USA Politics (redux)

[71 dB]

The root of the problem is the game itself. It's human psychology and money. Both corporate media and small reporters, journalists, and commentators face the same issue. That's why I trust neither.

Everyone needs to know of potential threats in the world. But to hype it up more than it needs to be to catch the attention of groups of people that are concerned with those specific possible threat is what gives them attention (and money). So they will continue to focus on those types of threats, as it is what feeds and houses them.

Even the people I listen to are not exempt from being guilty of that frequently. But at least I recognize it- so many people out there don't, at all.

You have to trust someone, otherwise you remain uninformed. There are honest people out there who don't compromise their integrity for money. It is about finding those individuals.

[greg]

You have to trust someone, otherwise you remain uninformed. There are honest people out there who don't compromise their integrity for money. It is about finding those individuals.

You shouldn't trust anyone without evidence. That's why we have to use citations for everything in English classes. Once they show you evidence, you can trust them.

[SimonNZ]

If you get your news from Youtubers then how do you follow citations?

[greg]

If you get your news from Youtubers then how do you follow citations?

They will show the article on screen while reading it and showing the URL (in case you want to look it up yourself), so pretty much the same thing as a citation, functionally speaking.

[SimonNZ]

They will show the article on screen while reading it and showing the URL (in case you want to look it up yourself), so pretty much the same thing as a citation, functionally speaking.

I'd like to see an example of that. By one of the Youtubers you like.

[71 dB]

You shouldn't trust anyone without evidence. That's why we have to use citations for everything in English classes. Once they show you evidence, you can trust them.

The ones I trust do that, but not always, because oftentimes things are opinions*. They make it clear it is about opions, their bias and why they have that opinion. Often they even say the audience can dissagree. It depends on the issue. Corporate media works diffenrently. They do not tell their bias and their opinions aren't honest. Even when they use evidence/data they try to smear it to go with their narrative.

* Cultural war stuff is typicallly about opinions. Something that happened today might be studied by political scholars years later so you don't have citations to give yet.

[krummholz]

According to polls most Americans (around 80 % I believe) support increasing taxes for the rich.

Of course, everyone supports raising taxes on OTHER PEOPLE.

Paying for these programs don't need to mean increasing the taxes for regular Americans.

Yes, this is what a certain Senator from my state claims. If you think he is right, please show me the math. I have yet to see reasonable, credible numbers that say that all of this can be paid for by taxing the rich and corporations (at least, without raising their taxes to the point where the costs passed on to consumers are intolerable).

Also, Americans pay a lot of corporate taxes such as healthcare premiums. These programs alllow getting rid of these taxes and for most Americans the taxes would get lower despite of increased in state taxes.

This is another of Bernie's claims. And for people who are paying their healthcare premiums entirely out of pocket, yes there would probably be a reduction. But if the single payer system is comparable to Medicare, then it will be FAR from cheap, and will probably cost more than what working people with health insurance through their employer pay towards their premiums by way of payroll deductions. In my case I *know* this to be true because I have Medicare Part A (hospital coverage) and for a time, thinking that I would incur a penalty if I tried to sign up for it after retirement, I was paying Part B (medical coverage) premiums as well. At the time I was advised to ask my Human Resources department if I could forgo their insurance plan and whether they would subsidize my Medicare premiums. Yes I could, but no they would not, and that should tell you something about the relative costs of the two programs. (And just to be clear, my employer pays the lion's share of my private insurance premiums.)

It all comes down to if the corporate media is willing to explain these things correctly to the people instead of fearmongering on the behalf of Big Pharma etc (corporate media and Big Pharma are cahoots because of drug add in the media. The US is insane country for allowing drug adds. Doctors tell what drug you should take! This creates insane insentives for the media to lie about healthcare.

I agree with you about drug ads, but I see no evidence that the mainstream media (MSM) lies to the public about healthcare.

How are increases to the military budget paid for? More borrowing I guess. Corporate media doesn't care, because the military industry complex is the benefactor. Why doesn't military budget increases cause runaway inflation? Funny how helping regular people is always the problem!

