Put families on the street or raise taxes on the rich.

Americans need to buy this book and read it. It's a promotion of capitalism in the truth it's telling but it doesn't offer any solutions to the problems.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/178789.China_Inc_

Then once Americans are aware of the problems, they can go on to judge whether or not Trump is offering any solutions?

Politics in america is not about solutions to societal problems, it is an illusion rolled out to make the people feel like they have a say in their own condition. All the political system needs to do is provide an emotional release.
 
Well, he's a true believer and I've challenged him. If he turns it to a challenge of his religion then there's nothing I can do about it, and wouldn't even try. However, if he's honest with himself he will begin to see Trump as a contradiction of his religious beliefs.

Not everyone wants or seeks to be honest with himself.
 
What kills me is exactly how much the Left are willing to tax to feed their insatiable appetite for big government welfare programs? They seem to forget that people are leaving Liberal states in droves, and have been for decades.

It could be true but it's still a dodging tactic to escape the truth of the problem.

Here's a question for you: If a Swede is taxed 75% and an American is taxed 40%, is the Swede better off financially than the American?

And the answer is, yes the Swede is better off. But that's not necessarily saying it's because he's taxed at a higher rate. That's for you to argue against and for me to argue for.
 
I'm very interested in understanding your points. Nature and society abhor a vacuum. Agreed! If Walmart closed then the vacuum would be filled by another company that imports the majority of their goods from China. And Americans would buy them up because they are affordable goods and American made goods are not. There's simply no escaping that truth! Do you agree?

This is really defining capitalism and fwiw, I'm a capitalist.

What is it that you think I'm ranting about? Do you disagree with anything I've said?

If you're promoting the preventing of illegals entering the US then you're unwittingly talking against the free enterprise system of America. If you were a business owner that depends on cheap labour to stay viable then you wouldn't be taking that position.

Your promotion of conservatism is flashy! Can you stand behind it?

While you seem to be determined to make this about Walmart; this is about businesses that hire illegal immigrants and I will continue to remind you this, no matter how many times you try to change it.
 
Politics in america is not about solutions to societal problems, it is an illusion rolled out to make the people feel like they have a say in their own condition. All the political system needs to do is provide an emotional release.

Americans' lousy lot in life is going to eventually trump their emotional wellbeing. You know that as well as I do and you also subscribe to Chris Hedges' wisdom. Americans are simply starting to head in the direction of the Democratic party and that means more of the same.

But at least it will perhaps put a hold on the racism and the promotion of hate for minorities and that's at least a positive thing. It's just going to eliminate the root problem the 1% has created.
 
It could be true but it's still a dodging tactic to escape the truth of the problem.

Here's a question for you: If a Swede is taxed 75% and an American is taxed 40%, is the Swede better off financially than the American?

And the answer is, yes the Swede is better off. But that's not necessarily saying it's because he's taxed at a higher rate. That's for you to argue against and for me to argue for.

Well then, let's look at healthcare, that's a rather hot topic at the moment. Let's look at the advantages of capitalist healthcare in the US. America first n shit.

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#486bbd6f576f

Major Findings
Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.
A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.
The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.
The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.
"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html

Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article

Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities

One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.
The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154484/

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.
"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072

US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...-50th-out-of-55-countries-for-efficiency.html

The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.
The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.
Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-us-healthcare-system-20140617-column.html

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/
 
Americans' lousy lot in life is going to eventually trump their emotional wellbeing. You know that as well as I do and you also subscribe to Chris Hedges' wisdom. Americans are simply starting to head in the direction of the Democratic party and that means more of the same.

But at least it will perhaps put a hold on the racism and the promotion of hate for minorities and that's at least a positive thing. It's just going to eliminate the root problem the 1% has created.

Obviously the party never really dealt with racism because racism is utterly woven into the fabric of this society, and under Clinton (a reference in time, ya'll can argue about whether it was Bill alone or not) the party turned itself out to the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class just like the "other" party. We have 2 parties to represent the interests of the 1%, and none to represent the interests of the people. Rather colonial still isn't it.
 
While you seem to be determined to make this about Walmart; this is about businesses that hire illegal immigrants and I will continue to remind you this, no matter how many times you try to change it.

You people are immigrants. And you subsidize WalMart with socialism.
 
While you seem to be determined to make this about Walmart; this is about businesses that hire illegal immigrants and I will continue to remind you this, no matter how many times you try to change it.

