We should give Progressives EVERYTHING they want.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: MRinder

The problem is even when they have everything they want, after they run society into the ground; they will still find a way to blame conservatives.

We have test cases all over the country.... Chicago, Baltimore, San Fran, Seattle, Portland, etc. We see what happens when they run things. Even though there isn't a Republican running so much as a Lemonade stand within 100 miles of those cities, they somehow blame us for homelessness, budget deficits, crime, violence, deteriorating infrastructure, failing schools, etc.

Of course they will. It's what they do..blame everyone and everything else for their problems. See my way, by giving them everything they want, when they want it, how they want it how could any logical person blame anyone but themselves.. but we know they will find a way.

They need to make mental gymnastics a sport. A Progressive would win every time.

What is this I hear about New York City cops being attacked today, and not allowed to fight back because Mayor de Blasio forbids it?

originally posted by: carewemust
What is this I hear about New York City cops being attacked today, and not allowed to fight back because Mayor de Blasio forbids it?

He's probably afraid his son will immediately be targeted.

a reply to: MRinder

Although truthfully, the original intent of Amendments 9 and 10 would pretty give Progressives everything they want inside their own states absent the ability to violate things explicitly stated in the COTUS which is really what's ticking them off. They aren't happy unless everyone is made to live they want us all to and not how we all would prefer to live.

I think it's monumental insecurity and the knowledge that what they want doesn't work, but if everyone has to live with it, no one will have any examples to compare it to to know any better.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So the tables have turned in New York City? Thugs are now the bosses?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So the tables have turned in New York City? Thugs are now the bosses?

When were thugs not essentially in positions of authority in New York? Or Chicago, for that matter?

whoopee!!

so much fun whipping ourselves up into a froth!

watch out.... my hair is on fire!!!

aaaaaaaahhhhhbshcfhj

a reply to: tgidkp

Tell us. What do you want?

How would it create utopia for all? This is your Christmas thread after.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: MRinder

I read somewhere Walmart could provide healthcare for their employees for about $4 billion per year. Instead, Walmart pays poverty wages so Walmart workers must be subsidized by the government for their employee's healthcare.

That is 100% false. I own 3 businesses, and I also work as a department manager at Walmart 30-35 hours a week just BECAUSE of the benefits. My health insurance is $63 every 2 weeks for me and 2 kids, and it's some of the best coverage out there. They're also paying for me to get a bachelors in cyber security. Costs me $365 a year and they cover the rest. Oh, and the pay isn't bad at all. They pay better than any other retailer out there. It's not money that I need, I work there for the benefits. But the extra $35k a year for a part time job makes for a lot of vacations and toys. I have a friend with 2 majors, and she's a co-manager at a Walmart because it's more money than she can earn with her degrees.

a reply to: MRinder

Great thread. I've actually been leaning in this direction quite often. Let them burn it all to the ground.

a reply to: MRinder

I'm a progressive, and I don't agree with hardly anything on your list. The closest I would come is healthcare for all, which I think is a solution to a real problem and could be implemented successfully.

I would have to see proof that illegal immigrants are benefitting from social programs to the extent that seems to be implied in the O.P.

I don't see anything wrong with being gay or transgender. People have the freedom to do this, and shouldn't be harassed based on religious bias. As far as being gay goes, people are gay whether or not the law allows them to be. So it is silly to legislate rules that keep them from pursuing life, liberty, and happiness. If you don't want to be gay or transgender, you have the freedom to be straight!

Having sex with animals or marrying a horse is ridiculous, if liberals ever go this far, I'll obviously be openly critical of them. For one thing, sex with animals could be considered animal abuse.

Right because the south isn't red and the largest welfare takers in the nation. Almost zero southern red states can pay their budgets without federal money.

Now progressives are out of their minds but conservatives are the largest hippocrates. Just ask deficit Don who wants the fed to do more quantitative easing and making loans easier.

At least progressives say they want to inflate the budget. Conservatives just lie and then balloon the budget and overspend.

Right because the south isn't red and the largest welfare takers in the nation. Almost zero southern red states can pay their budgets without federal money.

Now progressives are out of their minds but conservatives are the largest hippocrates. Just ask deficit Don who wants the fed to do more quantitative easing and making loans easier.

At least progressives say they want to inflate the budget. Conservatives just lie and then balloon the budget and overspend.

a reply to: darkbake

Ok, so you want free health care for all.

Please give us your plan for implementing this beyond "just do it". I know you said you believe it can be done, but kids believe in unicorns too.

I want to know why you think it can be done, and don't just say 'well, obviously other countries have done it". Other countries are very different than the US, and even in those other countries, their systems don't work all that well. And judging by the single payer systems we do have here -- veterans' care and reservation care. The US doesn't seem to really have any solid foundations for running any kind of working health care system for all, let alone small groups within the whole.