Of course, it's all paid for on borrowed money. That's why our debt is astronomical. And it all contributes to inflation, though not as much as giving people "free money" does. TANSTAAFL always applies. Pay now, or pay later. If you're not willing to pay, forgo. I have never lived in Europe, but my understanding is that all European countries with progressive public services tax their citizens at rates that Americans would never tolerate. I wish it were otherwise.

[71 dB]

Of course, everyone supports raising taxes on OTHER PEOPLE.

Sure, but this is not only that. It is about the sense of fairness, the rich paying their fare share. The tax burden has moved more and more to the regular people from the rich who can avoid taxes in way regular people can't so that their effective tax rate can be LOWER than that of regular people. Rich people typically earn money investing in stocks. So they don't need to do anything beyond taking financial risks. Regular people have to WORK for their money.

Yes, this is what a certain Senator from my state claims. If you think he is right, please show me the math. I have yet to see reasonable, credible numbers that say that all of this can be paid for by taxing the rich and corporations (at least, without raising their taxes to the point where the costs passed on to consumers are intolerable).

The math exist. Otherwise Bernie would not propose things. Other countries prove it works. It is not only taxing the rich. The main thing is the savings when you get rid of the mafia between you and your doctor. Americans pay massively for the healthcare getting very little in return while the money flows to the yachts of Insurance company / Big Pharma CEOs. The reason why you haven't seen the "credible numbers" is because the corporate media doesn't want to expose them.

Here is one article:

https://www.benefitspro.com/2020/02/18/latest-study-pegs-medicare-for-all-savings-at-450-billion-annually/:~:text=A%20new%20study%20published%20in%20The%20Lancet%20adds,more%20than%2068,000%20lives%20from%20unnecessary%20deathâ%C2%80%C2%94every%20year.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext

It is about priorities. Is a 70 billion INCREASE to the military budget really necessory? What about directing thay money to expand Medicare?

This is another of Bernie's claims. And for people who are paying their healthcare premiums entirely out of pocket, yes there would probably be a reduction. But if the single payer system is comparable to Medicare, then it will be FAR from cheap, and will probably cost more than what working people with health insurance through their employer pay towards their premiums by way of payroll deductions. In my case I *know* this to be true because I have Medicare Part A (hospital coverage) and for a time, thinking that I would incur a penalty if I tried to sign up for it after retirement, I was paying Part B (medical coverage) premiums as well. At the time I was advised to ask my Human Resources department if I could forgo their insurance plan and whether they would subsidize my Medicare premiums. Yes I could, but no they would not, and that should tell you something about the relative costs of the two programs. (And just to be clear, my employer pays the lion's share of my private insurance premiums.)

How is healthcare everywhere in the World cheaper than in the US? We don't need to ask if Bernie is right. We know he is right because we have the evidence called rest of the World. Maybe this is so difficult for Americans, but you poor people are SCAMMED so badly! You are tied to your jobs because of healthcare. You can go bankrupt. Millions don't have access. You pay the highest drug prices in the World... ...well I don't care about Americans anymore. What a moronic country! 

I agree with you about drug ads, but I see no evidence that the mainstream media (MSM) lies to the public about healthcare.

What? You don't see evidence? Amazing! Your really need to study how healthcare is done elsewhere in the World.

Of course, it's all paid for on borrowed money. That's why our debt is astronomical. And it all contributes to inflation, though not as much as giving people "free money" does. TANSTAAFL always applies. Pay now, or pay later. If you're not willing to pay, forgo. I have never lived in Europe, but my understanding is that all European countries with progressive public services tax their citizens at rates that Americans would never tolerate. I wish it were otherwise.

It is true, that in general in Europe taxes are higher, but:

1) We get MUCH more for our taxes. It is not bad to pay, if you get something in return.
2) Our society functions better.

Higher taxes can be a good thing. It is about how the taxed money is spent. In Finland for example the taxed money is used in things that improve the quality of lives for all people. That's why Finland is the ranked the happiest country in the World for the 4th year in the row and other countries with high taxes also rank typically high. Also, in Finland the rich pay their fair share and people with low incame pay very little taxes (maybe even less than in the US) and we do not have premiums, co-pays etc.

