The majority of people in most elections can't even be bothered to vote at all. That's even with extraordinary efforts to 'get the vote out' on both sides. It seems to me that there's roughly 20-25% on the right and left that rarely miss a vote and about 10-20% of people who only give a shit during a presidential election and about 40% who don't give two flying hoots about voting at all...
I'm not sure I know what you're trying to argue here, but US turnout in elections hasn't been below 50% since 1996.
I pulled 2% out of my butt, but even if only 50% of that community had wanted to vote but didn't (for all the various reasons mentioned above) - you'd have 1%. If 1% more voters in Florida had voted, we might very likely be looking at Gore instead of Bush as president.
Even if we don't look at the outcome possibilities - there is *no* justifiable reason to disenfranchise any voters in a fair and free democracy. None whatsoever.
Incidentally - want to guess who was governor in Florida in the 2000 election? Jeb!
If there was any kind of voter suppression in Florida in 2000, I wonder which side it would have been aimed at...
I assume you're talking about Presidential elections because there's no way non-presidential years average 50% turnout (excepting maybe the last one). If you add my percentages it would be 40-50% for non-presidential elections and 50-70% for election years. Not far off the mark for a baseline. I made no argument other than pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a mad rush to fill the polling booths in general...
Voter turnout can be sky-high or close to zero, and in either case, it doesn't make the right to vote any less important, nor does it make voter suppression any more acceptable.
I'm an atheist and I don't go to church. If somebody made it harder for a religious person to go to church, my personal disinterest in church wouldn't be considered relevant.
Voter turnout can be sky-high or close to zero, and in either case, it doesn't make the right to vote any less important, nor does it make voter suppression any more acceptable.
I'm an atheist and I don't go to church. If somebody made it harder for a religious person to go to church, my personal disinterest in church wouldn't be considered relevant.
Combatting voter apathy would make suppressing 1-2% of the vote less relevant. I'm with @Mathsorcerer on this. Giving people real alternatives to vote for instead of Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber who only vote the party line and have little to no original thoughts in their brains would go a long way in getting rid of these shenanigans...
Saying people should work harder to vote and that offering them better choices is just obfuscating the issue, which is that there is NO good reason to make it harder to vote, much less doing so on purpose in a systematic fashion for political gain. This isn't a privilege, it's a right, and it shouldn't REQUIRE onerous steps for some and not for others. The fact that you personally, or even MOST people don't have trouble voting is not an excuse to allow it to be harder for others, not matter how small or insignificant that group is deemed to be.
I've used this example before, but even if it's just this ONE hypothetical person, then the efforts were made simply to strip that person of their rights. There is a 98 year-old African-American widow who lives in a small town in Alabama. For 40 years, she's been voting in the same church. She's mostly housebound, her husband has been dead for 20 years, she hasn't driven or had a license for 10 because of her eyesight, and had no real need until recently to have another photo ID. One election day, she makes her way to the church and finds that not only has she been removed from the rolls because she missed some mailer she was sent, but she doesn't have an ID to rectify the situation.
All so we can do what?? Stop the statistically non-existent threat of "voter fraud"?? Republicans know that poorer people have 1.) less time to jump through these hoops because they can't afford to miss work 2.) are more likely NOT to drive, thus more likely to not already have an ID but 3.) they know most people don't give a shit about these people anyway, thus we get shoulder shrugs from people able how they might be affected, because those who take THEIR rights for granted can't conceive of how it could happen to others.
Thus, when the argument comes up, the actual merits of these hoops and loopholes can't be defended, so what we get instead are variations on the tried and true conservative "work ethic" message, which is to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get to the DMV a month early, and make sure your voter registration is up to date, and make sure your name isn't spelled with a hyphen in some government database somewhere that will flag your name, and make sure to save up your vacation time for November 2nd of each year". It's the same bullshit aimed in a different direction. Voting shouldn't require the same level of personal responsibility and advance planning as getting a boat loan.
Saying people should work harder to vote and that offering them better choices is just obfuscating the issue, which is that there is NO good reason to make it harder to vote, much less doing so on purpose in a systematic fashion for political gain. This isn't a privilege, it's a right, and it shouldn't REQUIRE onerous steps for some and not for others. The fact that you personally, or even MOST people don't have trouble voting is not an excuse to allow it to be harder for others, not matter how small or insignificant that group is deemed to be.
I've used this example before, but even if it's just this ONE hypothetical person, then the efforts were made simply to strip that person of their rights. There is a 98 year-old African-American widow who lives in a small town in Alabama. For 40 years, she's been voting in the same church. She's mostly housebound, her husband has been dead for 20 years, she hasn't driven or had a license for 10 because of her eyesight, and had no real need until recently to have another photo ID. One election day, she makes her way to the church and finds that not only has she been removed from the rolls because she missed some mailer she was sent, but she doesn't have an ID to rectify the situation.
All so we can do what?? Stop the statistically non-existent threat of "voter fraud"?? Republicans know that poorer people have 1.) less time to jump through these hoops because they can't afford to miss work 2.) are more likely NOT to drive, thus more likely to not already have an ID but 3.) they know most people don't give a shit about these people anyway, thus we get shoulder shrugs from people able how they might be affected, because those who take THEIR rights for granted can't conceive of how it could happen to others.
Thus, when the argument comes up, the actual merits of these hoops and loopholes can't be defended, so what we get instead are variations on the tried and true conservative "work ethic" message, which is to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get to the DMV a month early, and make sure your voter registration is up to date, and make sure your name isn't spelled with a hyphen in some government database somewhere that will flag your name, and make sure to save up your vacation time for November 2nd of each year". It's the same bullshit aimed in a different direction. Voting shouldn't require the same level of personal responsibility and advance planning as getting a boat loan.
