The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

The us tax system is very complex. Someone making $46,000 is in the 25% tax bracket for federal but this isn't a flat tax so around 10 to 13% rate. State could vary from no tax to 7%. Local could be no tax to 5% and could include a school tax. We have medicare 1.45% and social security of 6.2% aka fica. We have unemployment around a percentage... sometimes called reemployment or training tax. If self employed could be hit by a 15% flat se tax in replace of fica.

This is our income taxes. We have other taxes based on value aka real estate taxes and estate taxes or pp like sales or use tax.

Again, all this changes by locality.

Expected medical is between $7000 to 13,000 and your taking a chunk of change. To give you an idea of rent and food welfare housing is 8,000 to 10,000 and estimated welfare food is 6,000.

Edit: so taxes could be around 15% but could be as high as 35% (where I live is close to 26%). Health insurance/&expense are from 15% to 30%. Other important basic living items are around 30%.

Ah right I think in the US you don't have the whole German apprenticeship-system-thing we have here where many jobs are learnt via a mixture of mostly practical work in a company and theory stuff in a occupational school.

Although that system also has flaws. For once more and more people don't do it anymore, as going to university simply yields you more income later, that's part of why I am going to university even though I have completed an apprenticeship as a software developer. The other part is the studying in university, especially when you're really good at the subject you're doing already, tends to ... yield a lot of free time, like 3-4 month of it a year, and is generally fun

Also the occupational school in some jobs is faced with a dilemma: The class will be a mixture of failed university students as well as graduates of schools called "Gymnasium" and "Realschule". A Gymnasium is the highest form of school, ends at class 13, graduates will be ready for university when they graduate and around 19 years old. Realschule is a middle form of education, ends at class 10. So graduates will have 3 years less of teaching compared to "Gymanisum"-graduates. Also obviously younger.

So what does such a mixed "skill level" of the class leads to? Well in my class that was supposed to prepare people for IT-jobs we had no math classes at all. We asked a teacher why. Answer: "You're just so mixed in what you already know, we'd either bore half of you or require too much of the other half". So no math at all instead.

Insane logic, they really should just teach some basics and ignore the bored part of the class. As a graduate of a "Realschule" you'll otherwise most likely not even know what vector-math is about. I was quite surprised when I was working with a graduate of that kind of school on a "program snake" task and my suggestion of "we'll describe the movement as a 2d vector" was not understood.

So the point is: The practical training part of this stuff is great, but the school part is ... not necessarily good.

As most tax systems in most countries are.

It's honestly better that way. They should demand as much math of someone as they can, but it should be independent as much as it can, of other courses. Obviously math is necessary in science that requires derivatives, not so much in dentistry. We could have more dentists, and thus, less cost per, if there was less requirements on expensive higher education, and more options to occupationally train for it. As is, you'd soon work on your own teeth. Truth be told, I work on my own. That's the way it is, it's simply too prohibitively expensive. If I needed work done, I know a good dentists that'll take 60 bucks over 3 payments, but that's a one-of-a-kind dentist, most want 300 up front.

I don't think I'll ever vote for a democrat, that doesn't mention European-like social reforms frequently and seriously. That's pretty much my minimum requirements.

To be fair, the consistent thing I've gotten from trophy is that he would prefer Sanders as a candidate.

The thing I get stuck on is Sanders not working out, therefore defend the Republican base to the hilt. That's the logical leap I can't follow.

Guess what? I know people too.

Doesn't make me, or them, wrong. Offering rebates is not the same as being able to pick up the drugs at zero cost. And if the ACA didn't allow this, then your acquaintance was one of the people it didn't help. But the people it didn't help isn't a reason to dismiss the thousands more it did.

You're being willfully obtuse at this stage. Look up anecdotal evidence.

Anyhow let's have some Premium Twitter Content because Republican hypocrisy even over the pointless asinine matters never fails to amuse me:

https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/836399634947977217

So... I proved you wrong and your comment is well I know people too... okay, I guess you do. The old system was not some death program you think it was and are lying about.

I agreed before about issues with preexisting issues. Its the only good thing about obamacare. But this could have been solved with a risk pool and an expansion of medicare or chip programs. No reason for the elaborate law of obamacare. Throw in more appealing hsa and you have a pretty good free market system. Not perfect but better.

I didn't say the "old system" was a "death program". You're arguing about something I literally never said.

I said repealing the ACA will have fatal consequences for people. Including people I know. If you want to argue that they're a statistical minority and should suck it up, perhaps make that argument, instead of dancing around the issue.

You said "In the meantime, people are dying from a lack of cover. And more could die.

It's hard to have sympathy for people paying a bit more than they used to for medical cover vs. people dying due to the lack of it."

Sounds like you called it a death system to me. I proved you wrong. You said you know people. I said okay. Then I gave an alternative to aca that I think would work better. You ignored that and now we are doing a who said what thing. Off topic a bit I think.