[greg]

The ones I trust do that, but not always, because oftentimes things are opinions*. They make it clear it is about opions, their bias and why they have that opinion. Often they even say the audience can dissagree. It depends on the issue. Corporate media works diffenrently. They do not tell their bias and their opinions aren't honest. Even when they use evidence/data they try to smear it to go with their narrative.

* Cultural war stuff is typicallly about opinions. Something that happened today might be studied by political scholars years later so you don't have citations to give yet.

Very true, I like this attitude of open discussion and opinions. Corporate media does work differently.
For example, someone from CNN once said to "not listen to other sources" (this was a while ago, might have been Stelter?, couldn't find the record of this but was very memorable).

Instantly, I would distrust anyone who says that. Anyone who tells others to listen to everyone would be someone I'd have a more favorable attitude toward. People who tell you not to listen to everyone and decide things for yourself are authoritarians, wanna dictators who think they know what's best for you.

I'd like to see an example of that. By one of the Youtubers you like.

Okay? Here's a random one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn9hZIS54aI&t=720s

The articles are open, with the titles/URLs. The rest is just his commentary.

[71 dB]

Too much politics. Better go and listen to Carl Heinrich Graun (Te Deum).  0:)

[SimonNZ]

Okay? Here's a random one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn9hZIS54aI&t=720s

The articles are open, with the titles/URLs. The rest is just his commentary.

That's showing some random articles that he is then ranting about - exactly the way Stephen Colbert for example does, and as with Colbert that's not news reporting and those are not citations of research and data and investigation for your own counterpoint.

This isn't news and it isn't reporting and it certainly isn't superior or preferable to CNN or any of the other research driven media you denigrate.

[71 dB]

That's showing some random articles that he is then ranting about - exactly the way Stephen Colbert for example does, and as with Colbert that's not news reporting and those are not citations of research and data and investigation for your own counterpoint.

This isn't news and it isn't reporting and it certainly isn't superior or preferable to CNN or any of the other research driven media you denigrate.

"Random articles" (who says what is random?) can be based on researched data. If there are for example statistics, those numbers come from somewhere. Those numbers can be made up in someones head or they can be the result of research in which case they are hard facts.

CNN is not "research driven media." Their function is to manufacture consent for the benefit of the establishment. They uphold a narrative where war is good, medicare for all is bad, tax cuts for the rich is good, tuition free education is a pie in the sky (even if even much poorer Slovenia in East Europe has found a way to "pay for it"), poor people are lazy so its their own fault they are poor etc. In order to uphold this narrative they need to frame facts in smearing way. They do this by omitting key information so that the viewers can't put things in perspective. They also also talk about the lefties and progressives using negative language and they hardly ever have real lefties and progressives in their programs to give their perspective, for example to debunk their corporate claim and narrative.

It is a fair claim that random Youtubers don't always do the research they could do, but at least some of these Youtubers at least try to be fact-based. Compared to these Youtubers CNN and similar corporate outlets are laughable bad. They are not in the business of informing their viewers. They are in the business of manufacturing consent. It is tragic how millions of people don't understand that.

Enough politics again - Time to watch "Forbidden Planet" on Blu-ray. I received it finally today. 

[Karl Henning]

That's showing some random articles that he is then ranting about - exactly the way Stephen Colbert for example does, and as with Colbert that's not news reporting and those are not citations of research and data and investigation for your own counterpoint.

This isn't news and it isn't reporting and it certainly isn't superior or preferable to CNN or any of the other research driven media you denigrate.

GIGO

[Karl Henning]

CNN is not "research driven media." Their function is to manufacture consent for the benefit of the establishment.

I hope that at least you smile a little at yourself while you're regurgitating agitprop.

[SimonNZ]

"Random articles" (who says what is random?) can be based on researched data. If there are for example statistics, those numbers come from somewhere. Those numbers can be made up in someones head or they can be the result of research in which case they are hard facts.

CNN is not "research driven media." Their function is to manufacture consent for the benefit of the establishment. They uphold a narrative where war is good, medicare for all is bad, tax cuts for the rich is good, tuition free education is a pie in the sky (even if even much poorer Slovenia in East Europe has found a way to "pay for it"), poor people are lazy so its their own fault they are poor etc. In order to uphold this narrative they need to frame facts in smearing way. They do this by omitting key information so that the viewers can't put things in perspective. They also also talk about the lefties and progressives using negative language and they hardly ever have real lefties and progressives in their programs to give their perspective, for example to debunk their corporate claim and narrative.