I disagree. You have to put an effort into almost everything worthwhile in life. Why should voting be any different? I'm not for suppressing votes by any means but I sure as Hell dont think you should be able to vote on voting day(s) while sitting on your ass on the computer either! Even if you don't think there are shenanigans now, you can't possibly believe that on-line voting, which many liberals support, would be safe and secure. Before you throw me under the bus, I agree that every effort should be made to make sure that disabled people and the elderly have their voices heard. Absentee ballots address that issue though...
Ted Nugent is rapidly wearing out his welcome in Michigan. This is why I think celebrities are generally morons who we should ignore for the most part. I love his guitar playing but seriously, does being a great musician, actor, athlete, public speaker, or artist automatically give weight to their idiotic political or religious views? I certainly don't think so...
Edit: Michigan is still firmly a swing state (president winners - Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Trump). We flip-flop between parties for governor, have had Democrat Senators since the 80's but are close to 50/50 in House representatives, the state legislature has been Republican since forever and the major power seats (judges, Sec State, Attorney General, etc..) are pretty evenly split. Calling us another California because of one election result is ludicrous!
Healthcare - sign me up for universal healthcare when they honestly tell me how much it'll cost me personally. The rich already pay more in taxes (in total dollars per person) than I do so don't tell me they're going to pay for all of it. I've been around the block long enough to know that'll never happen. If I'm going to be taxed for it, then my company needs to be forced to pay at least 80% or so of the difference as a direct salary increase or I'm going to call bullshit and say it's a backdoor way for major corporations to screw me over. Get that in play and I'll start voting Democrat tomorrow!
"I'm not affected, so who cares if other citizens are prevented from voting."
"It doesn't affect me, so everyone else can go screw off," really sums up pretty much every conservative argument.
@Balrog99 Allocating 5% of taxes already taken on income would probably be enough to put everyone on Medicare. Really, we already spend trillions on the military, but nobody cares to ask where that money is coming from. We can divert some of that. Heck, look at Canada and all of Europe, they spend less money on healtchare than us (everyone does acually, we spend more on healthcare than anyone else). So just adapting literally ANY other healthcare system from one of these countries would be cheaper.
"I'm not affected, so who cares if other citizens are prevented from voting."
"It doesn't affect me, so everyone else can go screw off," really sums up pretty much every conservative argument.
@Balrog99 Allocating 5% of taxes already taken on income would probably be enough to put everyone on Medicare. Really, we already spend trillions on the military, but nobody cares to ask where that money is coming from. We can divert some of that. Heck, look at Canada and all of Europe, they spend less money on healtchare than us (everyone does acually, we spend more on healthcare than anyone else). So just adapting literally ANY other healthcare system from one of these countries would be cheaper.
Then make my company pay me what they're already paying. I'm not being an asshole. The savings on healthcare will not be mine, it'll be my company's. I already said I'd be happy if my company only paid 80% of what they're giving me already. That would be $500 - $1000 per year on me supporting others. I'm not rich by any means so would that be enough???
Edit: This grandiose 'other people will pay for it' is a pipe-dream. Tell me honestly what it will cost me personally. This isn't calculus, it's algebra. They know the cost, they just won't tell us...
The biggest joke of all on us regular schlepps is this idea that our politicians on the right and left 'hate' each other. That's just what they want us to believe so we're focused on the 'other' while they cash their checks. When I was in Maine about 10 years ago, the big news was Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton were hobnobbing together at Kennebunkport. Yeah, they really hate each other. These people laugh at our partisanship. It's the very thing that keeps these assholes in power!
Seriously, between the two of us we could hash together a healthcare plan in about 3-5 posts that would piss both of us off but would be better than we have now. Do you really think that our government isn't capable of doing the same without some kind of total mandate that will never happen?
It really depends on the politicians. There have been plenty of folks on either side that have friends on the other side, and there are plenty of folks that hate everyone on the other side without exception. John McCain was the former and Donald Trump was the latter.
It really depends on the politicians. There have been plenty of folks on either side that have friends on the other side, and there are plenty of folks that hate everyone on the other side without exception. John McCain was the former and Donald Trump was the latter.
Trump wasn't even a true conservative until it served his purpose. He's a a fricking amateur psychology player that knows how to manipulate people. That's the main reason I've never liked him. He's not genuine. He doesn't personally give a shit about Christianity or morals. He was never a crusader for the 'morals' of the social right. He's just playing a winning hand with the people he's manipulating. I give him about a 50/50 shot at getting 8 years of the presidency of the most powerful country of the planet solely by being a player. Scary shit if you ask me. He plays the left almost as well as he plays his base which is why I have him at 50/50. If the left thinks he's vulnerable enough to get Kamala Harris in he just might pull off another term. My opinion anyway...
Edit: There's a reason he's put a big bullseye on Biden. For good reason he sees Biden as his biggest threat, and it's not just because of name recognition. Biden is pretty centrist overall and that's a huge threat to his 'Democrats are Socialists' narrative.
I'm not sure that any of the politicians we have ever show their true faces. If presidential candidates that viciously campaigned against each other can settle their differences and hang out together, why can't all of these assholes in power do the same in order to improve things for the masses? Compromise being seen as weakness, fueled by the press on both sides is the true enemy of the people IMHO.
Seriously, between the two of us we could hash together a healthcare plan in about 3-5 posts that would piss both of us off but would be better than we have now. Do you really think that our government isn't capable of doing the same without some kind of total mandate that will never happen?
Considering that its always the same party that tries to take healthcare away, and one party that tries to make it available for everyone, its more one party making it impossible, rather than a nebulous "the government." Every other government of developed countries has been able to figure it out.
Seriously, between the two of us we could hash together a healthcare plan in about 3-5 posts that would piss both of us off but would be better than we have now. Do you really think that our government isn't capable of doing the same without some kind of total mandate that will never happen?
