111–120 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hasn't worked for single payer healthcare yet. Nobody brings up that almost every other country's government pays less than the US.
a) Lots of people bring that argument up. I hear it all the time. b) There's a difference between "the US pays" and "the US government pays".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals: prove that it will save money and let them lower taxes. I've certainly heard this argument from the (few) libertarian sources that are considering basic income. They are opposed to "entitlement" programs, but see a (theoretically) cheaper entitlement program as better than an expensive one. (Perhaps they also think t…
> . The US has known for at least a decade that spending more on IRS agents would earn more money than it would cost. Isn't that proven to be a mostly false notion? Lower taxes tend to bring in more revenue and create more employment.
Got some examples where this actually worked?
The 'Housing First' model was really pushed hard by Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. It was weird because he is such a staunch right-wing kind of guy, yet here he was putting money towards what seems like a very left-wing socialist idea. But he, like Lloyd Pendleton in this article, apparently figured out that it saves a lot of money, ideology be damned. Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing…
Hasn't worked for single payer healthcare yet. Nobody brings up that almost every other country's government pays less than the US.
Also, it's important not to be fooled by some of the comparative health stats. Many of our poor health stats are the more the result of culture than they are a lack of access to health care. Being able to go to the doctor without paying a copay doesn't matter much when you're 100 pounds overweight and don't follow the diabetic diet your doctor laid out for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes thank you, the article does contain a lot more info than just the headline. Homelessness is a more complex issue than it appears at the surface. There a many stages of homelessness and different demographics of it. A shelter I contribute to here in Portland focuses specifically on homeless families who have recently fell on hard times and tries to address getting them back on their feet and into sustainable jobs…
Of course, but how is chronic defined and measured, and how has that changed historically? I've heard that the definition is ever-changing. I read the article
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals: prove that it will save money and let them lower taxes. I've certainly heard this argument from the (few) libertarian sources that are considering basic income. They are opposed to "entitlement" programs, but see a (theoretically) cheaper entitlement program as better than an expensive one. (Perhaps they also think t…
> . The US has known for at least a decade that spending more on IRS agents would earn more money than it would cost. Isn't that proven to be a mostly false notion? Lower taxes tend to bring in more revenue and create more employment.
Two responses:
1) A bit of an irrelevant point, since we're not talking about RAISING taxes, we're talking about collecting taxes that are due under current rules. (You can argue that's an effective tax increase, but I doubt people/companies that aren't following the rules are a good basis for policy - with lower taxes they'll still cheat)
2) But if we do consider your point...I don't know that your point has been shown at all. Sure, if you're on the far side of the Laffer curve, which is 50-70% tax rate (depending on whose numbers you trust), but we're at 20-38% tax rate in the US (and that's marginal rate, not overall rate). I'd also look to the efforts of politicians like Brownback in Kansas, where a massive tax cut led to...a tanking of the local economy. I don't recall of hearing of a single supply-side success in post-WWII America, but I'll admit to non-perfect knowledge.
Also, as a liberal, I support taxes because I support many govt programs. Taxes themselves are NOT exciting - if we could really raise more govt revenue by cutting taxes, I'd be all for it, but I've not seen any reliable evidence for that (again, unless you're on the other side of the Laffer curve) and I've seen at least limited evidence against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
". . . but trying NOT to give power to anyone will just accept that power falls to those that are ruthless and abusive to take it regardless." This is the crux, and I've never seen a good Libertarian defense against this. Someone will always fill the power void.
I'm a libertarian that supports unions. If you can get enough of the labor force together to demand higher wages or better benefits, more power to you. I don't think the government should be involved in that. I'm even happy to support socialist style businesses where the workers share ownership. If someone can make that work and be successful/competitive? Awesome. Again, I just don't think the government has any busi…
My question would be: without government intervention, what incentive do mega corporations have to allow unions to continue? What prevents them from making their own rules, which prevent unions? Since these same companies are behind the efforts to dismantle unions, it seems that removing government would just remove the middle man, making it easier for companies to abuse workers, dismantle unions, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last i checked they had increased the minimum wage beyond what trained heavy equipment operators were making. That is absurd, no matter how you slice it.
No, it's not. For one, other people having things worse off does not mean that certain people should not be trying to better themselves. For two, if that were true, then the heavy equipment operators should be asking for raises, as they now have the leverage to go to a less demanding job for more pay.
The 'Housing First' model was really pushed hard by Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. It was weird because he is such a staunch right-wing kind of guy, yet here he was putting money towards what seems like a very left-wing socialist idea. But he, like Lloyd Pendleton in this article, apparently figured out that it saves a lot of money, ideology be damned. Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing…
Totally this - I read once that is costs around £16000 a year per rough sleeper in central London, through policing, clean up, emergency care, and other costs. And that at the end of the year (if the person hadn't died) they were no less likely to be a rough sleeper than at the start. It just seems crazy that we can't better funnel that money to intervene and support people, to plan on removing that cost over the lon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a great idea on how to eliminate poverty!
In Poland, one small city was recently called out on the radio for having the worst air quality in the whole voivodeship. The mayor got pissed off about this and solved the air quality problem quickly and efficiently, by removing the measurement station.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would that it would be possible for the reverse to happen. Never will left-wing politicians lower tax rates.
If you look at federal budgets over the past 40 years [1] (select Presidents Trump through Carter) the only years with a budget surplus were budgets from Bill Clinton. Each year of his term the deficits got smaller, until they became surpluses in the last three years. George W had a (smaller) surplus his first year, but then went back into deficit spending to fund the wars in the Middle East. I'm not sure how the tim…
Your memory is very incorrect. In Clinton's Address Before a Joint Session of Congress, he said that he wanted to raise taxes and cut defense spending (aka, right wing welfare).
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=47232
Newt Gingrich then rallied+campaigned against this and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 received zero Republican votes. The fiscal conservatism was all Clinton; but the conservatism was all Republican.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_...
Gingrich went on to campaign against this in the 1994 midterms. He went on to shut down the government twice to say nothing of the impeachment nonsense while he was cheating on his own wife. Gingrich was booted out by his own majority and was reprimanded by them for his own (lack of) ethics.
No, Republicans get zero, nada, no credit for Clinton's budgets and his ensuing surpluses.