U.S. Politics: The (Debt) Ceiling's the Limit

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Inigima said:

You have made an impressive career out of missing the point.

By pointing out a post in response to what I said was irrelevant to what I said?  Right.

[The guy from the Vale]

The original statement was that Gandhi wasn't all that great compared to how he's usually portrayed (e.g., he was rooting for the Axis powers. Understandable, from his justified Anti-British perspective, but still all kinds of awfully wrong). Your response was to point out that he was one of the most admired people of the last century, alongside Mother Theresa, as a reply to which I (and two other posters after me) pointed out that the same discrepancy exists even far more starkly for her: She's often seen as a morally perfect human being when in fact she was a sadistic con artist who used charities to make millions that most of her "patients" (victims would probably be the better term) never saw more than a few pennies of. The reply, in both cases, shows that good PR does not a good human being make.

[GAROVORKIN]

9 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

How should we protest neo-Nazis? Lessons from German history
The antifa’s tactics often backfire, just like those of Germany’s communist opposition to Nazism did in the 1920s

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/26/how-should-we-protest-neo-nazis-lessons-from-german-history_partner/

German recently allowed  a heavily annotated version Hitter's book  Mein Kampf to be  published in Germany in which it have been previously banned for decades. The frightening part is that all of people in Germany have  purchased copies of this vile book.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

The original statement was that Gandhi wasn't all that great compared to how he's usually portrayed (e.g., he was rooting for the Axis powers. Understandable, from his justified Anti-British perspective, but still all kinds of awfully wrong). Your response was to point out that he was one of the most admired people of the last century, alongside Mother Theresa, as a reply to which I (and two other posters after me) pointed out that the same discrepancy exists even far more starkly for her

No, the original statement was me clarifying I don't think Gandhi is beyond criticism but rather was using his rather universal admiration (well, outside of this thread at least).  One would think it's pretty obvious that applies to Mother Theresa as well.

[Jon AS]

8 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

The frightening part is that all of people in Germany have  purchased copies of this vile book.

85,000 people bought the annotated version in its first year of publication.

Germany has over 80,000,000 inhabitants. Please refrain from making wild claims until you have mastered the abitlity to grasp basic numbers.

[GAROVORKIN]

31 minutes ago, Jon AS said:

85,000 people bought the annotated version in its first year of publication.

Germany has over 80,000,000 inhabitants. Please refrain from making wild claims until you have mastered the abitlity to grasp basic numbers.

There is nothing wild about this claim as you call it .  The book is a best seller in Germany, 85,000 books  and it is a significant number copes and likely they will sell more . Thank you for pointing  out  the fact that this is only a faction of the population , but I was already well aware of that.  As why you feel the need to be impolite  and sarcastic , only you know the answer to that one.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

German recently allowed  a heavily annotated version Hitter's book  Mein Kampf to be  published in Germany in which it have been previously banned for decades. The frightening part is that all of people in Germany have  purchased copies of this vile book.

GAROVORKIN,

Perhaps you phrased this poorly but it sounds like you are attempting to claim every person in Germany had recently purchased a copy of Mein Kampf.  That's a very different statement than claiming "it is a bestseller".

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

German recently allowed  a heavily annotated version Hitter's book  Mein Kampf to be  published in Germany in which it have been previously banned for decades. The frightening part is that all of people in Germany have  purchased copies of this vile book.

Quite a bit of misleading bits in there. Anyway, I'll try to unravel it a bit (sorry for anybody who is not interested as this goes a bit off topic).

Let's start with the publishing bit. That was more due to the fact with the German copyright law. Hitler passed away in 1945 (as we all know from history classes at school). As he left no heirs behind (his last will stated something along the line that his estate should go to the German state), it somehow fell to the state of Bavaria. So for over 60 years, the state of Bavaria was the owner on the rights of Mein Kampf. And they did forbid the printing of any new copies. What changed? Small introduction to German copyright law. The copyright ceases 70 years after the death of the author. You can do the math. So what to do. The reknown Institut für Zeitgeschichte [Institute for contemporary history], decided to publish a commented and shortened version of that book. The unedited version remains banned (a decission taken by all the 16 states) as it is regarded as Hate Speech. Fun fact for the lawyers here. The possession of the book was never illegal, just the purchase of it in Germany. So if you felt like it, you could travel to the US, or to the UK buy a copy there, and bring it back to Germany legally. You should however refrain from public reading.

Anyway, now to the second bit. I presume you meant the distribution numbers back then, and not now.

