U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[Navin]

Still doesn't change the fact that he'll be increasing taxes for a group that really doesn't need taxes raised- the middle class. Sure, affordable health insurance (though if you are referring to ObamaCare, I don't see what is so great about that plan because if you can't afford it, you get fined, which is a terrible idea) and affordable college are important.

Well my dad kept his employer's insurance plan. Nothing changed. Several thousand a year, and up to a 3K deductible for medical costs (he had a ~80K surgery cost a year ago and paid the deductible). No effect from ACA.

This is the ELI5 of ACA: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlik..._exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx

There are countless anecdotes of people saying it saved a loved one's life to those saying they have to pay several hundred dollars more per month in their current plan to those saying the mandate sucks because they can't afford it. In general, there are millions of poor people who now have health insurance and don't have to worry about seeing a doctor. Those with "preexisting conditions" are covered. You and I can be under our parent's plan till we are 26. The positives outweigh the negatives.

Obama probably intended to go full single-payer, but the Repubs and insurance companies probably rejected that idea, so they came up with an imperfect system that needs to be improved, not destroyed. And not to sound conspiracy theorist (actually this is perfectly reasonable), but I'm fairly certain the GOP, who were so worried that Obama might become a legendary President decided to make him a one-term President from day one and be as obstructionist as possible, probably didn't want a monumental universal healthcare bill signed by a Democrat. That's why they've constantly been trying to tear it down, and make some BS vague plan of plans competing across state lines???

If they are free, then wouldn't raising taxes sort of reverse that? Like, you don't have to pay for college, but you now have increased taxes. Also, if you make college completely free, doesn't that cheapen the value, like how a high school diploma used to be important, but now it isn't (because it is so easy to obtain). Outside of the cost of college, there really isn't much you have to do. Just sit in class, take notes, etc. More or less the same as high school in that regard and people have no trouble getting HS diplomas nowadays. Like you, my family is in the middle class. Probably middle-middle, like you, or maybe upper middle. I know they definitely wouldn't want increased taxes, even if that meant free college (both my brother and I are in college and it's $34000 a year for each of us).

I assume your family is paying that amount? Think about it this way. If your family had to spend $2000/yr extra in taxes to cover 'free college,' and they did that for 18 years. Basically for the cost of one year of university, the other three years are covered. The point is to have everyone obtain a degree, since so many jobs nowadays demand as much. It doesn't cheapen it. You still have to get in to a school. Not to mention, this only would apply to public universities. Private schools are still private.

I wonder how the system would work for people who don't have kids going to college. Like ACA, I imagine some folks complaining they have to pay more to cover somebody else's costs.

What happened to your friend and his brother is very unfortunate! If this wasn't too recent, I hope things have gotten better for them now. Yeah, I suppose free college would have helped their family, but would they want increased taxes as a result? Making all of these services free is great and all, but it needs to be paid somehow and it would cost a lot of money for it to get paid off. Not to mention the fact that we are a country with a lot of debt! Should be close to about 20 trillion dollars by the time Obama leaves office.

Maybe? I'm not sure. God willing I become an attending physician in ten years, I wouldn't mind spending more if it means my child could go to UofM for free.

Well that's another problem. Actually Sanders' tax plan would generate a ton of revenue in long-term, more than any other candidate. The Repubs give a ton of tax breaks, especially to the rich. So they compensate by cutting down necessary government programs (like Medicare). Add that to the fact they'll increase over inflated military budget and spend billions more in Middle East wars, yeah no thanks. I rather that money be spent on improving the homefront.

 

[Torpoleon]

Well my dad kept his employer's insurance plan. Nothing changed. Several thousand a year, and up to a 3K deductible for medical costs (he had a ~80K surgery cost a year ago and paid the deductible). No effect from ACA.

This is the ELI5 of ACA: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlik..._exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx

There are countless anecdotes of people saying it saved a loved one's life to those saying they have to pay several hundred dollars more per month in their current plan to those saying the mandate sucks because they can't afford it. In general, there are millions of poor people who now have health insurance and don't have to worry about seeing a doctor. Those with "preexisting conditions" are covered. You and I can be under our parent's plan till we are 26. The positives outweigh the negatives.

