General US Politics

[Res]

Tax avoidance (which has been in UK papers a lot recently with the release of the Paradise Papers) is legal but responsible for many more billions lost in government income than the paltry amount welfare fraud is estimated to cost taxpayers. 

Health insurance is an area I keep returning to because it's such a necessary thing - everyone, at some point in their life, is going to need to see a medical professional, and it's extremely risky to remain uninsured - have an accident and you're bankrupt. Unless you're on a decent income, or your employer offers an extremely good rate, it's likely that your health insurance is being subsidized in some way. I currently have really great medical insurance - I still pay 6% more of my income to it than I would if I were in the UK, but it's still extremely cheap relative to what most other people pay. The business I work for is closing soon, though, and since we're planning to move next year it's likely I'll only find temporary work, not a permanent position. That means if I wish to remain insured for a few months we'll have to switch to my husband's work plan. Currently it'd cost us $800/mo for a plan that isn't fantastic (higher co-pays than mine, and only 60% covered for the rest). $800 is a good chunk of one paycheck and would definitely make us extremely cash-poor, if not unable to pay all our bills. 

A disabled friend recently remarked that accommodating her disabilities costs 63% of her family's income. That's with her husband on a decent salary, and at least she's married to a person who's able to work - if she was alone, she'd be screwed. (She also works, but is more limited in the hours she's able to work due to her disabilities). 

Meanwhile, other countries manage to cover all of their citizens for less than Medicare costs the taxpayer in the U.S. (And innovation means squat when a person can't even see any doctor in the first place).

People who are sick or disabled aren't lazy and the stress that arises from having to worry about a basic need is immeasurable - we'd see a significant increase in many people's quality of life if healthcare needs were covered.

[SullyMcGully]

Don't take what I said too seriously. It's never gonna happen. That's a fact.

If being lazy really did automatically make you poor and destitute though, that wouldn't be a problem. People just wouldn't be lazy.

On the topic of health insurance, have any of you ever heard of a medical need-sharing program? My family is on a program called Samaritan Ministries, where they only pay around $450 a month and have a $300 deductible. The way it works is that members of the program contribute money on a monthly basis to cover each other's needs. They manage to keep prices so low because 1) they're non-profit 2) they employ few people 3) the people they do employ are professional advisors who can help you negotiate medical bills down to a fraction of their usual price. The problems are 1) you have to be a Christian to join 2) they don't allow smokers, alcoholics, etc. 3) they don't cover non-essentials like contraceptives, plastic surgery, and such. I doubt any of you would be interested in this program per se, but I wonder if the efficiency of medical need-sharing programs could be implemented by the government in some way or another. I'm interested in what you all would think about a sharing system.

[Phoenix Wright]

4 hours ago, eclipse said:

Doesn't matter if you agree with it.  Part of understanding a different viewpoint is reading what they think supports their argument.  If the source is lame (like citing some random blog that references nothing else), feel free to rip it to shreds.

rather than do that, i'm just not going to waste my time lmao. i mean look at how this conversation went: i brought up the most valid point against lushen's beliefs, and he goes radio silent. i've badgered him a few times to speak, but he doesn't want to. he's in his own world.

the fact that you support that instead of actual, factual engagement speaks volumes.

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

In which case, you're dealing with someone that you can't take seriously (but do point out the issue with the sources first).  If I see a string of opinion pieces/other unverifiable sources, I'll consider a trolling warning.

sounds like you'd have an 8hr day's worth of warnings if you actually did that. lushen, tuvarkz, life, just off the top.

[eclipse]

5 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

rather than do that, i'm just not going to waste my time lmao. i mean look at how this conversation went: i brought up the most valid point against lushen's beliefs, and he goes radio silent. i've badgered him a few times to speak, but he doesn't want to. he's in his own world.

the fact that you support that instead of actual, factual engagement speaks volumes.

sounds like you'd have an 8hr day's worth of warnings if you actually did that. lushen, tuvarkz, life, just off the top.

 

I've chosen to ignore most of the topic, because it's about as interesting to me as watching paint dry.  If that behavior bothers you that much, the Ignore option is in your profile.  Some people aren't ready to have their minds changed.  Perhaps it'll change tomorrow, or fifty years from now.  Once you've said your piece, it's up to the other person to respond, and if they don't, oh well.  My job isn't to force people to respond in a certain manner - instead, it's to make sure this thread doesn't devolve into "DAE Hitler" or something equally stupid.