The distribution during the third Reich of the book. It wasn't a financial success when it was first published in 1925, the first eiditon was around 10.000 copies and it took the publisher a roughly 6 months to get it sold, the second edition contained 8.000 copies, and those were not sold until some time in 1928 - not exactly commercial success story. Anyway, the first edition of part two (yes, it was originally two books) was again a first edition of 10.000 copies, first published in december 1926, they couldn't get it sold until some time in 1929. In 1930 a People's edition was published, which contained both books, that one sold well over 50.000 copies. What happened? Well, the NSDAP doubled their numbers in local elections, and won the federal elecitons in a landslide, well what's there to say apart from Germans are horrible opportunists. The sales increased, and by 1933 that thing sold over 200.000 copies. Anyway, how did you get a copy of it back then? You graduated from school, you were pretty much guaranteed to receive it as a gift from the headmaster of your school. Catholic Communion/protestant confirmation, guess what your priest gave you as a gift. You got married, guess what the marriage registrar gave you as a wedding gift (on the states expense). So I doubt that many people bothered to read it. It was in a way like the stereotypical bible in a cheap motel room. It's there, but it didn't really serve any function, but roughly every third household owned a copy. Don't tell this to the Donald, or you will get spammed with the Art of the Deal.

 

[GAROVORKIN]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

GAROVORKIN,

Perhaps you can phrased this poorly but it sounds like you are attempting to claim every person in Germany had recently purchased a copy of Mein Kampf.  That's a very different statement than claiming "it is a bestseller".

 

I was doing nothing of the sort  and though 85,000 is a fraction of Germanys population , It's still alot books sold.   But yes ,  I should have phrased   it  better then I did   and put those  numbers in my initial comments to a avoid the confusion it appears to have caused.  As to the book being a best seller, look on online.

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/27/2017 at 5:51 AM, felice said:

It should be funded by increased taxes on the employers, not on the employees. The employers are not going to be making any savings (on average).

Okay, a few things here.

I don’t think you will be able to fund single payer by increasing corporate taxes. It will require a broad based tax increase. And of course, conservatives will incessantly point that out as they try to fear monger. Overall, though, even if people have to pay more taxes for single payer, it’s a big win for most people, except for those in high tax brackets that are able to shield their income from taxes by getting employer sponsored health care benefits. The big advantage of single payer is that it will be able to bend the cost curve.

From an employers perspective it really shouldn’t matter whether she pays you in cash or in health care benefits. If we’re working here with a neoclassical production function, the employer will hire all the labor he can until the marginal product equals the wage (well for a disequilibrium guy like myself, I don’t think that always holds. But, that’s different story and it’s not a bad approximation over the long run.)

If the price of health care goes up, the employee receives fewer cash benefits. If it goes down, the employee should receive more cash benefits.

Single payer has a good chance of holding down healthcare cost. So even though it may require people to pay more taxes, most people, will be made better off, as health care will be cheaper and they will see more cash compensation. The other advantages are people won’t have to worry about there health care going caput if they lose their jobs to a recession. And it gives the opportunity to switch jobs, if they chose, and not worry about doing so may harm their healthcare coverage.

Now, it’s probably true that implementing single payer, will have some big upfront cost. But, at the rates we can borrow at, who cares, particularly if over the long term it lower US health care cost. It’s no secret that the US, long term fiscal challenges are largely due to rising health care cost.

[GAROVORKIN]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay, a few things here.

I don’t think you will be able to fund single payer by increasing corporate taxes. It will require a broad based tax increase. And of course, conservatives will incessantly point that out as they try to fear monger. Overall, though, even if people have to pay more taxes for single payer, it’s a big win for most people, except for those in high tax brackets that are able to shield their income from taxes by getting employer sponsored health care benefits. The big advantage of single payer is that it will be able to bend the cost curve.

From an employers perspective it really shouldn’t matter whether she pays you in cash or in health care benefits. If we’re working here with a neoclassical production function, the employer will hire all the labor he can until the marginal product equals the wage (well for a disequilibrium guy like myself, I don’t think that always holds. But, that’s different story and it’s not a bad approximation over the long run.)

If the price of health care goes up, the employee receives fewer cash benefits. If it goes down, the employee should receive more cash benefits.

Single payer has a good chance of holding down healthcare cost. So even though it may require people to pay more taxes, most people, will be made better off, as health care will be cheaper and they will see more cash compensation. The other advantages are people won’t have to worry about there health care going caput if they lose their jobs to a recession. And it gives the opportunity to switch jobs, if they chose, and not worry about doing so may harm their healthcare coverage.

