept it so long as they are "anti-globalist."  

Sad!

Where did I say something wrong? You try and can't find it because I haven't. Trump supported Strange but Moore won, so he then backed him as he was the Republican candidate. Nothing more to it. In what world do you expect the leader of the party to start not backing people in their own party, heck, the stuff regarding Moore wasn't even in full flow at the time and Moore had been even after being snubbed by Trump showed some support towards him to try and get him on side. Trump had little reason to disavow Moore and if he does... where does it end? Will Trump be a bad man if he doesn't disavow every Republican running or something? Come on now.

Excuse me? Are you trying to say I'm a puritan or something? Clinton getting a !@#$ and cheating on his wife is his business as far as I'm concerned. Never cared for the whole "X person cheated so they must now stand down" stuff. As for the rest... I don't get into it much, though there was that period where it was relevant sure. Trump was savaged with all those claims of sex offences and in response the madman literally got loads of Bill Clinton's victims (be it the case or not) together to sit at the debate. Clinton plays up the "believe women" stuff, she professes a holier than thou attitude, so it is certainly worthwhile to show her (and her supporter's) hypocrisy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

 

 

How someone so damn lazy and stupid as you can run around society without getting your dick caught in a door is beyond me. Giving people aneurysms with your lazy way of responding doesn't make your argument valid. On the contrary, I'm thinking that you deliberately responded the way you did in order to avoid an actual debate with me, because you know I would kick your reality-denying blind-utopian-idealist lazy stupid ass to the curb. 

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Where did I say something wrong? You try and can't find it because I haven't. Trump supported Strange but Moore won, so he then backed him as he was the Republican candidate. Nothing more to it. In what world do you expect the leader of the party to start not backing people in their own party, heck, the stuff regarding Moore wasn't even in full flow at the time and Moore had been even after being snubbed by Trump showed some support towards him to try and get him on side. Trump had little reason to disavow Moore and if he does... where does it end? Will Trump be a bad man if he doesn't disavow every Republican running or something? Come on now.

Excuse me? Are you trying to say I'm a puritan or something? Clinton getting a !@#$ and cheating on his wife is his business as far as I'm concerned. Never cared for the whole "X person cheated so they must now stand down" stuff. As for the rest... I don't get into it much, though there was that period where it was relevant sure. Trump was savaged with all those claims of sex offences and in response the madman literally got loads of Bill Clinton's victims (be it the case or not) together to sit at the debate. Clinton plays up the "believe women" stuff, she professes a holier than thou attitude, so it is certainly worthwhile to show her (and her supporter's) hypocrisy.

I expect the leader of a party to not support a pedophile. Let me ask you this: if a guy called Joe ran for office, but is accused of killing children, would you still expect the leader of the party to endorse the child-killing bastard? It's called basic human decency, and the fact that you don't see a problem with Trump supporting Moore goes to show that you have none. So let's stop talking about morality, seeing as how that concept confuses you. 

Yeah. "Puritan" is not the word I would use. Maybe blind fanatic. I'm saying that Trump could whip out his penis in front of the cameras, shout "Suck my dick America!" and you would show up here on the next day saying "well... he does have a pretty suckable dick." You condemn the Clintons for a lot of things, but forgive those same things in Trump. That's called having a double standard, and having a double standard is an indication that you are a blind fanatic. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Caecus said:

How someone so damn lazy and stupid as you can run around society without getting your dick caught in a door is beyond me. Do you have anything indicating I'm lazy or stupid? Disagreeing to you with remarks that clearly show this suggestion I've been offering is perfectly valid, just not by you, doesn't make me either of those. Giving people aneurysms with your lazy way of responding doesn't make your argument valid. On the contrary, I'm thinking that you deliberately responded the way you did in order to avoid an actual debate with me, because you know I would kick your reality-denying blind-utopian-idealist lazy stupid ass to the curb. What utopia? If that lead to utopia the entire world aside from us would be utopias. That's unlikely. It can and does work. If you disagree, feel free to stop attempting (poorly) to suggest otherwise.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Caecus said:

I expect the leader of a party to not support a pedophile. Let me ask you this: if a guy called Joe ran for office, but is accused of killing children, would you still expect the leader of the party to endorse the child-killing bastard? It's called basic human decency, and the fact that you don't see a problem with Trump supporting Moore goes to show that you have none. So let's stop talking about morality, seeing as how that concept confuses you. 

Yeah. "Puritan" is not the word I would use. Maybe blind fanatic. I'm saying that Trump could whip out his penis in front of the cameras, shout "Suck my dick America!" and you would show up here on the next day saying "well... he does have a pretty suckable dick." You condemn the Clintons for a lot of things, but forgive those same things in Trump. That's called having a double standard, and having a double standard is an indication that you are a blind fanatic. 