Considering that its always the same party that tries to take healthcare away, and one party that tries to make it available for everyone, its more one party making it impossible, rather than a nebulous "the government." Every other government of developed countries has been able to figure it out.
Your side is less than honest about the cost though. Just sayin...
Edit: Great way to get votes though. "It won't cost you anything because the filthy rich will pay for it". Even though they won't...
Just like the Green New Deal will cost the middle class disproportionately to the rich. I'll be asked to willingly pay for that too. I know, I'm a total asshole for saying it out loud but you know it's true.
Seriously, between the two of us we could hash together a healthcare plan in about 3-5 posts that would piss both of us off but would be better than we have now. Do you really think that our government isn't capable of doing the same without some kind of total mandate that will never happen?
Considering that its always the same party that tries to take healthcare away, and one party that tries to make it available for everyone, its more one party making it impossible, rather than a nebulous "the government." Every other government of developed countries has been able to figure it out.
My idea of making my company pay 80% of what they're already paying me and me making up the other 20% isn't enough then? How much more are we talking about? This is post one of our one-on-one negotiation.
Just like the Green New Deal will cost the middle class disproportionately to the rich. I'll be asked to willingly pay for that too. I know, I'm a total asshole for saying it out loud but you know it's true.
I think you'll find this is a generational issue. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are less likely to be willing to pay for enormous structural changes(like the Green New Deal). Millennials currently are - I think in part because we understand that we will be living longer with the havoc of Climate Change than the other two. I also think we see the issue with a greater sense of urgency in general.
At the moment, Boomers have an outsized voice in terms of both voter participation and congress in general. That wont always be the case. By moving the Overton window now, Millenlians will hopefully make combating Climate Change a reasonable proposition as soon as possible (Considering we're on a ticking clock, is just about our only option).
Just like the Green New Deal will cost the middle class disproportionately to the rich. I'll be asked to willingly pay for that too. I know, I'm a total asshole for saying it out loud but you know it's true.
I think you'll find this is a generational issue. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are less likely to be willing to pay for enormous structural changes(like the Green New Deal). Millennials currently are - I think in part because we understand that we will be living longer with the havoc of Climate Change than the other two. I also think we see the issue with a greater sense of urgency in general.
At the moment, Boomers have an outsized voice in terms of both voter participation and congress in general. That wont always be the case. By moving the Overton window now, Millenlians will hopefully make combating Climate Change a reasonable proposition as soon as possible (Considering we're on a ticking clock, is just about our only option).
You're of course assuming that man-made climate change is a proven fact which it really isn't. Mitigation is more reasonable than prevention without factual data (which admittedly is nigh impossible to prove scientifically due to multiple variables). I'm willing to discuss mitigation measures and gathering data for proving man-made theories (ie: gauging the effects of switching to alternative energy sources). The problem is the time-frame involved in gathering reliable data could be problematic. Would your generation be willing to sacrifice standard of living with no concrete basis of justifying it? When you're young and idealistic the answer may be 'yes' but that may change as time goes by and your income level and standard of living goes up. I was your age and idealistic at one time don't forget..
Edit: What happens if things don't change with the austerity measures in a reasonable time-frame? Do we then shit-can the measures because you don't see a short-term effect? Keep in mind that there may be no way to determine if there is a positive outcome in your lifetime. We're quite possibly talking multiple generations before we know whether or not your sacrifices make a difference...
Edit: I think I should point out to those who don't already know, that I am an analytical chemist so I'm already sceptical by nature by being a 'scientist' and the 'analytic' side makes me EXTREMELY sceptical of emotion. I'm pretty much, 'show me the facts ma'am' and that makes me very unpopular with my religious right family. For all intents and purposes, I try to see all sides due to my religious right upbringing and my scientific studies. Unfortunately, that often puts me at odds with both sides. Don't take what I say personally because my views change far more frequently than somebody who is more apt to agree with the dogma they were raised with. I don't judge, so please don't judge me. I like the free flow of ideas and personally think that the real solutions to problems lie between the extremes.
Seriously, between the two of us we could hash together a healthcare plan in about 3-5 posts that would piss both of us off but would be better than we have now. Do you really think that our government isn't capable of doing the same without some kind of total mandate that will never happen?
Considering that its always the same party that tries to take healthcare away, and one party that tries to make it available for everyone, its more one party making it impossible, rather than a nebulous "the government." Every other government of developed countries has been able to figure it out.
Your side is less than honest about the cost though. Just sayin...
Edit: Great way to get votes though. "It won't cost you anything because the filthy rich will pay for it". Even though they won't...
As has been said many times, the US health system costs far more than any other country in the world, despite not having the universal coverage that virtually every other developed country has. I really don't understand this argument that change has to cost more ...
As for your company, it wouldn't really be an example of 'small government' to legislate that companies have to pass on savings from health insurance. I can't think of any examples of legislation that force companies to pay such specific salaries (there's the minimum wage, but that's not comparable). In order to enforce your desire you would actually have to control the exact payment of the whole salary, which does not seem realistic to me.
I posted not long ago on a group of super-rich people arguing that they should pay more tax. The reality is that the wealthier you are in the US, the lower the impact of tax is on you (even before you get into the issues that rich people can afford to both employ advisers to reduce their tax bills and lobby law-makers to make favorable changes to the tax code). I agree that very high tax rates are counter-productive (for instance through stifling innovation and causing a 'brain-drain'), but tax distortions can create other problems. In the situation where an ever-increasing share of national wealth is held by a tiny percentage of the population it seems reasonable to me to change the tax structure. The aim of that wouldn't necessarily be to generate more tax overall, though that would certainly be a possible result.
I'm a Millennial and I don't think our income or standard of living is really going to go up. Not like it has for other generations, at least.
