2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

My entire rant about arming the terrorists for a start. Can we stop arming tomorrow's terrorists while breathlessly calling it "Patriotism" or "National Defense" or "Duty" ?

I did address it, but perhaps my response was too nuanced. A more direct answer is NO, unless you have some ultra super secret Overheal crystal ball that accurately predicts years and decades down the road for any action the US takes. And using hindsight as the basis of an argument is rather disingenuous.

Based on your concerns, should we not have armed and supplied the Soviet Union in their fight against Nazi Germany, and China in their fight against Imperial Japan in WW2? Look at what happened to them in a few short years. They were directly and indirectly killing tens of thousands of Americans in the Korean and Vietnam wars.

And I don’t think when Charlie Wilson was bringing down the Soviet Union, we could have accurately predicted that the Mujahideen would become what they did in many years to come.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

While you've got me here: you Amerika brought up the idea that the Government has a mandate to operate a military but not other social programs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

Fact is: it has a mandate to spend for the common defense AND the general welfare. Because I am probably threatened more often by influenza than I am a Jihadist - one has certainly claimed more American lives than the other. It is not the terrorist.

Ah yes, the “general welfare.” Is there not a more bastardized term in our Constitution? . “General welfare”, or “common good,” or “public interest,” terms that now seemingly allows our government to do anything and everything. Hey, perhaps they can fund a holiday vacation with Kate Upton for me. That would surely promote my general welfare.

The Founding Fathers clearly understood “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens. Not some open-ended mandate for Congress. And the ONLY good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended, and why it was put where it was “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States." To tax, establish a military, and to pay for it!

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

The MIC is a very complex, confounding, and difficult creature to understand. In fairness, the MIC has been involved in the advancement of some scientific discoveries and innovations as you noted Overheal, but does that justify 55% of a president Obama proposed budget allocation (similar to past presidents, and more than likely future presidents)? How many of the current GOP and DNC candidates for president advocate serious cuts (not token cuts) in military spending? If so, by precisely how much?

As a disclaimer: When struggling to fund our research team, all too often we bid RFPs (Requests For Proposals) with the US military. The military seems to always have money, even during the Great Recession. I was with one of those teams that got funded (Swannie slipped to The Dark Side).

A bit more than a couple years ago Swannie was an RA "go-fer" (go for this, and go for that), along with a bit of storyboarding at a <unnamed...sorry> university research institute that was receiving substantial funds from the US Navy to facilitate adult learning through serious gaming simulations in approximated combat situations aboard CSGs (Carrier Strike Groups). The military applications may have been non-value-added, but the unintended consequences were value-added to the extent that we advanced our knowledge and understanding of adult learning in stressful complex situations, as experienced by virtual computer programme simulations (serious gaming), which then could be applied to non-military stressful complex situations.

**Apologies. Swannie should have pre-warned ye'all to put your boots on before reading the above**

The military is evil, except for when they are needed, or doing good, or lining our own pockets? :cool:

Amerika

Big news coming? Joe Biden met with Elizabeth Warren. A Biden/Warren ticket surely will be a force against the Clinton machine in the Democrat primary. It would end the Sanders run, would pull women to them, and bring in big money from progressives. And yesterday the White House issued glowing praise for Biden. All hands must be on deck at Hillaryland this morning.

And just think if it comes down to Trump against Biden. I can see the headlines of the first debate: “Presidential Survivor: Buffoonery and Bravado.”

Overheal

And I don’t think when Charlie Wilson was bringing down the Soviet Union, we could have accurately have predicted that the Mujahideen would become what they did in many years to come.

Except he did explicitly argue the repercussions of not staying to rebuild and aid Afghanistan. So that's a falsehood.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Big news coming? Joe Biden met with Elizabeth Warren. A Biden/Warren ticket surely will be a force against the Clinton machine in the Democrat primary. It would end the Sanders run, would pull women to them, and bring in big money from progressives. And yesterday the White House issued glowing praise for Biden. All hands must be on deck at Hillaryland this morning.

And just think if it comes down to Trump against Biden. I can see the headlines of the first debate: “Presidential Survivor: Buffoonery and Bravado.”