So you're saying that Trump, a man dogged by accusations many of which are spurious and are only pushed when it politically might matter (where did all those women attacking Trump right before the election disappear to anyway?)... should slam the hammer on Moore? Anyway, Moore is unlikely to ever be charged and people will largely not care going forward. You talk strong not because you care one bit about this alleged paedophilia, but because you want to hit Trump so badly. Sad!

And which are those? Your only claim thus far is some morality nonsense where you think I cared that Bill Clinton got a !@#$ from a woman who wasn't his wife. If Bill Clinton grabs women by the !@#$ or does the more modern thing of choking women is his business. As for him being a rapist or not, I think that is something for the Jihadists of the left who profess their holiness to look at. Trump is no saint, he screwed loads of models and such no doubt. Rich men can do many things much more easier than the non-rich, big shocker there. He brags about it, he doesn't portray himself as some holy figure that would never do such a thing. Key difference. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Caecus said:

Yeah, but why? Reducing the corporation tax when the economy is booming is counterproductive. The idea behind reducing taxes for large corporations is the supply-side economics version of a stimulus package. Why would the US economy, which is sitting at 3.2% GDP growth and 4.1% unemployment, need a stimulus package now? Sure, you could potentially grow the economy even more, and that is sound reasoning there, except for the fact that AMERICA IS 20 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT AND THE NEW DUMBASS TAX PLAN IS GOING TO ADD 1.5 TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS

Because it is DONALD TRUMP  what else does he do all day, his logic is More Business = More Tax Revenue . he can always put the back up when there is more businesses

Edited by Haris
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

 

Let me spell it out for you: When you reply to someone, you quote them, and then you write your response in the quote. Which means, I have to then copy and paste your dumbshit response if I want to quote you. You could multiquote, but you deliberately chose not to, because you are a lazy piece of shit who can't even press extra buttons to make your wall text argument bearable to read.

So, when you ask "Do you have anything indicating I'm lazy or stupid?" in the lazy ass way you respond to people's posts, your way of responding to people indicates that you are lazy and you are too stupid to understand why I think you are so !@#$ing lazy. You only need to look yourself in the mirror to see the evidence of my claims. 

Again, how you walk around society without getting your dick caught in a doorway is beyond me. 

16 hours ago, Rozalia said:

So you're saying that Trump, a man dogged by accusations many of which are spurious and are only pushed when it politically might matter (where did all those women attacking Trump right before the election disappear to anyway?)... should slam the hammer on Moore? Anyway, Moore is unlikely to ever be charged and people will largely not care going forward. You talk strong not because you care one bit about this alleged paedophilia, but because you want to hit Trump so badly. Sad!

I love how you dodged my question. Let me ask you again: if a guy called Joe ran for office, but is accused of killing children, would you still expect the leader of the party to endorse the child-killing bastard? 

16 hours ago, Rozalia said:

And which are those? Your only claim thus far is some morality nonsense where you think I cared that Bill Clinton got a !@#$ from a woman who wasn't his wife. If Bill Clinton grabs women by the !@#$ or does the more modern thing of choking women is his business. As for him being a rapist or not, I think that is something for the Jihadists of the left who profess their holiness to look at. Trump is no saint, he screwed loads of models and such no doubt. Rich men can do many things much more easier than the non-rich, big shocker there. He brags about it, he doesn't portray himself as some holy figure that would never do such a thing. Key difference. 

I don't understand the point you are making. Yes, I understand that you are trying to paint the Clinton's as hypocrites when you think they are trying to pull of being "saintly," but are you suggesting that Trump is the same as Clinton without trying to be a "saint?" In other words, if Clinton is a piece of shit, Trump is a piece of shit that admits he's a piece of shit? And you still support said piece of shit as the leader of the free world? 

I thought Trump wasn't a piece of shit. I thought that he was the one true savior that will make America great again. 

 

1 hour ago, Haris said:

Because it is DONALD TRUMP  what else does he do all day, his logic is More Business = More Tax Revenue . he can always put the back up when there is more businesses

To answer "what else does he do all day," I would say... 

A lot of cable TV. Like, more cable TV than governing the country. Oh, and Twitter. 