It's been many years since the recession and unemployment among my generation is still high. Those of us who are employed tend to work multiple jobs for low pay despite having higher educations, and since older folks are retiring later (which they're free to do, though it's not so good for my generation), the better jobs aren't opening up to young people like they otherwise might. It's not clear that the future is going to have all that many jobs in general, either.
And I haven't seen the free market working too hard to solve that problem.
I don't think switching to alternative energy sources really require austerity measures. Wind, solar, and best of all nuclear power are all incredibly cost-effective and profitable.
I believe it was Joe Biden who suggested setting up a national system of electric car charging stations. Like any national infrastructure project, that would be a lovely way to create a bunch of new jobs while also making electric vehicles more cost-effective for consumers--improving consumer choice as well as competition and letting renewables start displacing fossil fuels without any government mandates or taxes.
And, of course, you can always implement a carbon tax. Consumers will take some of the hit, but since alternatives will be available (especially if you implemented Biden's proposal!), most of the burden would be on the fossil fuel industry.
Seriously, between the two of us we could hash together a healthcare plan in about 3-5 posts that would piss both of us off but would be better than we have now. Do you really think that our government isn't capable of doing the same without some kind of total mandate that will never happen?
Considering that its always the same party that tries to take healthcare away, and one party that tries to make it available for everyone, its more one party making it impossible, rather than a nebulous "the government." Every other government of developed countries has been able to figure it out.
Your side is less than honest about the cost though. Just sayin...
Edit: Great way to get votes though. "It won't cost you anything because the filthy rich will pay for it". Even though they won't...
As has been said many times, the US health system costs far more than any other country in the world, despite not having the universal coverage that virtually every other developed country has. I really don't understand this argument that change has to cost more ...
As for your company, it wouldn't really be an example of 'small government' to legislate that companies have to pass on savings from health insurance. I can't think of any examples of legislation that force companies to pay such specific salaries (there's the minimum wage, but that's not comparable). In order to enforce your desire you would actually have to control the exact payment of the whole salary, which does not seem realistic to me.
I posted not long ago on a group of super-rich people arguing that they should pay more tax. The reality is that the wealthier you are in the US, the lower the impact of tax is on you (even before you get into the issues that rich people can afford to both employ advisers to reduce their tax bills and lobby law-makers to make favorable changes to the tax code). I agree that very high tax rates are counter-productive (for instance through stifling innovation and causing a 'brain-drain'), but tax distortions can create other problems. In the situation where an ever-increasing share of national wealth is held by a tiny percentage of the population it seems reasonable to me to change the tax structure. The aim of that wouldn't necessarily be to generate more tax overall, though that would certainly be a possible result.
They're already paying it. Why should they get the break when it's me personally who will get screwed? That doesn't seem like the Democratic party who's supposed to be for the little guy to me...
Edit: In other words, what's the difference between the 'tax cut for the rich' that Trump got through (and the left ripped him about) and this cut in healthcare benefits that benefits corporations?
The Trump Administration is in court right now, as we speak, attempting to AGAIN dismantle the entire ACA. It would be one thing if they had even some modicum of a plan in the wings to replace it, but they don't. Their plan is, essentially, go f**k yourself. For tens of millions of people. Which brings us to another aspect of the political dynamic in the US that is severely underappreciated. Even so-called liberal "victories" like abortion rights, gay marriage, and expanded health care coverage have to then be defended on a nearly constant basis for the next 30-50 years to prevent them from being reverted.
The Trump Administration is in court right now, as we speak, attempting to AGAIN dismantle the entire ACA. It would be one thing if they had even some modicum of a plan in the wings to replace it, but they don't. Their plan is, essentially, go f**k yourself. For tens of millions of people. Which brings us to another aspect of the political dynamic in the US that is severely underappreciated. Even so-called liberal "victories" like abortion rights, gay marriage, and expanded health care coverage have to then be defended on a nearly constant basis for the next 30-50 years to prevent them from being reverted.
Because victories on the left are supposed to be forever? Sorry, democracy goes both ways. Nothing is carved in stone (except apparently the 10 commandments but we don't even have the originals of those unless we find the Lost Ark). Democracy is fluid because morons with votes control things. Want to change it? Make it so educated people are the only ones who vote. Sorry, my 5 beers are clouding my censorship instinct. I love how so many people think that democracy is some steady climb to enlightenment instead of a rule by a mob of doofuses...
Just like the Green New Deal will cost the middle class disproportionately to the rich. I'll be asked to willingly pay for that too. I know, I'm a total asshole for saying it out loud but you know it's true.
I think you'll find this is a generational issue. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are less likely to be willing to pay for enormous structural changes(like the Green New Deal). Millennials currently are - I think in part because we understand that we will be living longer with the havoc of Climate Change than the other two. I also think we see the issue with a greater sense of urgency in general.
At the moment, Boomers have an outsized voice in terms of both voter participation and congress in general. That wont always be the case. By moving the Overton window now, Millenlians will hopefully make combating Climate Change a reasonable proposition as soon as possible (Considering we're on a ticking clock, is just about our only option).
You're of course assuming that man-made climate change is a proven fact which it really isn't. Mitigation is more reasonable than prevention without factual data (which admittedly is nigh impossible to prove scientifically due to multiple variables). I'm willing to discuss mitigation measures and gathering data for proving man-made theories (ie: gauging the effects of switching to alternative energy sources). The problem is the time-frame involved in gathering reliable data could be problematic. Would your generation be willing to sacrifice standard of living with no concrete basis of justifying it? When you're young and idealistic the answer may be 'yes' but that may change as time goes by and your income level and standard of living goes up. I was your age and idealistic at one time don't forget..