[Phoenix Wright]

no one's asking you to do anything. but you come here lecturing me (yet again), without having read the topic even, and want me to engage in something that would waste time rather than move a discussion forward. 

i mean, i cannot fucking believe there are people here that actually think posting a link to something that simply agrees with held beliefs is a valid source regardless of the source's quality. 

[Res]

1 hour ago, SullyMcGully said:

Don't take what I said too seriously. It's never gonna happen. That's a fact.

If being lazy really did automatically make you poor and destitute though, that wouldn't be a problem. People just wouldn't be lazy.

I'd argue the U.S.'s current capitalist society is already pretty unfair to the types of people I gave as examples. We have plenty of people who aren't compensated for their hard work and plenty of people who aren't capable of hard work and are pretty destitute as a result. Plus people who hold similar views to you are the people who vote to decrease benefits and to keep salaries stagnant. Why should we not take you seriously in Serious Discussion?

I also don't think it's that simple by any means. Few people are truly 'lazy' - most of the time I can point to mental or physical illnesses that contribute to what people perceive as 'laziness'. And there's not much of a life to be led if you're poor and lazy. If anything, only the rich can currently get away with laziness.

I do actually have one friend whom some might have considered lazy/to be 'scamming' welfare. He received (no longer does) a $800/mo social security check. $600 went to rent (cheapest shared room available), $30 to his phone, leaving $170 for food and everything else. Not much of a life - and the lack of money for a car, education etc. made it difficult for him to find work regardless of how capable he was of finding work.

[eclipse]

10 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

no one's asking you to do anything. but you come here lecturing me (yet again), without having read the topic even, and want me to engage in something that would waste time rather than move a discussion forward. 

i mean, i cannot fucking believe there are people here that actually think posting a link to something that simply agrees with held beliefs is a valid source regardless of the source's quality. 

You'd be surprised and appalled at the number of people that lack basic critical thinking skills.  That's why you'll see "this is what I think and here's this random blogger that agrees with me".  But if one side is composed of that mindset, that should tell you all you need to know about the stance they take.

Sometimes, it's better to give someone the ammo box, when their gun is pointed down.

[Rezzy]

Crawling out of my hole to check in the governor elections for New Jersey and Virginia.  It looks like wins for Democrats in both cases.  New Jersey was expected in a deep blue state with a very unpopular previous R governor.

Virginia was pretty much a must-win for Democrats.  If they had lost a blue leaning state Hillary carried and also had been incumbent for the Dems, it would have been yet another loss this year for them that had hoped to win.  So it pretty much preserves the status quo, which may not be a great thing.  Had they lost, it could have given them the kick in the pants to get their act together, but now they may get complacent and win the battle, but lose the war in next year's midterm with far more on the line.

My decision to vote third party last year is looking better and better in retrospect with all the news I've been reading the past few weeks.

Okay, back into my hole.

[Dark Holy Elf]

The Virginia election definitely isn't status quo; the Democrats may have flipped the house for the first time since the 20th century (it's too close to say at this point), and at worst have made a gain of over a dozen seats. Northam has also won by ~9% which is a significant outperforming of his polls (and a bit of egg in the face for Republicans who peddle the lie that polls underrate them).

This continues the trend of Democrats outperforming norms in every election since Trump's inauguration, which is heartening as someone who can't stand what he's doing. And I definitely don't think a few state-level results will make anyone complacent.

[Shoblongoo]

Yessssssssss. So glad to finally be done with Christie.

Not overly in love with Murphy.  But he campaigned on opposing Trump's push for mass deportation + turning NJ into a sanctuary state for deportable aliens.  And on reversing Christie's policy of opposing state-level legalization of marijuana. (we might actually make some progress on that front now, with Democrats in control of the governorship, the Assembly, and the State Senate)

That's enough to earn my vote, over what the Republicans were offering in the alternative.

And If he performs as promised on those issues, he's got my continued support going into the next cycle.