A Biden/Warren ticket would present a serious challenge to Hillary, and although it would almost certainly end Bernie's chances, I never saw him seriously challenging Hillary anyway.

I like Biden; he seems more genuine than Hillary, and even though he says the odd silly thing, at least his gaffes aren't as mean as Trump's are. Warren as VP would seal the deal for me, although I'd rather their roles were reversed. Hopefully she'll run next time around or in 2024.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

A Biden/Warren ticket would present a serious challenge to Hillary, and although it would almost certainly end Bernie's chances, I never saw him seriously challenging Hillary anyway.

I agree Biden on his own couldn't seriously challenge the Clinton machine. But a Biden/Warren ticket with the endorsement of Obama is a game changer.

I like Biden; he seems more genuine than Hillary, and even though he says the odd silly thing, at least his gaffes aren't as mean as Trump's are. Warren as VP would seal the deal for me, although I'd rather their roles were reversed. Hopefully she'll run next time around or in 2024.

If if begins to look like the Democratic ticket would be Biden/Warren, I think we would see a greater effort to get John Kasich the win on the GOP side. He would match up better in vote getting of the American people against Biden, both being blue collar average down-to-earth guys IMO.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

I agree Biden on his own couldn't seriously challenge the Clinton machine. But a Biden/Warren ticket with the endorsement of Obama is a game changer.



If if begins to look like the Democratic ticket would be Biden/Warren, I think we would see a greater effort to get John Kasich the win on the GOP side. He would match up better in vote getting of the American people against Biden, both being blue collar average down-to-earth guys IMO.

Kasich would certainly appeal to moderates and independents more than Trump, but he'd need to make a surge like McCain did in 08. I still think Bush is the man to beat on the GOP side, but that's not to say the likes of Rubio, Kasich or the Koch's Walker couldn't win either.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Except he did explicitly argue the repercussions of not staying to rebuild and aid Afghanistan. So that's a falsehood.

There's always people that have arguments to all sides of the debate. Apparently the majority of the government leaders thought otherwise at the time. Many leaders are saying the Obama deal with Iran is the worst deal in history. Should it be nixed because some are warning against it?

Wompa1

Amerika wrote: »

It doesn't matter what countries it is compared to. The measure is here, where the level of education is measured at a standard that provides the job force.

So, you didn't mean compared with other developed countries. Also just has to be good enough to provide workers for the labor force. Isn't that directly out of one of George Carlins special? The Government wants an educated work force but not TOO educated. Just smart enough to run and maintain the machines but not capable of critical thinking. We wouldn't want people realizing how badly they are getting f*cked.

Amerika wrote: »

Sure there is. You are woefully uninformed my friend, and you either your fiancé doesn’t understand how things work (which would make her suitable for government work ) or you aren’t understanding her. Approximately 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. each year (which means 1 out of 10 births in the U.S. is to an illegal immigrant mother). Anchor babies born to illegal aliens instantly qualify as citizens for welfare benefits and Medicaid, and even though the parents are illegals, having an anchor babes makes the families eligible for benefits such as WIC and food stamps, and on behalf of the anchor baby... housing programs and welfare. And illegal aliens often work low paying jobs so they qualify for benefits.

Hold up. The term anchor baby original term was that THE PARENTS have the baby in the US so THEY can stay.....you are misusing the term Anchor baby. It doesn't mean the baby gets citizenship...That's stupid. How in the hell could that name even apply to a child being born in the US....then we are all Anchor babies...So, in short you are WRONG for using the term Anchor baby. That's more BS rhetoric to try and stoke fires. Misguided at best.

Amerika wrote: »

Wrong, they use all these provided services. And roads, bridges, and their maintenance is included in my use of the word "highway."

Which they pay towards...so, what's the problem?

Amerika wrote: »

Again you are wrong. Medicaid alone pays more than $2 Billion each year to partially reimburse hospitals for unpaid illegal alien delivery bills. And the amount not reimbursed to hospitals is in the tens of Billions, which is passed onto us in the form of higher costs and high insurance premiums. 84 hospitals in California alone, have been forced to close their doors because of unpaid bills by illegal aliens.