 

As for the business logic, yes, to some extent, that is correct. But let me remind you the same way I reminded Milton: we have a shit ton of debt. Around 70% of that debt is held by the public, in the form of government bonds, securities, etc. The interest on the public debt is 6.5% of the budget, which isn't too much. Except for the fact that interest rates are expected to rise. The reason why interest rates rise is because of a good economy. When the economy is strong, nobody buys government bonds because of the low returns (despite being relatively safe) and instead spend all their money on a booming stock market or investing in a growing economy. When that happens, the Feds have to increase the interest rates in order to draw more people to buy public debt. 

Right now, the feds plan on raising interest rates to 3% this year. By 2020, that rate is expected to be 4%. A 1.2% increase in the interest rates would cause the interest payments on the debt to surpass DEFENSE SPENDING.  This is entirely excluding the expected $1.5 T deficit the tax plan will cause within the next 6 years. Even if we are to assume the tax plan's end effect is "more business," a booming economy would only speed up the rising interest rates, making the national debt a full blown fiscal crisis. 

Which do you think rises faster? Tax revenues or the national debt? I'll give you a hint, it's not the former, and not by a long !@#$ing shot. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Caecus said:

I love how you dodged my question. Let me ask you again: if a guy called Joe ran for office, but is accused of killing children, would you still expect the leader of the party to endorse the child-killing bastard? 

I don't understand the point you are making. Yes, I understand that you are trying to paint the Clinton's as hypocrites when you think they are trying to pull of being "saintly," but are you suggesting that Trump is the same as Clinton without trying to be a "saint?" In other words, if Clinton is a piece of shit, Trump is a piece of shit that admits he's a piece of shit? And you still support said piece of shit as the leader of the free world? 

I thought Trump wasn't a piece of shit. I thought that he was the one true savior that will make America great again. To answer "what els
e does he do all day," I would say... 

A lot of cable TV. Like, more cable TV than governing the country. Oh, and Twitter. 

Clinton is accused of killing a whole host of people and yet that didn't stop endorsements, heck you supported her too. Odd.

You use strong language. It's not hard to work out no. If a man is a known player and he talks about grabbing women by the !@#$ and how they let him do it because he is rich. Then whatever, man is a player and never hid that fact. If the man puts himself forward as some puritan who would never do such things and then does it... yeah it's bad. It's not hard to work out why it didn't affect Trump and yet so many were still shocked. Oh, and I have never said Trump is perfect or whatever. It'd be silly to do so as a single event where he wasn't perfect would unravel everything. To answer your question directly, I don't like the phrasing of it, but if I had to answer I'd say I value honesty and owning who you are. If two people are the exact same but one tries to lie about it, I'd like the one who doesn't lie about it more.

17 hours of the Gorilla channel mate. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rozalia said:

Clinton is accused of killing a whole host of people and yet that didn't stop endorsements, heck you supported her too. Odd.

You use strong language. It's not hard to work out no. If a man is a known player and he talks about grabbing women by the !@#$ and how they let him do it because he is rich. Then whatever, man is a player and never hid that fact. If the man puts himself forward as some puritan who would never do such things and then does it... yeah it's bad. It's not hard to work out why it didn't affect Trump and yet so many were still shocked. Oh, and I have never said Trump is perfect or whatever. It'd be silly to do so as a single event where he wasn't perfect would unravel everything. To answer your question directly, I don't like the phrasing of it, but if I had to answer I'd say I value honesty and owning who you are. If two people are the exact same but one tries to lie about it, I'd like the one who doesn't lie about it more.

17 hours of the Gorilla channel mate. 

Clinton is accused of killing people? Who did Clinton kill? Also, who accused Clinton of killing people? Was it someone who saw Clinton kill people? Or was it a bunch of dumb shits on Fox and Friends who don't know anything? You would imagine the Republican committee investigating Clinton would be a more reliable source of accusations than Fox and Friends. 

So Trump is a rich, entitled piece of shit who doesn't have any respect for women. Okay. We finally agree on something! I still don't understand how this justifies supporting Trump. 

 

What I'm asking is, are you actually disgusting with Trump but bear with him because of policy issues or are you faking it because there is overwhelming evidence that Trump is a piece of shit? If it's the former, that's more understandable. I wouldn't call you an amoral puritan, I would call you a coward. If it is the latter, what do you think that says about you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Clinton is accused of killing people? Who did Clinton kill? Also, who accused Clinton of killing people? Was it someone who saw Clinton kill people? Or was it a bunch of dumb shits on Fox and Friends who don't know anything? You would imagine the Republican committee investigating Clinton would be a more reliable source of accusations than Fox and Friends. 

So Trump is a rich, entitled piece of shit who doesn't have any respect for women. Okay. We finally agree on something! I still don't understand how this justifies supporting Trump. 