It is a fair claim that random Youtubers don't always do the research they could do, but at least some of these Youtubers at least try to be fact-based. Compared to these Youtubers CNN and similar corporate outlets are laughable bad. They are not in the business of informing their viewers. They are in the business of manufacturing consent. It is tragic how millions of people don't understand that.

Enough politics again - Time to watch "Forbidden Planet" on Blu-ray. I received it finally today. 

The articles he's riffing on may be fine. It's his "guy at the end of the bar" commentary being taken as news and reporting I have a problem with.

As I've said to both of you before: you'd have a more nuanced view of mainstream media if you were actually familiar with it rather than taking your bar guys word that they are all terrible so you should just stick with them.

[Karl Henning]

House votes to hold Bannon in contempt for refusing to comply with Jan. 6 subpoena

[krummholz]

Sure, but this is not only that. It is about the sense of fairness, the rich paying their fare share. The tax burden has moved more and more to the regular people from the rich who can avoid taxes in way regular people can't so that their effective tax rate can be LOWER than that of regular people. Rich people typically earn money investing in stocks. So they don't need to do anything beyond taking financial risks. Regular people have to WORK for their money.

I agree with you about fairness. My argument is not that the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes - they absolutely should. The question is whether, if they paid their fair share, the revenue thus generated would pay for a universal health care system that is otherwise free to the public. I still say that I have never seen credible numbers to that effect, and I categorically reject the allegation that the MSM are in the pocket of some corporate monolith intent on concealing the truth. It MIGHT be enough to pay for a Medicare For All plan, but that is a very different animal and while it would help out some people, it would make health care much more expensive for others (me, for example, as I explained in my last post), and let's not forget that we are not adequately funding the current Medicare program as it is, which is projected to become insolvent 5 years from now.

The math exist. Otherwise Bernie would not propose things. Other countries prove it works. It is not only taxing the rich. The main thing is the savings when you get rid of the mafia between you and your doctor. Americans pay massively for the healthcare getting very little in return while the money flows to the yachts of Insurance company / Big Pharma CEOs. The reason why you haven't seen the "credible numbers" is because the corporate media doesn't want to expose them.

Bernie could not propose something that is pie in the sky? Why do you say that? Politicians lie all the time. Again, asserting that "the media" doesn't want to expose the true numbers is sheer agitprop, unless you have evidence to back it up.

Here is one article:

https://www.benefitspro.com/2020/02/18/latest-study-pegs-medicare-for-all-savings-at-450-billion-annually/:~:text=A%20new%20study%20published%20in%20The%20Lancet%20adds,more%20than%2068,000%20lives%20from%20unnecessary%20deathâ%C2%80%C2%94every%20year.

404 error.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext

Very long article, which I will try to read when I have time. Thank you.

It is about priorities. Is a 70 billion INCREASE to the military budget really necessory? What about directing thay money to expand Medicare?

Sadly, in the world we live in, and considering the threats to national security that the US faces, I can accept that it is.

It is true, that in general in Europe taxes are higher, but:

1) We get MUCH more for our taxes. It is not bad to pay, if you get something in return.
2) Our society functions better.

Higher taxes can be a good thing. It is about how the taxed money is spent. In Finland for example the taxed money is used in things that improve the quality of lives for all people. That's why Finland is the ranked the happiest country in the World for the 4th year in the row and other countries with high taxes also rank typically high. Also, in Finland the rich pay their fair share and people with low incame pay very little taxes (maybe even less than in the US) and we do not have premiums, co-pays etc.

All true, and you're preaching to the choir here. My point is simply that, as you've admitted, this level of service requires higher taxes. If you want something, you had better be willing to pay for it. The American public isn't willing to pay higher taxes, full stop. You can call us morons or whatever, but it is what it is. That's why this isn't going to happen here anytime soon. Does it suck? Yes. But what would suck worse is trying to implement this without the authority to raise the revenue needed, and paying for it on borrowed or simply printed money.