Private Hospitals or Public Clinics? There's a big difference...Our premiums don't go up because Public facilities close. Our premiums don't go up because people are given health care for free. If that was the case other more 'socialist' countries would have less affordable healthcare but that's not the case. Blaming illegals for the corrupt healthcare profession does not help correct the problem.

You've got collusion between physicians and insurance companies. You've got corrupt public officials. Healthcare is merely a funnel for bad money. Go watch John Olivers piece on Healthcare. He mentions a website that shows sponsors for your MD. You can see all of the lunches and gifts going to Doctors from healthcare companies.

Amerika wrote: »

The media sure does one thing good... Hiding the facts about the true costs to Americans regarding illegal aliens.

The media does what the controlling powers of the country want. Do you take any issues with the crazy amount spent on Military spending? The fact Defense contractors are the most influential lobby group in DC?

Second to the communications companies...right now I've got between 2Mbps-21Mbps (on a good day) Download speed and I'm living in the 6th largest city in the US. I can't go to a competitor because managed properties sign exclusivity deals. It also wouldn't matter because all of the broadband providers in the area are owned by the same parent company.

I worked for a Pharmaceutical company. At a Quarterly the CEO bolstered the good news that the Flu vaccine didn't work this year so we made double the profit. I also worked for an Insurance company around the time of the last election. Everybody was so fearful they would lose their jobs...BECAUSE (and it was the same for me) Obamacare was being misrepresented by the media. It sounded like it would be a major change. What actually happened? Record profits! Unprecedented boom in business because more people were getting insured. I now work for a chain of Hospitals...we're expanding into new markets, rapidly.

The Medical profession were fronting...The people pulling the strings wanted this. State mandated insurance!

Also, you speak about hospitals closing down. I think you meant public clinics...which are abysmal. My company is HQ'd in California and we are expanding. Public clinics are places where poor people go to die..mainly because they are underfunded....the cynic in me, with no more proof than you have for your argument which is thin at best...tells me these facilities are underfunded to make them a less viable option. To force closures and make the level of care so poor in them to further force people to get insurance. They want a fully private Healthcare system..f*ck it, they want a fully private country. Watch USPS go down the tubes. Social Security is on it's knees...you get your 401K instead to invest in private company shares, bonds etc.

We're here to consume products and services. To give others money. Nothing more, nothing less. Wars aren't even about oil...in my opinion. They are about globalization. It's not about spreading Democracy. It's about spreading Brands and Business interests.

Overheal

They want a fully private Healthcare system..f*ck it, they want a fully private country. Watch USPS go down the tubes. Social Security is on it's knees...you get your 401K instead to invest in private company shares, bonds etc.

Koch platform in a nutshell.

Amerika

Wompa1 wrote: »

So, you didn't mean compared with other developed countries. Also just has to be good enough to provide workers for the labor force. Isn't that directly out of one of George Carlins special? The Government wants an educated work force but not TOO educated. Just smart enough to run and maintain the machines but not capable of critical thinking. We wouldn't want people realizing how badly they are getting f*cked.

Is there any denying that the majority of people from the US that go some of the best colleges and universities here, and some of our best minds, come from a K-12 public education?

Hold up. The term anchor baby original term was that THE PARENTS have the baby in the US so THEY can stay.....you are misusing the term Anchor baby. It doesn't mean the baby gets citizenship...That's stupid. How in the hell could that name even apply to a child being born in the US....then we are all Anchor babies...So, in short you are WRONG for using the term Anchor baby. That's more BS rhetoric to try and stoke fires. Misguided at best.

In the true sense of the word, you are correct. But it was never the case in the true sense of the word because children born to illegal immigrants had to wait until the age of 21 before they could sponsor their parents or other family members. But in today’s environment the term anchor baby is closest to its true meaning then ever before as this administration wants to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been in the United States for an extended period of time and who have a close relative, namely a child, who is an American citizen. But even if he can’t get his edict through, he still circumvents our laws currently by allowing illegal alien parents of U.S. citizens deferred to not get deported. And actually children born to illegal aliens should not be provided birthright citizenship as citizenship is not provided to children born to short-term visitors, and illegal aliens should be considered short-term visitors at best. But that is for another discussion.