Edit: What happens if things don't change with the austerity measures in a reasonable time-frame? Do we then shit-can the measures because you don't see a short-term effect? Keep in mind that there may be no way to determine if there is a positive outcome in your lifetime. We're quite possibly talking multiple generations before we know whether or not your sacrifices make a difference...
You obliquely refer to the fact that in science very few things are 'proven facts'. However, there are theories that are widely accepted - like gravity for instance. There is not universal acceptance of what gravity is, but there is universal acceptance that there are physical effects we can measure, for which the 'theory of gravity' is a useful explanation.
The physical reality of gravity is no more real than the physical reality of climate change. The earth is getting warmer and there are dramatic effects being seen as a result (such as melting of ice-caps and glaciers). Where there is still a marginal bit of scientific debate is the extent to which that physical reality is man-made. At least in scientific circles that is only a marginal debate though. NASA have produce an accessible explanation of the cause of climate change and why we know the sun is not responsible for global warming.
I agree that it's likely to be decades until it's obvious what impact measures we take have had. However, that's not a good reason for taking no action. As @semiticgod noted there is also a lot we can do where there's no need for austerity, as there's a clear win-win for society - such as switching to energy sources that not only reduce carbon, but also support more jobs, produce cheaper electricity and greatly reduce pollution. The problem at the moment is that while there's a clear win-win for wider society, that's at the expense of a loss for the fossil fuel industries (and those currently have an unreasonable level of influence over policy makers).
Seriously, between the two of us we could hash together a healthcare plan in about 3-5 posts that would piss both of us off but would be better than we have now. Do you really think that our government isn't capable of doing the same without some kind of total mandate that will never happen?
Considering that its always the same party that tries to take healthcare away, and one party that tries to make it available for everyone, its more one party making it impossible, rather than a nebulous "the government." Every other government of developed countries has been able to figure it out.
Your side is less than honest about the cost though. Just sayin...
Edit: Great way to get votes though. "It won't cost you anything because the filthy rich will pay for it". Even though they won't...
As has been said many times, the US health system costs far more than any other country in the world, despite not having the universal coverage that virtually every other developed country has. I really don't understand this argument that change has to cost more ...
As for your company, it wouldn't really be an example of 'small government' to legislate that companies have to pass on savings from health insurance. I can't think of any examples of legislation that force companies to pay such specific salaries (there's the minimum wage, but that's not comparable). In order to enforce your desire you would actually have to control the exact payment of the whole salary, which does not seem realistic to me.
I posted not long ago on a group of super-rich people arguing that they should pay more tax. The reality is that the wealthier you are in the US, the lower the impact of tax is on you (even before you get into the issues that rich people can afford to both employ advisers to reduce their tax bills and lobby law-makers to make favorable changes to the tax code). I agree that very high tax rates are counter-productive (for instance through stifling innovation and causing a 'brain-drain'), but tax distortions can create other problems. In the situation where an ever-increasing share of national wealth is held by a tiny percentage of the population it seems reasonable to me to change the tax structure. The aim of that wouldn't necessarily be to generate more tax overall, though that would certainly be a possible result.
They're already paying it. Why should they get the break when it's me personally who will get screwed? That doesn't seem like the Democratic party who's supposed to be for the little guy to me...
Edit: In other words, what's the difference between the 'tax cut for the rich' that Trump got through (and the left ripped him about) and this cut in healthcare benefits that benefits corporations?
Why assume you will get screwed? You're currently in a market place and companies are paying you a market rate. If there are underlying changes in the market place the market rate will shift - if one company tries to take all the benefits from no longer paying health insurance, others can get a competitive advantage by increasing their salaries and attracting the best staff to work for them. You may of course not believe in the market economy, but I haven't previously had that impression.
Seriously, between the two of us we could hash together a healthcare plan in about 3-5 posts that would piss both of us off but would be better than we have now. Do you really think that our government isn't capable of doing the same without some kind of total mandate that will never happen?
Considering that its always the same party that tries to take healthcare away, and one party that tries to make it available for everyone, its more one party making it impossible, rather than a nebulous "the government." Every other government of developed countries has been able to figure it out.
Your side is less than honest about the cost though. Just sayin...
Edit: Great way to get votes though. "It won't cost you anything because the filthy rich will pay for it". Even though they won't...
As has been said many times, the US health system costs far more than any other country in the world, despite not having the universal coverage that virtually every other developed country has. I really don't understand this argument that change has to cost more ...
As for your company, it wouldn't really be an example of 'small government' to legislate that companies have to pass on savings from health insurance. I can't think of any examples of legislation that force companies to pay such specific salaries (there's the minimum wage, but that's not comparable). In order to enforce your desire you would actually have to control the exact payment of the whole salary, which does not seem realistic to me.
I posted not long ago on a group of super-rich people arguing that they should pay more tax. The reality is that the wealthier you are in the US, the lower the impact of tax is on you (even before you get into the issues that rich people can afford to both employ advisers to reduce their tax bills and lobby law-makers to make favorable changes to the tax code). I agree that very high tax rates are counter-productive (for instance through stifling innovation and causing a 'brain-drain'), but tax distortions can create other problems. In the situation where an ever-increasing share of national wealth is held by a tiny percentage of the population it seems reasonable to me to change the tax structure. The aim of that wouldn't necessarily be to generate more tax overall, though that would certainly be a possible result.
They're already paying it. Why should they get the break when it's me personally who will get screwed? That doesn't seem like the Democratic party who's supposed to be for the little guy to me...
Edit: In other words, what's the difference between the 'tax cut for the rich' that Trump got through (and the left ripped him about) and this cut in healthcare benefits that benefits corporations?
