Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[crashcourse]

one of the biggest reasons people like me voted for trump is because of socialism

when you have less then 50 % working supporting over 50% of the rest of the country you're talking socialism

one could argue 8 years of Obama care and entitlements skyrocketing have made us one of the most socialistic countries in the world without Bernies input at all

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/12/19/the-shocking-truth-on-entitlements

[Dr. Strangelove]

Drain the Swamp!

[ame]https://twitter.com/svdate/status/856570570447745024[/ame]

[Da Geezer]

Talent:

I've been clear in this discussion - Sanders is not technically a socialist. He may call himself one and he may be one as understood in American political terms. But I've only said he's way left on the continuum ... way closer to socialist than traditional D.

Fair enough. I believe Bernie is a statist. (Except when it pertains to his own taxes or his own housing).

[Jeff Buchanan]

one of the biggest reasons people like me voted for trump is because of socialism

when you have less then 50 % working supporting over 50% of the rest of the country you're talking socialism

one could argue 8 years of Obama care and entitlements skyrocketing have made us one of the most socialistic countries in the world without Bernies input at all

On the other side of the coin, one of the biggest reasons Bernie Sanders is popular is his view of what his opponents call entitlements, hand-outs, welfare, etc. To his supporters, they are necessary programs for the social good.

Sanders has also pointed out that Scandinavian countries do a better job of paying for what amounts to significantly better programs for the public good than America does. Generally, unlike the Nordic Model, US Federal and State government's taxes are insufficient to pay for, by European standards on a per capita basis, what here are relatively meager programs for the public good.

The US has deployed a tax system that, at face, is not a bad way to redistribute income that is then used to fund the various safety-net programs. Whether you support that approach or not, and I know there are two well informed opposing camps here, we need to get beyond superficial understanding. I'm no expert on the economics of taxation but, when I've got the time, I'll try to understand it.

The problem in the US's current approach at the federal level is while the tax system is progressive on the taxation end, it is not progressive on the spending end. Here's some interesting data from The Independent Tax Foundation:

• The question of who benefits from government spending is just as important as the question of who pays taxes. In other words, how do tax and spending policies redistribute income?
  
• American’s lowest-income families receive $5.28 worth of government spending (federal, state, and local) for every $1 they pay in total taxes.
  
• Middle-income families receive $1.48 in total spending per tax dollar, while America’s highest-income families receive $0.25 cents in spending for every dollar of taxes paid.
  
• As a group, the bottom 60 percent of American families receive more back in total government spending than they pay in total taxes.
  
• Government tax and spending policies combine to redistribute more than $2 trillion from the top 40 percent of families to the bottom 60 percent.
  
• The total amount of redistribution has increased slightly over the past 12 years.
  
• Middle-income and working lower-income families were the biggest beneficiaries.
  
• Lawmakers can remove equity as an issue in tax reform by matching any loss in progressivity on the tax side with an equal increase in progressivity on the spending side.

The entire report is here. If people are going to discuss entitlements and income redistribution and the politics that surround this heated topic, one has to understand this subject beyond sloganism:

https://taxfoundation.org/distribution-tax-and-spending-policies-united-states/

I bolded the last key finding from the linked report because the concept is relatively new to taxation economics. It is explained here:

https://verdict.justia.com/2014/10/31/progressive-taxation-spending-must-part-fight-inequality

[Wild Hoss]

It would also be enlightening to investigate how much of what's popularly considered social/welfare spending goes to middle and upper-middle class households for expenditures such as geriatric and disability care.

[Jeff Buchanan]

It would also be enlightening to investigate how much of what's popularly considered social/welfare spending goes to middle and upper-middle class households for expenditures such as geriatric and disability care.

From the the trenches, my guess would be a lot more goes to upper and middle class families than goes to the poor. Why? Because this particular part of the system is difficult to navigate for patients. Poor, less well educated folks have no clue how to get diabetic shoes or get their bathrooms equipped to prevent falls for instance.