As I use the term as a method to keep illegal aliens in the country and for the illegal aliens to receive benefits provided by the government because of their ability to drop a baby here.

Which they pay towards...so, what's the problem?

How?

Private Hospitals or Public Clinics? There's a big difference...Our premiums don't go up because Public facilities close. Our premiums don't go up because people are given health care for free. If that was the case other more 'socialist' countries would have less affordable healthcare but that's not the case. Blaming illegals for the corrupt healthcare profession does not help correct the problem.

You've got collusion between physicians and insurance companies. You've got corrupt public officials. Healthcare is merely a funnel for bad money. Go watch John Olivers piece on Healthcare. He mentions a website that shows sponsors for your MD. You can see all of the lunches and gifts going to Doctors from healthcare companies.



The media does what the controlling powers of the country want. Do you take any issues with the crazy amount spent on Military spending? The fact Defense contractors are the most influential lobby group in DC?

Second to the communications companies...right now I've got between 2Mbps-21Mbps (on a good day) Download speed and I'm living in the 6th largest city in the US. I can't go to a competitor because managed properties sign exclusivity deals. It also wouldn't matter because all of the broadband providers in the area are owned by the same parent company.

I worked for a Pharmaceutical company. At a Quarterly the CEO bolstered the good news that the Flu vaccine didn't work this year so we made double the profit. I also worked for an Insurance company around the time of the last election. Everybody was so fearful they would lose their jobs...BECAUSE (and it was the same for me) Obamacare was being misrepresented by the media. It sounded like it would be a major change. What actually happened? Record profits! Unprecedented boom in business because more people were getting insured. I now work for a chain of Hospitals...we're expanding into new markets, rapidly.

From what I've read on the subject they were listed as public hospitals.

The Medical profession were fronting...The people pulling the strings wanted this. State mandated insurance!

Also, you speak about hospitals closing down. I think you meant public clinics...which are abysmal. My company is HQ'd in California and we are expanding. Public clinics are places where poor people go to die..mainly because they are underfunded....the cynic in me, with no more proof than you have for your argument which is thin at best...tells me these facilities are underfunded to make them a less viable option. To force closures and make the level of care so poor in them to further force people to get insurance. They want a fully private Healthcare system..f*ck it, they want a fully private country. Watch USPS go down the tubes. Social Security is on it's knees...you get your 401K instead to invest in private company shares, bonds etc.

We're here to consume products and services. To give others money. Nothing more, nothing less. Wars aren't even about oil...in my opinion. They are about globalization. It's not about spreading Democracy. It's about spreading Brands and Business interests.

It almost sounds like you’re saying ObamaCare was perpetrated on us under the guise of everyone getting healthcare, when in fact it was to make companies in the medical business rich.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Koch platform in a nutshell.

Step away from the Salon.com... for the good of one's mental health.

Wompa1

Amerika wrote: »

Is there any denying that the majority of people from the US that go some of the best colleges and universities here, and some of our best minds, come from a K-12 public education?

I would never say Americans are stupid. I believe Americans are very intelligent despite the fact a quality education is not attainable by all..or even by most...

What makes America and Americans great in my opinion is their work ethic and drive.

America does also produce some of top people in the world in terms of innovation but success at that scale from what I can see is predicated on their positioning in life. It is not equal or balanced in any way, shape or form. You've got the super smart coming out of Ivy League schools that become the top Surgeon, Lawyers, Politicians, Entrepreneurs in the country. Sometimes you even get the 'American Dream'

A person that comes from a poor background that achieves great success...that's constantly pointed to as something to aspire to but as far as I can see that's a smokescreen. People are not provided those opportunities...some will get them but not all...If somebody works their arse off and is super smart..it's still up to the schools and system whether they meet their full potential.

Schools over here also brought in common core testing which is an absolute abomination.....

Amerika wrote: »

In the true sense of the word, you are correct. But it was never the case in the true sense of the word because children born to illegal immigrants had to wait until the age of 21 before they could sponsor their parents or other family members. But in today’s environment the term anchor baby is closest to its true meaning then ever before as this administration wants to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been in the United States for an extended period of time and who have a close relative, namely a child, who is an American citizen. But even if he can’t get his edict through, he still circumvents our laws currently by allowing illegal alien parents of U.S. citizens deferred to not get deported. And actually children born to illegal aliens should not be provided birthright citizenship as citizenship is not provided to children born to short-term visitors, and illegal aliens should be considered short-term visitors at best. But that is for another discussion.