Why assume you will get screwed? You're currently in a market place and companies are paying you a market rate. If there are underlying changes in the market place the market rate will shift - if one company tries to take all the benefits from no longer paying health insurance, others can get a competitive advantage by increasing their salaries and attracting the best staff to work for them. You may of course not believe in the market economy, but I haven't previously had that impression.
I've worked for my company for 30 years. Color me sceptical that they'll have my best interest in mind when they can instead save a buck. Get it in writing and you'll have my vote.
Just like the Green New Deal will cost the middle class disproportionately to the rich. I'll be asked to willingly pay for that too. I know, I'm a total asshole for saying it out loud but you know it's true.
I think you'll find this is a generational issue. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are less likely to be willing to pay for enormous structural changes(like the Green New Deal). Millennials currently are - I think in part because we understand that we will be living longer with the havoc of Climate Change than the other two. I also think we see the issue with a greater sense of urgency in general.
At the moment, Boomers have an outsized voice in terms of both voter participation and congress in general. That wont always be the case. By moving the Overton window now, Millenlians will hopefully make combating Climate Change a reasonable proposition as soon as possible (Considering we're on a ticking clock, is just about our only option).
You're of course assuming that man-made climate change is a proven fact which it really isn't. Mitigation is more reasonable than prevention without factual data (which admittedly is nigh impossible to prove scientifically due to multiple variables). I'm willing to discuss mitigation measures and gathering data for proving man-made theories (ie: gauging the effects of switching to alternative energy sources). The problem is the time-frame involved in gathering reliable data could be problematic. Would your generation be willing to sacrifice standard of living with no concrete basis of justifying it? When you're young and idealistic the answer may be 'yes' but that may change as time goes by and your income level and standard of living goes up. I was your age and idealistic at one time don't forget..
Edit: What happens if things don't change with the austerity measures in a reasonable time-frame? Do we then shit-can the measures because you don't see a short-term effect? Keep in mind that there may be no way to determine if there is a positive outcome in your lifetime. We're quite possibly talking multiple generations before we know whether or not your sacrifices make a difference...
You obliquely refer to the fact that in science very few things are 'proven facts'. However, there are theories that are widely accepted - like gravity for instance. There is not universal acceptance of what gravity is, but there is universal acceptance that there are physical effects we can measure, for which the 'theory of gravity' is a useful explanation.
The physical reality of gravity is no more real than the physical reality of climate change. The earth is getting warmer and there are dramatic effects being seen as a result (such as melting of ice-caps and glaciers). Where there is still a marginal bit of scientific debate is the extent to which that physical reality is man-made. At least in scientific circles that is only a marginal debate though. NASA have produce an accessible explanation of the cause of climate change and why we know the sun is not responsible for global warming.
I agree that it's likely to be decades until it's obvious what impact measures we take have had. However, that's not a good reason for taking no action. As @semiticgod noted there is also a lot we can do where there's no need for austerity, as there's a clear win-win for society - such as switching to energy sources that not only reduce carbon, but also support more jobs, produce cheaper electricity and greatly reduce pollution. The problem at the moment is that while there's a clear win-win for wider society, that's at the expense of a loss for the fossil fuel industries (and those currently have an unreasonable level of influence over policy makers).
I work for a company that's heavily into fossil fuels. My company along with most, if not all, fossil fuel companies are getting on board with sustainability. If you think that's because they give a shit about global warming I think you're mistaken. They're petrified by the fact that we may be burning their profits up in our automobiles. Almost all of our advanced technology is either directly or indirectly tied into oil in one way or another. The fact that may be a finite resource is just occurring to them now. Low oil prices is their worst nightmare and don't think for one minute that that isn't quite possibly behind the 'global warming' scare that the media is feeding us. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but I've been seeing the handwriting on the wall for at least the last 10 years or so. Sustainability is very likely good for the environment without doubt, but be sceptical about the cost because I think we're being sold a bill of goods...
Comments
I assume you're talking about Presidential elections because there's no way non-presidential years average 50% turnout (excepting maybe the last one). If you add my percentages it would be 40-50% for non-presidential elections and 50-70% for election years. Not far off the mark for a baseline. I made no argument other than pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a mad rush to fill the polling booths in general...
I'm an atheist and I don't go to church. If somebody made it harder for a religious person to go to church, my personal disinterest in church wouldn't be considered relevant.
Combatting voter apathy would make suppressing 1-2% of the vote less relevant. I'm with @Mathsorcerer on this. Giving people real alternatives to vote for instead of Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber who only vote the party line and have little to no original thoughts in their brains would go a long way in getting rid of these shenanigans...
I've used this example before, but even if it's just this ONE hypothetical person, then the efforts were made simply to strip that person of their rights. There is a 98 year-old African-American widow who lives in a small town in Alabama. For 40 years, she's been voting in the same church. She's mostly housebound, her husband has been dead for 20 years, she hasn't driven or had a license for 10 because of her eyesight, and had no real need until recently to have another photo ID. One election day, she makes her way to the church and finds that not only has she been removed from the rolls because she missed some mailer she was sent, but she doesn't have an ID to rectify the situation.
All so we can do what?? Stop the statistically non-existent threat of "voter fraud"?? Republicans know that poorer people have 1.) less time to jump through these hoops because they can't afford to miss work 2.) are more likely NOT to drive, thus more likely to not already have an ID but 3.) they know most people don't give a shit about these people anyway, thus we get shoulder shrugs from people able how they might be affected, because those who take THEIR rights for granted can't conceive of how it could happen to others.
Thus, when the argument comes up, the actual merits of these hoops and loopholes can't be defended, so what we get instead are variations on the tried and true conservative "work ethic" message, which is to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get to the DMV a month early, and make sure your voter registration is up to date, and make sure your name isn't spelled with a hyphen in some government database somewhere that will flag your name, and make sure to save up your vacation time for November 2nd of each year". It's the same bullshit aimed in a different direction. Voting shouldn't require the same level of personal responsibility and advance planning as getting a boat loan.