Obama probably intended to go full single-payer, but the Repubs and insurance companies probably rejected that idea, so they came up with an imperfect system that needs to be improved, not destroyed. And not to sound conspiracy theorist (actually this is perfectly reasonable), but I'm fairly certain the GOP, who were so worried that Obama might become a legendary President decided to make him a one-term President from day one and be as obstructionist as possible, probably didn't want a monumental universal healthcare bill signed by a Democrat. That's why they've constantly been trying to tear it down, and make some BS vague plan of plans competing across state lines???

Ironically, Obama says that he doesn't even want to penalize people for not buying health care, but that still doesn't change the fact that that is a component of ObamaCare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAL6xk1QD_Q (about 5 minutes in he says that).

Competing across state lines would increase competition though and would make it a free market.

I assume your family is paying that amount? Think about it this way. If your family had to spend $2000/yr extra in taxes to cover 'free college,' and they did that for 18 years. Basically for the cost of one year of university, the other three years are covered. The point is to have everyone obtain a degree, since so many jobs nowadays demand as much. It doesn't cheapen it. You still have to get in to a school. Not to mention, this only would apply to public universities. Private schools are still private.

I wonder how the system would work for people who don't have kids going to college. Like ACA, I imagine some folks complaining they have to pay more to cover somebody else's costs.

How does it cover the cost of the other 3 years? If it's $34000 a year, then it needs to be counted 4 times. $2000 a year for 18 years only covers one year, but doesn't cover the other 3.

Unfortunately, not everyone can be able to obtain a college degree. People can't just be spoon-fed everything they want. It's unfair to the harder working people, even if jobs demand it. If everyone gets it wouldn't that still cheapen it? Didn't that happen to a high school diploma?

Yeah, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate paying for it, which is why I wouldn't like a system like this. Nothing in life is free. Someone is paying for it and people don't want to have to pay more for something they aren't using or that people who are using should be paying for.

Maybe? I'm not sure. God willing I become an attending physician in ten years, I wouldn't mind spending more if it means my child could go to UofM for free.

Well that's another problem. Actually Sanders' tax plan would generate a ton of revenue in long-term, more than any other candidate. The Repubs give a ton of tax breaks, especially to the rich. So they compensate by cutting down necessary government programs (like Medicare). Add that to the fact they'll increase over inflated military budget and spend billions more in Middle East wars, yeah no thanks. I rather that money be spent on improving the homefront.

Over-inflated military budget? Doesn't the military complain that they don't have enough stuff? I don't see how that is an over-inflated budget. I just read a story where Navy Seals don't have enough rifles. If lower class citizens need more money and free college and they get it under Sanders, Navy Seals (who are fighting to protect our country) should get more weapons if they ask and need it.

 

[Mr Dragon]

Over-inflated military budget? Doesn't the military complain that they don't have enough stuff? I don't see how that is an over-inflated budget. I just read a story where Navy Seals don't have enough rifles. If lower class citizens need more money and free college and they get it under Sanders, Navy Seals (who are fighting to protect our country) should get more weapons if they ask and need it.

They need more? The U.S already spends the most money on their military in the world. Actually, it's worse than that. The country spends more on the military than the next ELEVEN countries combined, and 4 times as much as the country with the second highest budget, China.

I wouldn't be surprised if the true reason this budget is kept so high when the money could be spent on improving the lives of poor people or even just people of average income is there being lobbying from the arms industry to keep the budget high so that their bosses can line their pockets with that money instead. As ever the US is basically an Oligarchy, protecting the interests of those with the most money

Also the "military are fighting to protect our country" rhetoric isn't exactly true when the US military spends more time finding ways to install dictatorships and invade countries for their oil than it does "protecting" anybody. It's almost insulting internationally to insinuate that it does. There hasn't even been a real large scale THREAT to the US since the end of the Cold War.

 

[bobjr]

We literally waste trillions on military craft we never use, especially when it comes to aircraft.

 

[Torpoleon]

The military is getting equipment they don't need and aren't asking for, so obviously they should just be provided with what they need. They don't need some of what they have, but they keep on getting that stuff, as opposed to what they ask for. http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html

 

[Navin]

Ironically, Obama says that he doesn't even want to penalize people for not buying health care, but that still doesn't change the fact that that is a component of ObamaCare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAL6xk1QD_Q (about 5 minutes in he says that). Competing across state lines would increase competition though and would make it a free market.