As I use the term as a method to keep illegal aliens in the country and for the illegal aliens to receive benefits provided by the government because of their ability to drop a baby here.


How?

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the parents request subject to approval??...it's not guaranteed. Living in Arizona, many are denied. In fact a few months ago when Obama was having a state of the Union. Some here were very disappointed by the fact he did not just declare an Amnesty for the parents of these so called 'Anchor babies'

Amerika wrote: »

How?

In Arizona our road infrastructure is paid for through our registration tax. If you drive a car, you have to have tags. If a person does not have tags they get fined. Whether a person is illegal or legal here, if they have a car they need to have tags.

If they say, live in California they have to have tags on their car AND they pay for tolls.

Amerika wrote: »

From what I've read on the subject they were listed as public hospitals.

It almost sounds like you’re saying ObamaCare was perpetrated on us under the guise of everyone getting healthcare, when in fact it was to make companies in the medical business rich.

Possibly under that guise. The media, even the left seemed to present it as some sort of evil. The only positive that has come from it, in my opinion is that pre-existing conditions are now covered. That's pretty huge.

I went to an MD who had anti-Obamacare stickers in his office. When I told him my medical history he discarded it because I went to Doctors in a social medicine scene :rolleyes:

That was right before he told me to start using Statins and gave me a free sample..I was 28 and he wanted me to start taking medication that I would need to take for life.

My fiancé is pregnant. She was being lead to believe that chances of birth defects for her were high by a Doctor when the tech in the room with us said everything looked normal and the blood results came back fine. My fiancé works for the state and has great insurance. That a-hole tried to use fear to get her to get an expensive, un-needed scan.

Healthcare is a business here...they are not out for what's best for their customers. They are out for what's best for their pocket. It's important that Public facilities are expanded upon and made better. Not shut down. Even Dentists here are crooked as f*ck. Why does every kid need braces all of a sudden?

I'm not a huge fan of Obama....or any of the former Presidents in the last 40 years or so. Reagan was the start of the rot. Sadly, thanks to media coverage...in 2016 it will likely be business as usual with a Bush or a Clinton continuing on the damnation of the middle and lower class. I'm hoping I get to leave in the next 3-6 years

Amerika

Wompa1 wrote: »

Schools over here also brought in common core testing which is an absolute abomination.....

I agree with you 100%.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the parents request subject to approval??...it's not guaranteed. Living in Arizona, many are denied. In fact a few months ago when Obama was having a state of the Union. Some here were very disappointed by the fact he did not just declare an Amnesty for the parents of these so called 'Anchor babies'

We don't need no stinkin' details. How many illegal aliens with US born children have been deported in the last 5 years? That is the true test of the law.

In Arizona our road infrastructure is paid for through our registration tax. If you drive a car, you have to have tags. If a person does not have tags they get fined. Whether a person is illegal or legal here, if they have a car they need to have tags.

If they say, live in California they have to have tags on their car AND they pay for tolls.

Roads, bridges and maintenance are completely paid for by a registration tax? What is it in Arizona, $10,000 per vehicle?

A good current read on the cost of illegal alien birthright citizenship.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422921/birthright-citizenship-economic-costs-incentives

Possibly under that guise. The media, even the left seemed to present it as some sort of evil. The only positive that has come from it, in my opinion is that pre-existing conditions are now covered. That's pretty huge.

I went to an MD who had anti-Obamacare stickers in his office. When I told him my medical history he discarded it because I went to Doctors in a social medicine scene :rolleyes:

That was right before he told me to start using Statins and gave me a free sample..I was 28 and he wanted me to start taking medication that I would need to take for life.

My fiancé is pregnant. She was being lead to believe that chances of birth defects for her were high by a Doctor when the tech in the room with us said everything looked normal and the blood results came back fine. My fiancé works for the state and has great insurance. That a-hole tried to use fear to get her to get an expensive, un-needed scan.