Now, it’s probably true that implementing single payer, will have some big upfront cost. But, at the rates we can borrow at, who cares, particularly if over the long term it lower US health care cost. It’s no secret that the US, long term fiscal challenges are largely due to rising health care cost.

What does the medical profession think of a single payer system ?  Would they be in favor of it? 

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/27/2017 at 8:25 AM, GAROVORKIN said:

What does the medical profession think of a single payer system ?  Would they be in favor of it? 

Frankly, many might not be happy with it. Because to get it to work, might require some reforms on the supply side. For whatever reason, US doctors make substantially more than their European counterparts. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that they do a better job. There is a good chance that US doctors are able to make more because of rent seeking behavior. Or maybe the barriers of entry into the medical profession are too high and we need to reduce them. The upshot is doctor compensation may have to come down. And some of them aren’t probably going to be too happy about that.

[GAROVORKIN]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Frankly, many might not be happy with it. Because to get it to work, might require some reforms on the supply side. For whatever reason, US doctors make substantially more than their European counterparts. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that they do a better job. There is a good chance that US doctors are able to make more because of rent seeking behavior. Or maybe the barriers of entry into the medical profession are too high and we need to reduce them. The upshot is doctor compensation may have to come down. And some of them aren’t probably going to be too happy about that.

Which brings up the issue of medical malpractice and tort reform.

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/27/2017 at 9:07 AM, GAROVORKIN said:

Which brings up the issue of medical malpractice and tort reform.

Quite frankly, I don't think you're going to get a lot of mileage out of this. 

[Ordos]

To this day I still call the current US president Drumpf. Earlier last year while he was still a candidate I tried running with 'The Duck' but it throws people into confusion. I'm part of another forum where it drives them crazy that I keep saying Drumpf.

I keep telling people this, but nobody ever gets it. Drumpf is an attention whore. Any time people talk about him for good or for bad, it raises his name recognition and thus we all give him free advertising. However he is President so often we are forced to talk about him since he has significant influence on millions. But that does not mean I will give him the luxury of free advertising.

I tell people that if they want me to say the magic five letter name, I demand cash payment for every time I utter it. Or if I'm paid a LOT of money, I could speak the name all the time for a week or a month.

But saying Drumpf is more often a conversation stopper. So I guess that's the next best thing.

[GAROVORKIN]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Quite frankly, I don't think you're going to get a lot of mileage out of this. 

Probably not.

[Morpheus]

He WAS an attention whore, now he is an active and powerful force of malice and hatred, treating him like a mere troll is not acceptable anymore. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/26/2017 at 8:17 PM, Martell Spy said:

 

s.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/08/trump_s_pardon_of_joe_arpaio_is_an_impeachable_offense.html

Trump’s Pardon of Joe Arpaio Is an Impeachable Offense

The president has the power to pardon, but he’s misused that power. The Constitution is clear.

By Frank Bowman

Arpaio’s pardon, of course, is completely outrageous and ridiculous.

And conservatives really need to be pressed about this, particularly when they start to talk about “freedom”.

[GAROVORKIN]

26 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

He WAS an attention whore, now he is an active and powerful force of malice and hatred, treating him like a mere troll is not acceptable anymore. 

 

I have some questions that perhaps you or someone can answer?  How is in that that in-spite of every of one Donald Trumps negatives and controversies  and his approval rating , the Democrats can't seem to gain any traction with the voters  Why do you think that is ? Could it be that the Democrats like the (Republicans on Healthcare) themselves have no good ideas  other more the same ones which  cost  them control of the Senate , the House and Presidency ? Other then their resistance to Trump what have got to offer the voters that would make them want to vote for the Democrats  ? Why are they seemingly have so much difficulty getting the voters back . 

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

I have some questions that perhaps you or someone can answer?  How is in that that in-spite of every of one Donald Trumps negatives and controversies  and his approval rating , the Democrats can't seem to gain any traction with the voters  Why do you think that is ? Could it be that the Democrats like the (Republicans on Healthcare) themselves have no good ideas  other more the same ones which cost them control of the Senate , the House and Presidency ? Other then their resistance to Trump what have got to offer the voters that would make them want to vote for the Democrats  ? 

One of the bigger problems the democratic party has right now is something of a small identity crisis. It seems like the part doesn't know what it wants to stand for.

The Republicans have freemarket fundamentalism (as OGE likes to say) and "family values", while the democratic party tries to be the party of inclusion, the middle class and tolerance, but often doesn't know how to go about it. You have corporate democrats and left-wing liberals going at each other's throats and the party is horrible at getting it's base out to vote during midterms.