There are plenty of plans available on the website, but apparently the logic is eliminating ACA in favor of competition across state lines to drive down prices. And how does that help the very poor, guarantees these insurance companies won't nope their out of preexisting conditions and other expensive ailments, and allows the 26-year-old rule. And other stipulations. Honestly, the overall intention of ACA is perfectly reasonable, and just needs to be improved, not destroyed.

How does it cover the cost of the other 3 years? If it's $34000 a year, then it needs to be counted 4 times. $2000 a year for 18 years only covers one year, but doesn't cover the other 3.

I made the $2000 amount as an example. Obviously that probably would be less for middle-middle class and lower. Your family is paying $136000 for college. Double that if you include your brother's. Let's say you worked for 40 years and paid that amount in taxes each year: $80000. The logistics have to be worked out. What I think could happen is a system where families pay a yearly amount in taxes for X years to cover a much lower priced college tuition for their children.

Unfortunately, not everyone can be able to obtain a college degree. People can't just be spoon-fed everything they want. It's unfair to the harder working people, even if jobs demand it. If everyone gets it wouldn't that still cheapen it? Didn't that happen to a high school diploma?

....

No, it really does not cheapen anything. A college degree should be a goal we should expect from our kids and future generations to have a highly educated society. Hundred years ago, obtaining a hs diploma was considered exclusive; in the same way, it should be the same for college nowadays. I was lucky that I earned a private scholarship that covered 2/3 of my tuition to UofM, because I didn't want to burden my family with the total cost; otherwise I'd have gone to Pitt where I had a full ride. These type of decisions shouldn't be made over money and future loan repayments. Nobody is asking to be spoon-fed. It's about providing opportunity for everyone. You and I are lucky in that our families can afford university, but for others, like my good friend, it can lead to unfortunate and stressful situations.

Yeah, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate paying for it, which is why I wouldn't like a system like this. Nothing in life is free. Someone is paying for it and people don't want to have to pay more for something they aren't using or that people who are using should be paying for.

Someone who is very wealthy have may have taxes, whose monetary value is equivalent to the total net worth of a dozen lower class families. At the end of the day, their life will continue to be well-off. At some point, these policies ask for people to be selfless for the greater benefit of society.

Over-inflated military budget? Doesn't the military complain that they don't have enough stuff? I don't see how that is an over-inflated budget. I just read a story where Navy Seals don't have enough rifles. If lower class citizens need more money and free college and they get it under Sanders, Navy Seals (who are fighting to protect our country) should get more weapons if they ask and need it.

Please, our budget is immense. The problem is poor allocation of those funds and irresponsible spending on badly designed technology, such as the whole F-35 fiasco. There is little oversight or control over the military industrial complex; you wonder why these general might get pissed at Obama, it's probably because the President has called them out on it.

The Repubs say they want to be fiscally conservative and lower taxes and cut public spending, but are more than willing to hike up the military budget, spend billions in military adventures across the planet, and then use $25 million in taxpayer money for a Benghazi witchhunt to bring down Clinton's poll numbers.

 

[Torpoleon]

There are plenty of plans available on the website, but apparently the logic is eliminating ACA in favor of competition across state lines to drive down prices. And how does that help the very poor, guarantees these insurance companies won't nope their out of preexisting conditions and other expensive ailments, and allows the 26-year-old rule. And other stipulations. Honestly, the overall intention of ACA is perfectly reasonable, and just needs to be improved, not destroyed.



I made the $2000 amount as an example. Obviously that probably would be less for middle-middle class and lower. Your family is paying $136000 for college. Double that if you include your brother's. Let's say you worked for 40 years and paid that amount in taxes each year: $80000. The logistics have to be worked out. What I think could happen is a system where families pay a yearly amount in taxes for X years to cover a much lower priced college tuition for their children.



....