Healthcare is a business here...they are not out for what's best for their customers. They are out for what's best for their pocket. It's important that Public facilities are expanded upon and made better. Not shut down. Even Dentists here are crooked as f*ck. Why does every kid need braces all of a sudden?

I'm not a huge fan of Obama....or any of the former Presidents in the last 40 years or so. Reagan was the start of the rot. Sadly, thanks to media coverage...in 2016 it will likely be business as usual with a Bush or a Clinton continuing on the damnation of the middle and lower class. I'm hoping I get to leave in the next 3-6 years

Congratulations on the baby. Start saving for college yesterday if you do stay in the US long term. Here in Pennsylvania we have something called the 529 College Savings Plan. If your state has something similar, look into it.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Step away from the Salon.com... for the good of one's mental health.

I'm not sure what website that is. What else would you say of a family that wants to end social security, the minimum wage, universal healthcare, and (literally) all forms of taxation, that sits on the 2nd largest pile of wealth in the country?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not sure what website that is. What else would you say of a family that wants to end social security, the minimum wage, universal healthcare, and (literally) all forms of taxation, that sits on the 2nd largest pile of wealth in the country?

End social security, or put control of their own individual money back to the people themselves rather than allowing the government to rob from it? End ALL forms of taxation, really (you've got to give me some backup for this)? But without looking more into it, except for the universal healthcare thing, I'd say pretty forward thinking.

Wompa1

Amerika wrote: »

Wompa1 wrote: »

Schools over here also brought in common core testing which is an absolute abomination.....

We don't need no stinkin' details. How many illegal aliens with US born children have been deported in the last 5 years? That is the true test of the law.

Roads, bridges and maintenance are completely paid for by a registration tax? What is it in Arizona, $10,000 per vehicle?

A good current read on the cost of illegal alien birthright citizenship.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422921/birthright-citizenship-economic-costs-incentives



Congratulations on the baby. Start saving for college yesterday if you do stay in the US long term. Here in Pennsylvania we have something called the 529 College Savings Plan. If your state has something similar, look into it.

Thanks for the congrats. I don't want to stay here with the kid. My brother in law is currently serving in the Air Force in order to get his education benefits. I wasn't the best in school. I wouldn't want my kids to have to make that sacrifice.

Car registration for me is $690 for 2 years. It's suprisingly more expensive than at home! Which is odd. In AZ, most maintenance on the road seem to be superficial. I guess since it doesn't get cold. The roads don't get as beat up. They just use asphalt to withstand the heat.

It's interesting that Jeb Bush turned the light to Asians. Which is odd, considering you never hear or see Asian people living off of Welfare. They have long been regarded as hardworking and have avoided negative reputations around work ethic, welfare etc. I would bet Asian people result in a net profit overall...but no proof to back that up.

Amerika wrote: »

End social security or put give control of the people's own money back to the people? End ALL forms of taxation, really (you've got to give me some backup for this)? But without looking more into it, except for the universal healthcare thing, I'd say pretty forward thinking.

Libretarian? I agree with a lot of the concepts but in the end I don't think America would benefit from people getting carte blanche on everything. Also, what will happen to the people who have a genuine need for social programs? They'll die, quickly.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

End social security, or put control of their own individual money back to the people themselves rather than allowing the government to rob from it? End ALL forms of taxation, really (you've got to give me some backup for this)? But without looking more into it, except for the universal healthcare thing, I'd say pretty forward thinking.

You realise ending social security and all taxation is not forward thinking at all. It's the complete opposite. Societies leapt forward in standard of living once social security was introduced.

An ideology that espouses these ideas is akin to a child throwing a tantrum because they don't want to share their toys. This is how I view the Koch brothers, on a larger scale. Their have their billions, why should the contribute any of it to improve society?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

End social security, or put control of their own individual money back to the people themselves rather than allowing the government to rob from it? End ALL forms of taxation, really (you've got to give me some backup for this)? But without looking more into it, except for the universal healthcare thing, I'd say pretty forward thinking.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers


Political campaign website, yet the information is stated as factual not editorial and there is an open invitation to provide empirical refutation.