The transitory phase with the GOP committed to repealing the ACA is already have an impact on available stock as well as the amount of medicine people feel they need to stockpile (based on GOP statements on what they don't want to cover in future, including pre-existing conditions that I already told you to Google).

As for "ignorance", here's my latest on people dying at the moment:

This doesn't seem difficult to understand, to me. I conceded that tangent due to a lack of supporting materials.

You're insistent on attempting to discredit me personally (accusing me of off-topic - we're discussing American healthcare and political interference with it, it's entirely on-topic - stating you proved me wrong as some kind of factual statement when in fact simply arguing with you is exhausting because your worldview permits no criticism of your logical faults) instead of debating the actual points.

I don't care that you have a theoretical alternative that might work better. I'm discussing now. I'm criticising the GOP. I've accused you of attempting to sidestep my criticism before, so I'll do it again now. You're moving the goalposts, and I will have no part of that. Deal with it, I guess.

Oh and, for the last time, Google "pre-existing conditions" with regards to the GOP's plans to renovate American healthcare. It sounds like you literally know nothing about it, and it would be terribly ironic for you to be debating this, given your definitive statements about how I'm wrong, from a position of ignorance.

Let me fix that for you then.

Conservatives are very ****, liberals are very ****, they both are authoritarian in the crummiest ways. Trump's attorney general is against marijuana legalization and if in favor of prosecution again. That is a terrible idea, I hope it's not what they roll with, but if it is, it'll probably be the largest insurance policy to limit Trump to 4 years with an effective duration of 2 before congress flips.

I don't forsee Democrats legalizing it. Obama was right there, with the DEA re-scheduling Marijuana, sitting in front of his administration, and they went ahead and stuck with Schedule-1. Unimpressed. I am terribly unimpressed with liberals, from the DNC manipulation to the failing to keep promises to the unrealistic functionality. Conservatives can easily be more functional when they aren't randomly prosecuting nonsense themselves, yet they have no decent ideas to progress the situation with the nation.

It's really that simple. Liberals are manipulative and have no interest in the promises they campaign upon. Conservatives are authoritarian in many ways against the common individual, and "too cookie-cutter". Progressives, are liberals who have a genuine interest in the promises they campaign upon, and solid reform ideas to accomplish it. Libertarians, are conservatives, who have no interest in enforcing anything unless it threatens life or property, and also have solid ideas to reduce bloated government pleasure-spending.

People complain about the costs to keep security on a frequently-travelling Trump. Perhaps the protection system in place shouldn't cost as realistically much as it does? Would someone try to assassinate him? Well look at the media, and you tell me! Can they protect him without a mile-thick several-layer security measure every single place he walks? I'm sure they can. It's not the main way to save money, but it's an easy example. Little less on military, or repurposing military skills to civilian sector, would also be nice, but that would also be a conservative-no and a libertarian-yes.

Ah right, that's even weirder because libertarian principles (correct me if I'm wrong, but small government, reduced taxes, etc) align strongly with traditional Republican interests in the first instance. The GOP is what's taken the right-wing in this deliberately authoritarian way (in the way of excessively-oppressive government), especially with the latest administration.

For example, libertarianism expects businesses to magically pay people a fair wage without legislation to pressure them into doing so. The same goes for expecting people to fairly pay taxes-that-aren't-taxes into community initiatives like fire services and similar required systems.

This is either a) naive, b) requires everyone to participate fairly through <some undescribed form of coercion that could even simply be cultural peer pressure>, or c) flat-out forced by libertarian governance under the guise of the free market.

Laws are overblown, laws can be bad, and so on, and so forth. But the libertarian platform seems to (based on every single supporter I've talked to) conclude that therefore most / all laws are bad and society will magically follow the right path that benefits everyone fairly.

History disagrees.

(also, couldn't be further from Sanders' socialist platform. Which is why I say your position is weird)

All I read was I'm a marijuana addict, this all makes more sense now

I literally explained it.

Obviously, libertarianism, isn't anarchy. Hard-core may think companies will pay fair wage, but it'd take a lot of worker backbone to band together and force companies to hire equally, which is basically what "making a law" does anyway.

Libertarians, aren't for "no government", they're for functional government. There are laws that are completely without reason. It's not a joke, @proeleert , my family, and ~50% of the massive incarceration rate, are prosecuted over it. I don't even smoke, but I drink. It'd be just as bullshit if that were illegal. Same with tobacco. But especially so with marijuana, tobacco SHOULD be illegal way before marijuana would be, by health risk.

By that logic, Europeans should be granting asylum and refuge for Americans prosecuted by marijuana laws that the European nation does not recognize as "illegal" themselves. Not "prosecuted" enough for them though.

It's a hellova sight better than basic-b**ch democrats. I'd vote democrat, if they did absolutely anything good. They prosecute the poor, pretend not to prosecute the poor, and take credit for like 1 civil protection recently that really took care of itself, the marriage equality thing.