You're right of course. It's not about Walmart and I only pursued that angle because the point needs to be made that Americans can't afford to shop elsewhere. So if Walmart isn't the topic, the big store that replaces Walmart is.

And now to swithc to illegal aliens! I've told you that American business isn't viable to a very large extent without very cheap labour. And so if American business is even going to attempt to compete with China's cheap labour, it's going to take equally as cheap labour.

Capitalism demands a free market, and of course all capitalists agree. You can't be trying to depress the free labour market by preventing them coming into your country. Big business isn't onside with that.

Your country can make the cheap labourers 'legal' by continuing with accepting immigrants from other countries. And of course America will because there is a demand. And that's not taking into account the benefits of illegal aliens who can be employed much cheaper than legals. In fact, entire families of illegals can work for a bag of beans a day.

Now we get back to the big store that sells cheap goods to Americans. Would you suppose that big store be curtailed from wholesale purchases from China?
 
Americans' wages and salaries have been eroded down to such an extent that they are forced to shop at Walmart. And if the reference to Walmart to make the point annoys Americans then just change that to a supplier that sells cheap goods made by China.

American capitalist companies buy Chinese made goods instead of American made and that has resulted in the elimination of good and high paying jobs. That's just the price Americans have to pay!

And the price to pay is in opening up the borders to let the cheap labour in, because America needs it. Americans don't want those jobs that pay so little that it's not worth it to go to work. The gas for the car to and from is as much as the wages an immigrant will accept.

This is free enterprise at work. It's socialism that would promote the prevention of cheap labourers coming to America. They would do that because they would tell employers they aren't allowed to hire cheap labour, they have to pay Americans decent wages. Therein is the reason why socialism has to fail in America!
 
It could be true but it's still a dodging tactic to escape the truth of the problem.

Here's a question for you: If a Swede is taxed 75% and an American is taxed 40%, is the Swede better off financially than the American?

And the answer is, yes the Swede is better off. But that's not necessarily saying it's because he's taxed at a higher rate. That's for you to argue against and for me to argue for.

No, the Swede is not better off in terms of individual freedom. the problem is the government is way too large and taking on things that are not specifically outlined in the US Constitution. Had the Fed NOT enacted all the feel good welfare crap first started by fuckwad Roosevelt, we would be in much better shape and more people would be able to keep more of their money to spend as they see fit! Not fork over nearly their entire paychecks to the government.
 
See, old monty is a Left wing Communist shit who thinks big government is the answer and that everyone needs to be exactly identical in every way.
 
I'm of the impression that being a Christian has to include having a conscience. Now I want to see if he can meet the challenge and put his conscience to rest?

No, religion is about faith, which is the purposeful suspension of critical thought; believe, do not question.
 
No, the Swede is not better off in terms of individual freedom. the problem is the government is way too large and taking on things that are not specifically outlined in the US Constitution. Had the Fed NOT enacted all the feel good welfare crap first started by fuckwad Roosevelt, we would be in much better shape and more people would be able to keep more of their money to spend as they see fit! Not fork over nearly their entire paychecks to the government.

The Fed is a feudal institution. So is capitalism as practiced in america.
 
No, the Swede is not better off in terms of individual freedom. the problem is the government is way too large and taking on things that are not specifically outlined in the US Constitution. Had the Fed NOT enacted all the feel good welfare crap first started by fuckwad Roosevelt, we would be in much better shape and more people would be able to keep more of their money to spend as they see fit! Not fork over nearly their entire paychecks to the government.

The Swede is better off in all ways. If you want to argue individual freedom then be specific on what you're wanting to talk about. There is no individual freedom that any American can claim that a Swede doesn't have, and moreso. Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world and America doesn't even make the top ten.

If you can't be specific then I'm going to claim that I've won the debate with you. Don't run from the debate American, stand your ground and at least show that you are a patriotic American.
 
The Swede is better off in all ways. If you want to argue individual freedom then be specific on what you're wanting to talk about. There is no individual freedom that any American can claim that a Swede doesn't have, and moreso. Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world and America doesn't even make the top ten.

If you can't be specific then I'm going to claim that I've won the debate with you. Don't run from the debate American, stand your ground and at least show that you are a patriotic American.

I am specifically talking about people keeping more of their money and spending/saving it how they, and not the government see fit. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is responsible for cradle to grave socialism or providing for anyone's needs. That is up to the individual, not the government.
 
Back
Top