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:
•“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
•“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
•“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
•“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
•“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
•“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
•“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
•“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
•“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
•“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
•“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
•“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
•“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
•“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
•“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
•“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
•“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
•“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
•“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
•“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
•“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
•“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
•“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
•“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
•“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
•“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

In other words, the agenda of the Koch brothers is not only to defund Obamacare. The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

You realise ending social security and all taxation is not forward thinking at all. It's the complete opposite. Societies leapt forward in standard of living once social security was introduced.

An ideology that espouses these ideas is akin to a child throwing a tantrum because they don't want to share their toys. This is how I view the Koch brothers, on a larger scale. Their have their billions, why should the contribute any of it to improve society?

Name me one large country, with over 300 million people, or 200 million or 100 million, that fits into that category.T he reason I’m asking is because when you have a small country with a homogenous population, you get consensus on much. Not so with a large country which usually has a very diverse population and cultures, that I believe makes a huge difference.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers


Political campaign website, yet the information is stated as factual not editorial and there is an open invitation to provide empirical refutation.

1980? Name me one person that has not changed their outlook on some things in 35 years. How about showing me something from, say, this century?

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

1980? Name me one person that has not changed their outlook on some things in 35 years. How about showing me something from, say, this century?

What have they done to illustrate that their views on taxation have changed in those 35 years?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Name me one large country, with over 300 million people, or 200 million or 100 million, that fits into that category.T he reason I’m asking is because when you have a small country with a homogenous population, you get consensus on much. Not so with a large country which usually has a very diverse population and cultures, that I believe makes a huge difference.

What category? It's like you haven't actually replied to my post at all.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Name me one large country, with over 300 million people, or 200 million or 100 million, that fits into that category.T he reason I’m asking is because when you have a small country with a homogenous population, you get consensus on much. Not so with a large country which usually has a very diverse population and cultures, that I believe makes a huge difference.

That's nonsense. Every large country in history has had issues with consensus and different cultures, but there's nothing to suggest that a threshold, above which everyone should stand economically, is not possible to create.

In 1935 Roosevelt implemented social security and a proper welfare system, the benefits of which continued well past WW2 and was a catalyst for the boom. The population at the time was 127million.

A proper welfare system, where everyone can ,at the very least, lead a comfortable life with a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, an education for their children and an assurance that if they get sick, someone will take care of them. America in 2015 is a million miles from this.

Wompa1

Amerika wrote: »

Name me one large country, with over 300 million people, or 200 million or 100 million, that fits into that category.T he reason I’m asking is because when you have a small country with a homogenous population, you get consensus on much. Not so with a large country which usually has a very diverse population and cultures, that I believe makes a huge difference.

There's a Universal human rights declaration that was created decades ago that America seems to breach with gusto. Since the re-birth of a war era in 2003 the US Government is even breaching the rights of other non-US citizens

America was one of the only countries that didn't sign up to the Kyoto agreement (I think that was a bad deal too but better than doing nothing)

America has consistently veto'd in the UN in support of Israeli wants.

Whatever about a consensus. The US Government should be held accountable for the way they conduct themselves. If not by the American public than by the world public at large.

Also, just speaking domestically. You don't need to have a Consensus...but a two party system which is really a one party system is not in the interest of anybody. For all we p1ss and moan about Labor or the Green party. At least with a coalition Government there's a bit more accountability and less possibility of absolute power.

Overheal

MightyMandarin wrote: »

What have they done to illustrate that their views on taxation have changed in those 35 years?

I have to second this; I've proven where they stated what their platform was. The Kochs are relatively smart and I gather they are willing to carry out agenda over protracted lengths of time - even to the tune of 35 years.

Wompa1

Overheal wrote: »

I have to second this; I've proven where they stated what their platform was. The Kochs are relatively smart and I gather they are willing to carry out agenda over protracted lengths of time - even to the tune of 35 years.

They sure are. They also use their smarts to benefit themselves only.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

What have they done to illustrate that their views on taxation have changed in those 35 years?

I don't know. I've asked what their position has been lately from the person who presented some acient history. When he gets me the info I'll be able to better respond.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

What category? It's like you haven't actually replied to my post at all.

The category of size which leads to numerous differences of the population for a large country. No one can really compare a country like Sweden as being equivalent to the US with a straight face.