It's ridiculous btw, I'm arguing here, why I support libertarians alongside progressives, and I'm arguing on Facebook with a high-school friend, why I support progressives alongside libertarians. Do neither of you hear "what I am saying", or do you just decide that "libertarians are anarchist so I can't know what I'm talking about"?

Let's just say that your reasoning has been the least-extreme reasoning of any person who claims to be libertarian I've ever met, and this includes others I've seen post in this thread.

This isn't a put-down either, this is also a mental note for me for the next time this comes up.

@Gorbles
You brought it up so lets answer it.

Does being uninsured increase the risk of death?

Let use the best research available for our conclusions. Below is the link and abstract for Dr. Richard Kronick (Former President Clinton Health Adviser, leading medical researcher at Cal, and former head of our Health Departments:Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). This is generally regarded the most complete study of the topic because he reviews different demographics and lifestyle explanations. Plus this is the largest study. Obama like to quote a Harvard study, but that study only had 65 participants (and some of them dropped out).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00973.x/full

Abstract
Objective. To improve understanding of the relationship between lack of insurance and risk of subsequent mortality.

Data Sources. Adults who reported being uninsured or privately insured in the National Health Interview Survey from 1986 to 2000 were followed prospectively for mortality from initial interview through 2002. Baseline information was obtained on 672,526 respondents, age 18–64 at the time of the interview. Follow-up information on vital status was obtained for 643,001 (96 percent) of these respondents, with approximately 5.4 million person-years of follow-up.

Study Design. Relationships between insurance status and subsequent mortality are examined using Cox proportional hazard survival analysis.

Principal Findings. Adjusted for demographic, health status, and health behavior characteristics, the risk of subsequent mortality is no different for uninsured respondents than for those covered by employer-sponsored group insurance at baseline (hazard ratio 1.03, 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 0.95–1.12). Omitting health status as a control variable increases the estimated hazard ratio to 1.10 (95 percent CI, 1.03–1.19). Also omitting smoking status and body mass index increases the hazard ratio to 1.20 (95 percent CI, 1.15–1.24). The estimated association between lack of insurance and mortality is not larger among disadvantaged subgroups; when the analysis is restricted to amenable causes of death; when the follow-up period is shortened (to increase the likelihood of comparing the continuously insured and continuously uninsured); and does not change after people turn 65 and gain Medicare coverage.

So the answer unsurprisingly is no. And this a Democrat from a liberal Institution who was the health advisor to a Democratic president and it's the largest and most comprehensive study done. So don't say cherry picking.

Could you stop strawmanning me? A general question was asked, does anyone like alex jones why, and I tried to answer in a fair and apolitical manner. One day I hope you'll realise the world is a lot more complicated and nuanced than hurr durr my team good, their team bad. There's good and bad in everyone.

I just hope you take this opportunity to realise the way you've been programmed to respond in a certain way to certain stimuli. I made no mention of Trump or politics whatsoever, and yet you respond to the word "alex jones" by throwing "are you sure you're not a trump supporter" like it's a pejorative. What makes it even more funny is how Jones is anything but conservative or right wing. This is the guy who voted for Obama and had nothing but bad things to say about Bush. Again, there's a lot of politicised media manipulation going on.

And I'm saying this as someone who has been there. When I was younger, i fell completely for the republicans are homophobic, racist, irrational, anti-science, stupid troglodytes. Americans are all dumb, don't know where any other country is on the map etc. etc. They were all Sarah Palin and the tea party was nothing but a bunch of tea baggers etc etc. You have to open your eyes beyond what people tell you, including me.

Gil Scott-Heron

I can only suggest you first manage your own business or someone else's and/or take any university economics class before regurgitating the same politicised narratives with such naive confidence. Debating this with you has otherwise reached an impasse.

I have to give this one to Gorbles, elodea can't call himself rational if he's still trying to debate Gorbles' hardwired ideas.

I still don't think it's semantics to point out that it was an off camera meeting. As far as I know I havn't seen any publications from those invited. But anyway, small point.

Ok, well what do you define as the press? What does freedom of the press mean? Because I can tell you right now Alex Jones and many other internet setups reach far more people than corporate print or television media.

*Not trying to politicise this. Basically, I'm willing to give that CNN and such shouldn't have been refused an invitation if people are willing to give that non-establishment media also shouldn't have been refused an invitation. Because all I saw was hypocrisy from the media on this issue, not because of what they were saying but because of what they weren't saying.

For once they should have a track record of constantly trying to produce real news, not real conspiracy theories.
Are you really suggesting that any more arguments are needed to refuse Alex Jones than "he is insane"?

Do you have any such qualification?

The irony of directly after saying that quoting somebody else is kinda funny.

By that logic we're all a lost cause in this thread.