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Rezzy]

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

The Virginia election definitely isn't status quo; the Democrats may have flipped the house for the first time since the 20th century (it's too close to say at this point), and at worst have made a gain of over a dozen seats. Northam has also won by ~9% which is a significant outperforming of his polls (and a bit of egg in the face for Republicans who peddle the lie that polls underrate them).

This continues the trend of Democrats outperforming norms in every election since Trump's inauguration, which is heartening as someone who can't stand what he's doing. And I definitely don't think a few state-level results will make anyone complacent.

They overperformed, but for re-elections and the governors' seats, their only pick up so far is the New Jersey governorship, which is far below what they had been hoping for at the beginning of the year, so there's been no major upsets.  They were expected to win, and it would have been a worse sign with losing than it is a good sign with winning.

For the house, I have not followed it closely enough to say.  I've been largely absent from politics for the last year, and have only been keeping up with the major things.

[Tryhard]

It would be nice to see a real upset like Doug Jones winning in Alabama and taking Sessions' prior seat, I think.

Edit: Not just because it would prevent Roy Moore who is pretty terrible, but from what I know of Doug Jones, he seems sane.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Tryhard

[Zasplach]

46 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

It would be nice to see a real upset like Doug Jones winning in Alabama and taking Sessions' prior seat, I think.

Edit: Not just because it would prevent Roy Moore who is pretty terrible, but from what I know of Doug Jones, he seems sane.

You might as well start hoping for it to start raining money.  Democrats have about as much chance of winning in a statewide Alabama election as I have of being President in four years (I'm 25, so yeah).  Democrats need to focus on winning middle America state elections, the deep south is too red.  Winning Virginia is a good start, but Democrats have to win elections in states like Wisconsin, Detroit, Ohio, and Iowa.  Let the deep south do whatever they are going to do.

[Tryhard]

I said it would be nice, not likely.

[SullyMcGully]

Oh well. I guess Virginia isn't ready for a woman yet.

[Dark Holy Elf]

11 hours ago, Rezzy said:

They overperformed, but for re-elections and the governors' seats, their only pick up so far is the New Jersey governorship, which is far below what they had been hoping for at the beginning of the year, so there's been no major upsets.  They were expected to win, and it would have been a worse sign with losing than it is a good sign with winning.

If you're referring to the House special elections, the ones the Democrats failed to pick up were all in extremely conservative districts. Even so, compared to the previous elections:

Georgia-6 fell from R+23 to R+3
Kansas-4 fell from R+31 to R+6
South Carolina-5 fell from R+21 to R+3
Utah-3 fell from R+47 to R+30 (.....)

EDIT: missed one. Montana fell from R+16 to R+5 (the most disappointing result for the Democrats relatively)

Flipping a state which the opponent won by >20 points in the prior election is extremely unusual, and failing to do so hardly qualifies as "far below what they were hoping". You're right that in terms of outright win/loss results, Democrats did no better than they expected, but you'd better believe these results are far more worrying to Republican strategists than Democratic ones. Because not every seat the Republicans are defending in 2018 is one that can afford a 15-20 point swing like we saw in the results above.

 

1 hour ago, SullyMcGully said:

Oh well. I guess Virginia isn't ready for a woman yet.

What's this in reference to?

Edited November 8, 2017 by Dark Holy Elf

[Tryhard]

In an update to what was said earlier, I do see Stephen Paddock's motive as being both apolitical and areligious, but details that have emerged about Devin Kelley is that he was an atheist according to people who knew him who was quite pushy about it and mocked religious people. The fact that he shot people in a church isn't really surprising in that case. It's worth bringing up because this part is likely to be demonised by certain sources, but may be considered a "religious" motive.

I know that it would be customary to blame religion in the cases of violence in the name of religion, but scramble to find any reason in which his atheism wouldn't be relevant in this case because it conflicts with predetermined views. As sad as certain right-wing media are for attempting to use this as evidence as atheists are evil, so too I think it is sad that some atheists would attempt to abscond this because of X, Y and Z.

It wouldn't really only be that, though, as he had a history of domestic violence and hated his family who were members of that church, but it's worth noting.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Tryhard

[Res]

It sounds as if he was a mean shit throughout his entire life, too. Plus the DV charges were for fracturing his stepson's skull.