 

What I'm asking is, are you actually disgusting with Trump but bear with him because of policy issues or are you faking it because there is overwhelming evidence that Trump is a piece of shit? If it's the former, that's more understandable. I wouldn't call you an amoral puritan, I would call you a coward. If it is the latter, what do you think that says about you?

??? Are you trying to make out you're not aware? The Clinton family is accused of killings of a whole host of people by quite a number of people. If simply being accused of something is a disqualifier than Clinton is disqualified a hundred times over. 

There is where you're trying to quantify it in a way it's not. His statement was that women (men too, but women get most of the rep on this) will jump on rich man dick, to sum it up quickly. Ask any man or woman on the street on how true that statement that is. Nothing to do with woman hating, simply something factual which the normal know is the case. Hence why the fake outrage meant nothing.

Trump does some good things, and he does his bad. I like that for America he ain't the standard politician, more of that should be the case. Over here for example we now have Corbyn who now and then talks that SJW garbage... however economically he is left wing and an actual real choice for people unlike those before him who were Neo-Liberals. Mogg who looks possibly to be next leader of the Tory party is an actual real Conservative, so obviously I'm going to be against him on a whole host of things. What the men have in common is they are real choices. They aren't both Neo-Liberals where one is slightly to the left/right whatever. Real easily noticeable choices. That is a good thing.
I like both Comrade Corbyn and Lord Mogg for that aspect and will defend them where I feel they're hard done. Doesn't mean I support everything they do. 

Edited by Rozalia
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rozalia said:

??? Are you trying to make out you're not aware? The Clinton family is accused of killings of a whole host of people by quite a number of people. If simply being accused of something is a disqualifier than Clinton is disqualified a hundred times over. 

There is where you're trying to quantify it in a way it's not. His statement was that women (men too, but women get most of the rep on this) will jump on rich man dick, to sum it up quickly. Ask any man or woman on the street on how true that statement that is. Nothing to do with woman hating, simply something factual which the normal know is the case. Hence why the fake outrage meant nothing.

Trump does some good things, and he does his bad. I like that for America he ain't the standard politician, more of that should be the case. Over here for example we now have Corbyn who now and then talks that SJW garbage... however economically he is left wing and an actual real choice for people unlike those before him who were Neo-Liberals. Mogg who looks possibly to be next leader of the Tory party is an actual real Conservative, so obviously I'm going to be against him on a whole host of things. What the men have in common is they are real choices. They aren't both Neo-Liberals where one is slightly to the left/right whatever. Real easily noticeable choices. That is a good thing.
I like both Comrade Corbyn or Lord Mogg for that aspect and will defend them where I feel they're hard done. Doesn't mean I support everything they do. 

Do tell. Who did the Clinton family kill? I'll pretend like what you are saying actually has merit behind it, and ask for some evidence. A video clip would be fine. You could at least tell me who you thought Clinton killed. Your entire sentence here is so vague, you don't mention anyone's name, except for Clinton. Are we still talking about that prostitution ring in the basement of the pizza place? You know, the one where a Trump supporter walked into and shot his AR-15?  

Wait, how is Trump not a standard politician? Trump's policies are straight out of the Republican cookbook. Just look at taxes, that's a conservative wet dream. The only way he's not a "standard politician" is when he tweets dumb shit and endorses pedophiles and says he grabs women by the !@#$. Which, as we already established, makes him a giant egotistical entitled piece of shit, and we don't like that? I don't understand, do you like Trump because he's a piece of shit, or do you dislike Trump because he's a piece of shit?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Do tell. Who did the Clinton family kill? I'll pretend like what you are saying actually has merit behind it, and ask for some evidence. A video clip would be fine. You could at least tell me who you thought Clinton killed. Your entire sentence here is so vague, you don't mention anyone's name, except for Clinton. Are we still talking about that prostitution ring in the basement of the pizza place? You know, the one where a Trump supporter walked into and shot his AR-15?  

Wait, how is Trump not a standard politician? Trump's policies are straight out of the Republican cookbook. Just look at taxes, that's a conservative wet dream. The only way he's not a "standard politician" is when he tweets dumb shit and endorses pedophiles and says he grabs women by the !@#$. Which, as we already established, makes him a giant egotistical entitled piece of shit, and we don't like that? I don't understand, do you like Trump because he's a piece of shit, or do you dislike Trump because he's a piece of shit?

I don't think you understand do you? You said if someone ran for office but was "accused of killing" then they should not be endorsed. Clinton is accused by many people of such things so by your own words she should not have been endorsed and been allowed to run. There is no me. You'll not find me saying Clinton had those people killed when no strong evidence exists of it. However, you said the key word of "accused". If being "accused" is all it takes then Clinton meets that criteria. The Democrat party had no issue supporting her even though she has for years been accused of such things. This is not me saying Clinton did kill those people, simply saying your position is nonsense and self defeating.

