Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

mqt said:
I’m fine with my tax dollars going to pay for people not to die. I actively prefer it to them going to make people die, and wish more of those dollars would go toward the former.
Click to expand...
Im talking about the fact the bernie and his idiot fans contend the tax payer doesnt help here
 
sturg33 said:
Im talking about the fact the bernie and his idiot fans contend the tax payer doesnt help here
Click to expand...
I think it’s more hyperbole for effect than active dismissal of reality. As an American taxpayer with private insurance, I have generally been on the short-end of the “you’re on your own” stick. But I’m still happy with the possibility that some of my money went toward keeping some child alive instead of murdering a kid in Tehran.
 
mqt said:
I think it’s more hyperbole for effect than active dismissal of reality. As an American taxpayer with private insurance, I have generally been on the short-end of the “you’re on your own” stick. But I’m still happy with the possibility that some of my money went toward keeping some child alive instead of murdering a kid in Tehran.
Click to expand...
Then bernie should start sending thank you cards
 
mqt said:
I’m fine with my tax dollars going to pay for people not to die. I actively prefer it to them going to make people die, and wish more of those dollars would go toward the former.
Click to expand...
I admire your ability to conjure the most specific use case of how your tax dollars are being used so you can be happy with how they are spent.

But it ignores the vast evidence that shows that’s not how the overwhelming majority of how those funds are used.

And there in lies the problem that I and many others have with government spending. No one takes issue with society taking care of sick children and destitute widows.
 
Last edited:
chop2chip said:
I admire your ability to conjure the most specific use case of how your tax dollars are being used so you can be happy with how they are spent.

But it ignores the vast evidence that shows that’s not how the overwhelming majority of how those funds are used.

And there in lies the problem that I and many others have with government spending. No one takes issue with society taking care of sick children and destitute widows.
Click to expand...
I suppose that’s why the combined failures of blue states like Minnesota and federal efforts like DOGE are so frustrating. I’m in no way opposed to government efficiency and reduction efforts and robust controls for welfare. But I simply don’t think the specific message of “the government can suddenly find no expense too great when it comes to warring but not to give more people healthcare or food” is all that controversial.
 
mqt said:
I suppose that’s why the combined failures of blue states like Minnesota and federal efforts like DOGE are so frustrating. I’m in no way opposed to government efficiency and reduction efforts and robust controls for welfare. But I simply don’t think the specific message of “the government can suddenly find no expense too great when it comes to warring but not to give more people healthcare or food” is all that controversial.
Click to expand...
You start off strong but by the end completely miss the point (of the criticism of Bernie)

“Give more people healthcare or food” sounds like a nice thing except when you account for which people actually receive the healthcare or food.

If you are poor in this country, you already don’t go hungry and you have access to free healthcare
 
chop2chip said:
You start off strong but by the end completely miss the point (of the criticism of Bernie)

“Give more people healthcare or food” sounds like a nice thing except when you account for which people actually receive the healthcare or food.

If you are poor in this country, you already don’t go hungry and you have access to free healthcare
Click to expand...
I think the effects of Medicare expansion under the ACA has been extensively studied and the verdict is overwhelmingly positive. To argue against it is to put ideology ahead of facts. Not saying that you or any other poster has ever done such a thang.
 
nsacpi said:
I think the effects of Medicare expansion under the ACA has been extensively studied and the verdict is overwhelmingly positive. To argue against it is to put ideology ahead of facts. Not saying that you or any other poster has ever done such a thang.
Click to expand...
ACA is not what Bernie Sanders is advocating for
 
chop2chip said:
You start off strong but by the end completely miss the point (of the criticism of Bernie)

“Give more people healthcare or food” sounds like a nice thing except when you account for which people actually receive the healthcare or food.

If you are poor in this country, you already don’t go hungry and you have access to free healthcare
Click to expand...
Where we ultimately appear to fundamentally disagree is on whether or not government *could* effectively manage universal healthcare, not just whether our system is currently set up to do so, where we would both agree it is not.

I disagree that genuine, bipartisan reform isn’t possible in a vacuum, and will continue to advocate for it, despite my assumption that it will go nowhere.
 
mqt said:
Where we ultimately appear to fundamentally disagree is on whether or not government *could* effectively manage universal healthcare, not just whether our system is currently set up to do so, where we would both agree it is not.

I disagree that genuine, bipartisan reform isn’t possible in a vacuum, and will continue to advocate for it, despite my assumption that it will go nowhere.
Click to expand...
The US can support universal healthcare.

It would have enormous negative unintended consequences.

Bernie and his ilk focus on the former and ignore the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top