The info is out there but it too is hard to access unless you know exactly what you are looking for. One of your best resources are local Home Health Agencies although they are variably good or bad in doing what they do. There usually a care coordinator who is an RN. These people can help guide families through the process of getting what Medicare or Commercial Insurance will pay for. Another often good source of help is Community Senior Centers.

[Dr. Strangelove]

one of the biggest reasons people like me voted for trump is because of socialism

when you have less then 50 % working supporting over 50% of the rest of the country you're talking socialism

one could argue 8 years of Obama care and entitlements skyrocketing have made us one of the most socialistic countries in the world without Bernies input at all

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...n-entitlements

What's remarkable about this is that Trump campaigned on promising he wouldn't touch any entitlements

The most recent WSJ poll had a question they've been asking for 22 years: Should the government do more to help meet the needs of the people or let free market principles reign

In the 22-year history of asking this, we're now at a record high of people wanting more govt. intervention. Even a lot of Trump voters want "socialism"

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/poll-record-number-americans-say-government-should-do-more-n749766

[Whitley]

....... and I have a sense that you might have ended and nonetheless not remotely achievable or supportable.

BTW, great NYT piece. I thought the closing remark, "We should thank the student protesters (Snowflakes), the activists in Black Lives Matter and other "overly sensitive" souls for keeping watch over the soul of our Republic.

Powerful thought.

It take a shifting in priorities to be sure. The first place to look would be in the defense budget which is more than the next 26 countries COMBINED with 25 of them being allies.

[Wild Hoss]

Defense is an area where Trump's whacky approach might actually do some good.

The procurement system is irreparably broken, producing very limited options of fragile, over-engineered systems that are almost too expensive to use. We need to get back to having multiple firms able to bid on contracts, and revamp our approach in some areas to a cheaper, higher-volume philosophy. We can out-engineer the Chinese and shit-ass Russians at 2/3 current cost, and sure as hell out-train them. I wonder what role drones and other automation could play here.

Another thought, albeit aged, that was cribbed from my brothers' discussions with his remaining SF mates a few years back, is that American soldiers are due for a weapons upgrade. Some of his former dudes thought that a better rifle round and a direct-fire weapon to compete with the RPG would lessen the dependency on indirect fire support and air cover. I wonder if drones could come into play here as well.

Any/all of this is going to require some drastically different thinking.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump is so mad at China & Mexico 'cheating' on trade that he's slapping tariffs on Canadian lumber and dairy...

[SeattleLionsFan]

He has totally sold out to the neocons! When you are attacked by citizens of one country you invade a different one. They never suspect it!

[crashcourse]

m4 is pretty convienient reliable and multifunctional
RPG's > LAW
but drones are the way to go--knowing the enemys deployment without boots on the ground saves a lot of lives

gonna come a day where every battalion commander will have a drone squad to see whats out front of him

but the question is how to deal with the little shitstain in Pyongyang

the day he tests another nuke is the day trump has to say enough is enough
so he retaliates to their ;launch sites and kim dong shitstain unleashes conventional artillery south and obliterates much of seoul

gotta be someway to cut off the head of NK before he can pull the trigger

[froot loops]

He has totally sold out to the neocons! When you are attacked by citizens of one country you invade a different one. They never suspect it!

It's kind of like the NCAA, when Kentucky commits another infraction Coastal Carolina gets scared.

[Wild Hoss]

gonna come a day where every battalion commander will have a drone squad to see whats out front of him

Its not a stretch to see armed drones taking over close-support roles from artillery and air assets IMO.

The days where whole arty companies are require to protect the front line from massive charges of enemy troops are long gone. Our guys need quick, precise strikes, directed from points as close to the fight as possible. A drone pilot and a Sgt with a laser designator could be more valuable- and safer- than a whole section of field guns. And cheaper.

[Wild Hoss]

Trump is so mad at China & Mexico 'cheating' on trade that he's slapping tariffs on Canadian lumber and dairy...

Not sure I have a big problem with the lumber side of this...I?m probably not going to complain if hack wants to subsidize cheap lumber for me.

The dairy side might be a different story. But, fuck Wisconsin.