[milk]

Of course, it's all paid for on borrowed money. That's why our debt is astronomical. And it all contributes to inflation, though not as much as giving people "free money" does. TANSTAAFL always applies. Pay now, or pay later. If you're not willing to pay, forgo. I have never lived in Europe, but my understanding is that all European countries with progressive public services tax their citizens at rates that Americans would never tolerate. I wish it were otherwise.

I don't feel expert enough to know how to compare. I can see some metrics but I don't know what factors go into this. For example, I live in Japan where everyone is covered by some system and healthcare out of pocket is pretty cheap for me. Japan has twice the debt as the U.S. (to GDP) although that alone may be misleading. It's tax rate is comparable I think. I mean I think it's closer to the U.S. than Northern European countries.

[71 dB]

I agree with you about fairness. My argument is not that the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes - they absolutely should. The question is whether, if they paid their fair share, the revenue thus generated would pay for a universal health care system that is otherwise free to the public. I still say that I have never seen credible numbers to that effect, and I categorically reject the allegation that the MSM are in the pocket of some corporate monolith intent on concealing the truth. It MIGHT be enough to pay for a Medicare For All plan, but that is a very different animal and while it would help out some people, it would make health care much more expensive for others (me, for example, as I explained in my last post), and let's not forget that we are not adequately funding the current Medicare program as it is, which is projected to become insolvent 5 years from now.

As far as I know, M4A (as proposed by people like Bernie Sanders) would not be financed only with tax increases of the rich, but also regular people would see taxes increase. However, for regular people this would be less than what they would save on not paying for premiums and other costs of the current system. Bernie is a lefty. He wants to help regular people and the poor on the expense of the rich. Do you think this senator who has been fighting for M4A for DECADES doesn't know the math? It is the MSM creating the doubts in order to protect status quo.

People who get healthcare paid by their employee would get higher salaries, because their employee doesn't need to pay for the healthcare. So, even if your taxes go up your net incomes goes up. Even if your expensies went up under M4A (would be very special case) you could feel good because millions of fellow American would have access to healtcare and this would save so many lives. Or is money the only thing that matters to you? Are you that shallow. Suffering off other people does not matter to you?

Bernie could not propose something that is pie in the sky? Why do you say that? Politicians lie all the time. Again, asserting that "the media" doesn't want to expose the true numbers is sheer agitprop, unless you have evidence to back it up.

Yes in the US they lie all the time, but there are a few good Apples and Bernie Sanders is one of them. The fact that this is unclear to you tells more about you than Bernie Sanders. Bernie doesn't take corporate money so why would he lie for corporations? Why do corporations and the establishment hate him if he lies for them? What is his lies about?

What Bernie proposes exists in other countries so clearly it is not pie in the sky. The difference between the US and the other countries is that elsewhere the healhtcare industry doesn't completely own the government, well, ALMOST completely. They don't own Bernie Sanders and some other lefty politicians.

[Fëanor]

I agree with you about fairness. My argument is not that the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes - they absolutely should. The question is whether, if they paid their fair share, the revenue thus generated would pay for a universal health care system that is otherwise free to the public. I still say that I have never seen credible numbers to that effect, and I categorically reject the allegation that the MSM are in the pocket of some corporate monolith intent on concealing the truth. It MIGHT be enough to pay for a Medicare For All plan, but that is a very different animal and while it would help out some people, it would make health care much more expensive for others (me, for example, as I explained in my last post), and let's not forget that we are not adequately funding the current Medicare program as it is, which is projected to become insolvent 5 years from now.
...

From what I observe from here in the Great White North, the American MSM isn't "in the pocket" of health industry monolith, (though Congress undoubtedly is).  Rather the MSM in abused of the same narrow set of presumptions as is the American upper-middle class in general, (or, say, you).

There is plenty of money in the USA -- for that matter, more than any other country -- to pay for universal health care.  "Medicare for all" isn't a good model because Medicare improperly funded for a start:  the "trust fund" approach is nonsense.  Much less wealthy counties the USA are able to fund universal health care, usually without premiums or co-pays, as current expenditure of government.  To be sure, it doesn't happen without a certain amount of fuss usually created by with a those with a vested interest in privatizing health services.

Nobody in Canada pays more specifically for their health care on account of our system, though, of course taxes are a somewhat higher to pay for the system as a whole.