And when you outline your plan, you need to talk about what it will do in detail, including costs.

Understand, Medicare is going broke swiftly too, so don't just say expand Medicare for everyone. It will go broker, faster. Not only that but most Medicare recipients still carry private insurance to cover what Medicare won't.

a reply to: luthier

In case you haven't been paying attention, neither side is a deficit hawk except when the other side spends on what they don't want to.

Neither side has the balls to address entitlements, the real elephant in the room. They simply spend around it and try to choke the other's pet projects.

The side in power spends while the other side screams about it because the spending is going to wrong place in their opinion, not because of the spending. Meanwhile, the side not in power runs on that screaming and throws chickens into your pot at the same time which necessitates spending so you can have your chickens.

Until every single person in society accepts that we will all have to make do with less, there will never be any change.

The alternative is fiscal collapse when we all get to make do with nothing.

originally posted by: luthier
Right because the south isn't red and the largest welfare takers in the nation. Almost zero southern red states can pay their budgets without federal money.

Now progressives are out of their minds but conservatives are the largest hippocrates. Just ask deficit Don who wants the fed to do more quantitative easing and making loans easier.

At least progressives say they want to inflate the budget. Conservatives just lie and then balloon the budget and overspend.

And in Louisiana we get an excellent example of conservative republican results. Where one of the states with the highest corporate profit levels has the lowest standards of living and education, and the highest levels of poverty.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: darkbake

Ok, so you want free health care for all.

Please give us your plan for implementing this beyond "just do it". I know you said you believe it can be done, but kids believe in unicorns too.

I want to know why you think it can be done, and don't just say 'well, obviously other countries have done it". Other countries are very different than the US, and even in those other countries, their systems don't work all that well. And judging by the single payer systems we do have here -- veterans' care and reservation care. The US doesn't seem to really have any solid foundations for running any kind of working health care system for all, let alone small groups within the whole.

And when you outline your plan, you need to talk about what it will do in detail, including costs.

Understand, Medicare is going broke swiftly too, so don't just say expand Medicare for everyone. It will go broker, faster. Not only that but most Medicare recipients still carry private insurance to cover what Medicare won't.

Well, the projected numbers are a 6% tax to pay for healthcare for all. I already pay far more than that for insurance, and I still can’t afford to go to the doctor for anything other than my annual or the occasional flu, due to copays, deductibles, and uncovered costs. It would save me money, would save my work money, and would leave me my life’s saving to pass to my kids when I die rather than stealing it all in end of life care extortion.

a reply to: pexx421

Hmmm, a 6% tax on whom? What about those who do not pay taxes now because they're too poor? Is that 6% on everyone?

We already lose about a 1/3 of our take home through taxes to the Feds, you add 6% to that, not counting state and you're starting to push 40%, add in state and lots of areas you are talking about people losing upward of half of what they make.

I'm sorry, but that's confiscatory. I won't do it.

Oh, and that's *before* you start to look at all the other myriad taxes and fees like sales tax that are added in on top. We're already at confiscatory levels of taxation as it is. This is the problem with just taxing a little more here or there. Pretty soon, you might as well just take all of everyone's take home because you're already well over 50% of what we make being taken as it is in various forms.

And most single payer plans also bandy about adding in VAT which is another form of tax on top of adding to income tax.

NO.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

Hmmm, a 6% tax on whom? What about those who do not pay taxes now because they're too poor? Is that 6% on everyone?

We already lose about a 1/3 of our take home through taxes to the Feds, you add 6% to that, not counting state and you're starting to push 40%, add in state and lots of areas you are talking about people losing upward of half of what they make.

I'm sorry, but that's confiscatory. I won't do it.

Oh, and that's *before* you start to look at all the other myriad taxes and fees like sales tax that are added in on top. We're already at confiscatory levels of taxation as it is. This is the problem with just taxing a little more here or there. Pretty soon, you might as well just take all of everyone's take home because you're already well over 50% of what we make being taken as it is in various forms.

And most single payer plans also bandy about adding in VAT which is another form of tax on top of adding to income tax.

NO.

As I pointed out, it would be less than I currently pay. You can call it a 6% tax if you like. But you need to weigh it against the decrease in total costs that it provides me and everyone else. Right now healthcare is an almost 100% inheritance tax on the vast majority of Americans by itself. That 6% will save me the current 12% tax I’m paying, AND it would save me the 3k deductibles AND it would save me the uncovered costs for treatment. Now, you may not take that trade, but to me it’s good fiscal sense. I’d rather pay half of my current MINIMUM, and not have to worry about a catastrophic illness or injury impoverishing my family. I just had a pt complaining to me that his childbirth cost him 140k. That’s would be more than his lifetime contribution of 6%, for this one service that everyone has, often multiple times.

And it’s a 6% tax on workers and employers I believe. Which means even businesses will be saving money on it. Except for insurance, pharma, and hospitals obviously