I disagree. You have to put an effort into almost everything worthwhile in life. Why should voting be any different? I'm not for suppressing votes by any means but I sure as Hell dont think you should be able to vote on voting day(s) while sitting on your ass on the computer either! Even if you don't think there are shenanigans now, you can't possibly believe that on-line voting, which many liberals support, would be safe and secure. Before you throw me under the bus, I agree that every effort should be made to make sure that disabled people and the elderly have their voices heard. Absentee ballots address that issue though...
Ted Nugent is rapidly wearing out his welcome in Michigan. This is why I think celebrities are generally morons who we should ignore for the most part. I love his guitar playing but seriously, does being a great musician, actor, athlete, public speaker, or artist automatically give weight to their idiotic political or religious views? I certainly don't think so...
Edit: Michigan is still firmly a swing state (president winners - Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Trump). We flip-flop between parties for governor, have had Democrat Senators since the 80's but are close to 50/50 in House representatives, the state legislature has been Republican since forever and the major power seats (judges, Sec State, Attorney General, etc..) are pretty evenly split. Calling us another California because of one election result is ludicrous!
Healthcare - sign me up for universal healthcare when they honestly tell me how much it'll cost me personally. The rich already pay more in taxes (in total dollars per person) than I do so don't tell me they're going to pay for all of it. I've been around the block long enough to know that'll never happen. If I'm going to be taxed for it, then my company needs to be forced to pay at least 80% or so of the difference as a direct salary increase or I'm going to call bullshit and say it's a backdoor way for major corporations to screw me over. Get that in play and I'll start voting Democrat tomorrow!
"It doesn't affect me, so everyone else can go screw off," really sums up pretty much every conservative argument.
@Balrog99 Allocating 5% of taxes already taken on income would probably be enough to put everyone on Medicare. Really, we already spend trillions on the military, but nobody cares to ask where that money is coming from. We can divert some of that. Heck, look at Canada and all of Europe, they spend less money on healtchare than us (everyone does acually, we spend more on healthcare than anyone else). So just adapting literally ANY other healthcare system from one of these countries would be cheaper.
Then make my company pay me what they're already paying. I'm not being an asshole. The savings on healthcare will not be mine, it'll be my company's. I already said I'd be happy if my company only paid 80% of what they're giving me already. That would be $500 - $1000 per year on me supporting others. I'm not rich by any means so would that be enough???
Edit: This grandiose 'other people will pay for it' is a pipe-dream. Tell me honestly what it will cost me personally. This isn't calculus, it's algebra. They know the cost, they just won't tell us...
Seriously, between the two of us we could hash together a healthcare plan in about 3-5 posts that would piss both of us off but would be better than we have now. Do you really think that our government isn't capable of doing the same without some kind of total mandate that will never happen?
Trump wasn't even a true conservative until it served his purpose. He's a a fricking amateur psychology player that knows how to manipulate people. That's the main reason I've never liked him. He's not genuine. He doesn't personally give a shit about Christianity or morals. He was never a crusader for the 'morals' of the social right. He's just playing a winning hand with the people he's manipulating. I give him about a 50/50 shot at getting 8 years of the presidency of the most powerful country of the planet solely by being a player. Scary shit if you ask me. He plays the left almost as well as he plays his base which is why I have him at 50/50. If the left thinks he's vulnerable enough to get Kamala Harris in he just might pull off another term. My opinion anyway...
Edit: There's a reason he's put a big bullseye on Biden. For good reason he sees Biden as his biggest threat, and it's not just because of name recognition. Biden is pretty centrist overall and that's a huge threat to his 'Democrats are Socialists' narrative.
I'm not sure that any of the politicians we have ever show their true faces. If presidential candidates that viciously campaigned against each other can settle their differences and hang out together, why can't all of these assholes in power do the same in order to improve things for the masses? Compromise being seen as weakness, fueled by the press on both sides is the true enemy of the people IMHO.
Considering that its always the same party that tries to take healthcare away, and one party that tries to make it available for everyone, its more one party making it impossible, rather than a nebulous "the government." Every other government of developed countries has been able to figure it out.
Your side is less than honest about the cost though. Just sayin...
Edit: Great way to get votes though. "It won't cost you anything because the filthy rich will pay for it". Even though they won't...
My idea of making my company pay 80% of what they're already paying me and me making up the other 20% isn't enough then? How much more are we talking about? This is post one of our one-on-one negotiation.
I think you'll find this is a generational issue. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are less likely to be willing to pay for enormous structural changes(like the Green New Deal). Millennials currently are - I think in part because we understand that we will be living longer with the havoc of Climate Change than the other two. I also think we see the issue with a greater sense of urgency in general.
At the moment, Boomers have an outsized voice in terms of both voter participation and congress in general. That wont always be the case. By moving the Overton window now, Millenlians will hopefully make combating Climate Change a reasonable proposition as soon as possible (Considering we're on a ticking clock, is just about our only option).
You're of course assuming that man-made climate change is a proven fact which it really isn't. Mitigation is more reasonable than prevention without factual data (which admittedly is nigh impossible to prove scientifically due to multiple variables). I'm willing to discuss mitigation measures and gathering data for proving man-made theories (ie: gauging the effects of switching to alternative energy sources). The problem is the time-frame involved in gathering reliable data could be problematic. Would your generation be willing to sacrifice standard of living with no concrete basis of justifying it? When you're young and idealistic the answer may be 'yes' but that may change as time goes by and your income level and standard of living goes up. I was your age and idealistic at one time don't forget..
Edit: What happens if things don't change with the austerity measures in a reasonable time-frame? Do we then shit-can the measures because you don't see a short-term effect? Keep in mind that there may be no way to determine if there is a positive outcome in your lifetime. We're quite possibly talking multiple generations before we know whether or not your sacrifices make a difference...