No, it really does not cheapen anything. A college degree should be a goal we should expect from our kids and future generations to have a highly educated society. Hundred years ago, obtaining a hs diploma was considered exclusive; in the same way, it should be the same for college nowadays. I was lucky that I earned a private scholarship that covered 2/3 of my tuition to UofM, because I didn't want to burden my family with the total cost; otherwise I'd have gone to Pitt where I had a full ride. These type of decisions shouldn't be made over money and future loan repayments. Nobody is asking to be spoon-fed. It's about providing opportunity for everyone. You and I are lucky in that our families can afford university, but for others, like my good friend, it can lead to unfortunate and stressful situations.



Someone who is very wealthy have may have taxes, whose monetary value is equivalent to the total net worth of a dozen lower class families. At the end of the day, their life will continue to be well-off. At some point, these policies ask for people to be selfless for the greater benefit of society.



Please, our budget is immense. The problem is poor allocation of those funds and irresponsible spending on badly designed technology, such as the whole F-35 fiasco. There is little oversight or control over the military industrial complex; you wonder why these general might get pissed at Obama, it's probably because the President has called them out on it.

The Repubs say they want to be fiscally conservative and lower taxes and cut public spending, but are more than willing to hike up the military budget, spend billions in military adventures across the planet, and then use $25 million in taxpayer money for a Benghazi witchhunt to bring down Clinton's poll numbers.

I don't see how the ACA will help the very poor. If they can't afford it, they'll be fined for that.

I made a mistake. It was actually $17000 a year each, which does amount to $34000 combined a year though. I just mixed up those numbers. I guess that would then be $40000 a year for me then in your example. If I'd have to do that under a free college system, that would really suck though. My parents are paying $68000 for a full 4 years for me, so why should it have to turn into $40000? Free college doesn't sound so great to me now.

Then why is a high school diploma not considered exclusive anymore? Why has the value of it gone down?

 

[bobjr]

If we cut our military budget in half college can be free, also we could pay teachers double, which they deserve. Also what world are you living in where 25k isn't a big deal, but then again your parents are paying so I get where the ignorance comes from.

Also the thing about high school diplomas is they really don't help at all for a job, because so many people have one. You either need a college degree or a trade skill, which require several years of work at the minimum.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Sanders is poised to win Michigan if he can keep his lead for the remaining hour. If this holds true, it would mean he closed a ten (by some estimates 20) percentage point lead in a few days.

 

[Fenix]

Just randomly clicked on a couple of pages of this thread to see if I can find BigLutz supporting Trump, didn't find it. I guess I'll have to settle for seeing Darato supporting Clinton as consolation prize eh?

 

[Navin]

Holy ****, I voted today here in Michigan. Could Sanders actually put out a massive upset?

 

[Baba Yaga]

Holy ****, I voted today here in Michigan. Could Sanders actually put out a massive upset?

Michigan is the hammer coming down. He actually can't afford to lose it. If he loses Michigan, I'm pretty confident the dream is dead. But yes, it's looking like he might pull this off.

 

[Espmaster]

Ooh, so this forum has one of these too.
I didn't even know that there was a primary today. Which ones have happened since "Super Saturday?"

 

[Remix2]

ya Michigan is going to be a really close one.

 

[Baba Yaga]

It's done. He did it.

 

[ebevan91]

Hillary still came out with more delegates because of Mississippi.

Anyways, looks like Cruz will win Idaho, followed by Trump, Rubio, and Kasich.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Mississippi was an expected Clinton win though. Bernie Sanders shocked everyone taking Michigan.

 

[Navin]

Sanders did it. What a stunning upset. It is rather amazing how wrong the polls ended up.

The weather was perfect today. 60+ degrees and all the snow melted. That allowed for a lot of people to vote (if it happened during the snowfall several days back, nope). There are also a lot of politically active young voters in Michigan- lots of college campuses, and U of M is very active and has been more pro-Bernie. Also, kek, I wonder if people gave Bernie the sympathy vote because they all assumed he was going to get manhandled by 20% points and anyway, they'll all vote for Hillary in the fall election. Welp, turns out that ended up being far from the truth.

 

[Espmaster]

What's Hawaii expected to look like?

 

[Mordent99]

Hillary still came out with more delegates because of Mississippi.

Anyways, looks like Cruz will win Idaho, followed by Trump, Rubio, and Kasich.

Yes, thank the maker.