He has to do some very Republican stuff yeah, don't like it myself but you do what you have to. He has done and said some unrepublican stuff and we'll see if he goes through with more. He currently has his invisible wall as the likes of the Guardian calls it, but lets see if they ever move on to building that wall instead of messing with prototypes. That is the big one that he needs to promote himself as honest in his promises to people. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

I don't think you understand do you? You said if someone ran for office but was "accused of killing" then they should not be endorsed. Clinton is accused by many people of such things so by your own words she should not have been endorsed and been allowed to run. There is no me. You'll not find me saying Clinton had those people killed when no strong evidence exists of it. However, you said the key word of "accused". If being "accused" is all it takes then Clinton meets that criteria. The Democrat party had no issue supporting her even though she has for years been accused of such things. This is not me saying Clinton did kill those people, simply saying your position is nonsense and self defeating.

He has to do some very Republican stuff yeah, don't like it myself but you do what you have to. He has done and said some unrepublican stuff and we'll see if he goes through with more. He currently has his invisible wall as the likes of the Guardian calls it, but lets see if they ever move on to building that wall instead of messing with prototypes. That is the big one that he needs to promote himself as honest in his promises to people. 

Yeah, and I'm asking you who is accusing Clinton? In the case of Moore, real people came out and said Moore tried to date them when they were in their teens. Obviously, someone who Clinton is accused of killing can't be the accuser. Who is the person(s) that accuse Clinton? The fact that you can't name X guy who was related to the victim, or Y lady who saw it happen, goes to show that your whole "Clinton was accused of killing someone and you supported them" ploy is bullshit. Do you see the !@#$ing difference?

Soooooo....? You dislike Trump because he's a piece of shit that doesn't keep his promises? Aren't you still agreeing with me pretty much? Stop flip flopping. Do you like Trump because he's a piece of shit, or do you hate him because he's a piece of shit? It seems you have accepted the premise that Trump is a piece of shit, so which is it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill out all of you.  If I have to come back into this thread it will be with warnings and a lock.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Caecus said:

Let me spell it out for you: When you reply to someone, you quote them, and then you write your response in the quote. Which means, I have to then copy and paste your dumbshit response if I want to quote you. You could multiquote, but you deliberately chose not to, because you are a lazy piece of shit who can't even press extra buttons to make your wall text argument bearable to read. Thank you for not disputing any of the points I provided.

So, when you ask "Do you have anything indicating I'm lazy or stupid?" in the lazy ass way you respond to people's posts, your way of responding to people indicates that you are lazy and you are too stupid to understand why I think you are so !@#$ing lazy. You only need to look yourself in the mirror to see the evidence of my claims.  I'm pretty okay with it and think it's better. If you disagree no one's forcing you to read my posts, forcing you to quote me, or even really having any contact with me. This is how I reply and if that's a problem feel free to add me to your ignore list or something, I guess.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Caecus said:

To answer "what else does he do all day," I would say... 

A lot of cable TV. Like, more cable TV than governing the country. Oh, and Twitter. 

 

As for the business logic, yes, to some extent, that is correct. But let me remind you the same way I reminded Milton: we have a shit ton of debt. Around 70% of that debt is held by the public, in the form of government bonds, securities, etc. The interest on the public debt is 6.5% of the budget, which isn't too much. Except for the fact that interest rates are expected to rise. The reason why interest rates rise is because of a good economy. When the economy is strong, nobody buys government bonds because of the low returns (despite being relatively safe) and instead spend all their money on a booming stock market or investing in a growing economy. When that happens, the Feds have to increase the interest rates in order to draw more people to buy public debt. 

Right now, the feds plan on raising interest rates to 3% this year. By 2020, that rate is expected to be 4%. A 1.2% increase in the interest rates would cause the interest payments on the debt to surpass DEFENSE SPENDING.  This is entirely excluding the expected $1.5 T deficit the tax plan will cause within the next 6 years. Even if we are to assume the tax plan's end effect is "more business," a booming economy would only speed up the rising interest rates, making the national debt a full blown fiscal crisis. 

Which do you think rises faster? Tax revenues or the national debt? I'll give you a hint, it's not the former, and not by a long !@#$ing shot. 

TBH he doesnt go on twitter that much

21 hours ago, Caecus said:

Oh, and Twitter. 

 

21 hours ago, Caecus said:

T

 

Edited by Haris
information incorrect
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now