Edit: I think I should point out to those who don't already know, that I am an analytical chemist so I'm already sceptical by nature by being a 'scientist' and the 'analytic' side makes me EXTREMELY sceptical of emotion. I'm pretty much, 'show me the facts ma'am' and that makes me very unpopular with my religious right family. For all intents and purposes, I try to see all sides due to my religious right upbringing and my scientific studies. Unfortunately, that often puts me at odds with both sides. Don't take what I say personally because my views change far more frequently than somebody who is more apt to agree with the dogma they were raised with. I don't judge, so please don't judge me. I like the free flow of ideas and personally think that the real solutions to problems lie between the extremes.
As has been said many times, the US health system costs far more than any other country in the world, despite not having the universal coverage that virtually every other developed country has. I really don't understand this argument that change has to cost more ...
As for your company, it wouldn't really be an example of 'small government' to legislate that companies have to pass on savings from health insurance. I can't think of any examples of legislation that force companies to pay such specific salaries (there's the minimum wage, but that's not comparable). In order to enforce your desire you would actually have to control the exact payment of the whole salary, which does not seem realistic to me.
I posted not long ago on a group of super-rich people arguing that they should pay more tax. The reality is that the wealthier you are in the US, the lower the impact of tax is on you (even before you get into the issues that rich people can afford to both employ advisers to reduce their tax bills and lobby law-makers to make favorable changes to the tax code). I agree that very high tax rates are counter-productive (for instance through stifling innovation and causing a 'brain-drain'), but tax distortions can create other problems. In the situation where an ever-increasing share of national wealth is held by a tiny percentage of the population it seems reasonable to me to change the tax structure. The aim of that wouldn't necessarily be to generate more tax overall, though that would certainly be a possible result.
It's been many years since the recession and unemployment among my generation is still high. Those of us who are employed tend to work multiple jobs for low pay despite having higher educations, and since older folks are retiring later (which they're free to do, though it's not so good for my generation), the better jobs aren't opening up to young people like they otherwise might. It's not clear that the future is going to have all that many jobs in general, either.
And I haven't seen the free market working too hard to solve that problem.
I believe it was Joe Biden who suggested setting up a national system of electric car charging stations. Like any national infrastructure project, that would be a lovely way to create a bunch of new jobs while also making electric vehicles more cost-effective for consumers--improving consumer choice as well as competition and letting renewables start displacing fossil fuels without any government mandates or taxes.
And, of course, you can always implement a carbon tax. Consumers will take some of the hit, but since alternatives will be available (especially if you implemented Biden's proposal!), most of the burden would be on the fossil fuel industry.
They're already paying it. Why should they get the break when it's me personally who will get screwed? That doesn't seem like the Democratic party who's supposed to be for the little guy to me...
Edit: In other words, what's the difference between the 'tax cut for the rich' that Trump got through (and the left ripped him about) and this cut in healthcare benefits that benefits corporations?
Because victories on the left are supposed to be forever? Sorry, democracy goes both ways. Nothing is carved in stone (except apparently the 10 commandments but we don't even have the originals of those unless we find the Lost Ark). Democracy is fluid because morons with votes control things. Want to change it? Make it so educated people are the only ones who vote. Sorry, my 5 beers are clouding my censorship instinct. I love how so many people think that democracy is some steady climb to enlightenment instead of a rule by a mob of doofuses...
You obliquely refer to the fact that in science very few things are 'proven facts'. However, there are theories that are widely accepted - like gravity for instance. There is not universal acceptance of what gravity is, but there is universal acceptance that there are physical effects we can measure, for which the 'theory of gravity' is a useful explanation.
The physical reality of gravity is no more real than the physical reality of climate change. The earth is getting warmer and there are dramatic effects being seen as a result (such as melting of ice-caps and glaciers). Where there is still a marginal bit of scientific debate is the extent to which that physical reality is man-made. At least in scientific circles that is only a marginal debate though. NASA have produce an accessible explanation of the cause of climate change and why we know the sun is not responsible for global warming.
I agree that it's likely to be decades until it's obvious what impact measures we take have had. However, that's not a good reason for taking no action. As @semiticgod noted there is also a lot we can do where there's no need for austerity, as there's a clear win-win for society - such as switching to energy sources that not only reduce carbon, but also support more jobs, produce cheaper electricity and greatly reduce pollution. The problem at the moment is that while there's a clear win-win for wider society, that's at the expense of a loss for the fossil fuel industries (and those currently have an unreasonable level of influence over policy makers).
Why assume you will get screwed? You're currently in a market place and companies are paying you a market rate. If there are underlying changes in the market place the market rate will shift - if one company tries to take all the benefits from no longer paying health insurance, others can get a competitive advantage by increasing their salaries and attracting the best staff to work for them. You may of course not believe in the market economy, but I haven't previously had that impression.
I've worked for my company for 30 years. Color me sceptical that they'll have my best interest in mind when they can instead save a buck. Get it in writing and you'll have my vote.
I work for a company that's heavily into fossil fuels. My company along with most, if not all, fossil fuel companies are getting on board with sustainability. If you think that's because they give a shit about global warming I think you're mistaken. They're petrified by the fact that we may be burning their profits up in our automobiles. Almost all of our advanced technology is either directly or indirectly tied into oil in one way or another. The fact that may be a finite resource is just occurring to them now. Low oil prices is their worst nightmare and don't think for one minute that that isn't quite possibly behind the 'global warming' scare that the media is feeding us. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but I've been seeing the handwriting on the wall for at least the last 10 years or so. Sustainability is very likely good for the environment without doubt, but be sceptical about the cost because I think we're being sold a bill of goods...