 

 

[Moblin Major General]

The Sutherland Springs Massacre proves that background checks are worthless when bureaucracy is bureaucracy. Devin Kelley was everything background checks were designed to prevent, but if agencies fail to communicate, then what good are they? Are they necessary? Yes. But do they work? Only when the technocracy gets off its ass and helps each other. This could've been avoided if the FBI was notified of Kelley's bad conduct discharge. He was also a raving anti theist, but a supermajority of them are at least sane and law abiding, so I'm inclined to believe this wasn't ideologically motivated.

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Hylian Air Force said:

The Sutherland Springs Massacre proves that background checks are worthless when bureaucracy is bureaucracy. Devin Kelley was everything background checks were designed to prevent, but if agencies fail to communicate, then what good are they? Are they necessary? Yes. But do they work? Only when the technocracy gets off its ass and helps each other. This could've been avoided if the FBI was notified of Kelley's bad conduct discharge. He was also a raving anti theist, but a supermajority of them are at least sane and law abiding, so I'm inclined to believe this wasn't ideologically motivated.

I don't know about all that. But there is something oddly meta about Donald Trump standing next to the prime minister of Japan--a country where mass shootings are unheard of, where gun crime has been all-but-eradicated by strict control laws, and where citizens looking to travel abroad are hesitant to visit America for fear of being shot to death--randomly having to respond to America's 2nd mass shooting in 35 days. Proclaiming to the international press that no one would have thought a thing like this could happen in America. That the problem isn't guns--you can't treat this as a gun problem. And that more people would have died if one of the shooters would-be victims didn't have a gun.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[SullyMcGully]

16 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

And that more people would have died if one of the shooters would-be victims didn't have a gun.

Y'know, more people would have died if one of the shooter's would-be victims didn't have a gun. 

 

4 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

What's this in reference to?

Jill Vogel would've been Virginia's first female lieutenant governor. That would be the highest position a woman has ever reached in Virginia politics. I was making fun of a lot of people who said the same thing about Hillary when she lost.

[Lord Raven]

48 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Y'know, more people would have died if one of the shooter's would-be victims didn't have a gun. 

And significantly less if the shooter had no gun. You’re teetering on the edge of victim blaming.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Moblin Major General]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

And that more people would have died if one of the shooters would-be victims didn't have a gun.

None of his victims were armed. It was a neighbor who shot him, not someone in the church.

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, SullyMcGully said:

Y'know, more people would have died if one of the shooter's would-be victims didn't have a gun. 

 

Jill Vogel would've been Virginia's first female lieutenant governor. That would be the highest position a woman has ever reached in Virginia politics. I was making fun of a lot of people who said the same thing about Hillary when she lost.

To the extent grim humor can be found in such things, it's humorous he feels the need to rehash this talking point in Japan of all places. Like--they already solved this problem. By doing the exact opposite of what he's saying. Annnnyways. Virginia just elected the country's first transgendered lawmaker. Defeating the 13 term incumbent who championed Virginia's toughest anti-LGBT laws. That's something.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Rezzy]

9 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

If you're referring to the House special elections, the ones the Democrats failed to pick up were all in extremely conservative districts. Even so, compared to the previous elections:

Georgia-6 fell from R+23 to R+3
Kansas-4 fell from R+31 to R+6
South Carolina-5 fell from R+21 to R+3
Utah-3 fell from R+47 to R+30 (.....)

EDIT: missed one. Montana fell from R+16 to R+5 (the most disappointing result for the Democrats relatively)

Flipping a state which the opponent won by >20 points in the prior election is extremely unusual, and failing to do so hardly qualifies as "far below what they were hoping". You're right that in terms of outright win/loss results, Democrats did no better than they expected, but you'd better believe these results are far more worrying to Republican strategists than Democratic ones. Because not every seat the Republicans are defending in 2018 is one that can afford a 15-20 point swing like we saw in the results above.

 

What's this in reference to?

The House is too early to speculate at this point, but the Dems are at the disadvantge in the Senate next year because they have far more seats to defend.  They will have to continue this level of spread just to break even in the midterms.

5 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

Jill Vogel would've been Virginia's first female lieutenant governor. That would be the highest position a woman has ever reached in Virginia politics. I was making fun of a lot of people who said the same thing about Hillary when she lost.

Maybe I should run for governor for Illinois next year.  Rauner is pretty unpopular with just about everybody, and I'd be surprised if he won next year.