Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Elianna]

The democratic party leadership looks like a ACBL club game.

 

I'm impressed that your ACBL club game has Latinos and African Americans. Mine doesn't.

[jogs]

I'm impressed that your ACBL club game has Latinos and African Americans. Mine doesn't.

 

I haven't seen many Latinos among the democratic leadership. There are African Americans playing bridge in the bay area. I've had African Americans in my home games.

Also one African American's license plate is 1spade.

[ldrews]

I didn't take it as a discussion - simply you making assertions.

 

Which you just did.

[ldrews]

Taxation is about morality.....but, lest you think that I am agreeing with you, we have a different idea about morality.

 

In an advanced society, the wealthy enjoy lives of astounding opulence and comfort, in ways that would literally be beyond not merely the reach but even the dreams of Emperors and Kings of not that long ago.

 

They have airports, built and operated at public expense, for their private jets. Their pilots probably learned to fly with financial support from the government in some way. Their private planes are inspected by taxpayer paid employees, and their passage through the skies is protected and controlled by taxpaid systems and employees.

 

Their food is inspected and made safe by taxpaid employees as are their medications. When their limos take them to restaurants, they are driven on roads paid for by the taxpayer. When their businesses need employees with skills, they find them amongst graduates of taxpaid schools or subsidized universities. When they want their rights protected, they are protected in the courts by tax paid judges and courthouses.

 

And so on, ad infinitum.

 

The vast majority of the top 1% in the US, and in most advanced countries, earned their wealth the old-fsshioned way: they inherited it. Or, as in the case of McCain, they married it (ditching their first wife to do so).

 

Very few of them are self-made, altho naturally enough it is those who get the media attention.

 

Thus to me, the morality lies in the need for the privileged to give back, just a bit, to the vast bulk of the not-so-lucky.

 

It is, in my view, the height if immorality to be wealthy and to complain about taxes.

 

Well, we do disagree. By your logic a wealthy person should not complain if a mugger robs him. After all, it just another example of someone using force or coercion to confiscate his property, of which he has a disproportionate share. The sin of envy can be used to justify all sorts of immoral actions.

[mikeh]

Well, we do disagree. By your logic a wealthy person should not complain if a mugger robs him. After all, it just another example of someone using force or coercion to confiscate his property, of which he has a disproportionate share. The sin of envy can be used to justify all sorts of immoral actions.

May I suggest taking a remedial course in logical thinking? A wealthy person didn't become wealthy as a side-effect of the existence of muggers, nor do the efforts of the muggers in society bestow any benefit upon the wealthy.

 

The main difference between us may be philosophical. I see nothing innately superior in someone born to rich parents than someone born to middle class or poor. I see no intrinsic moral entitlement in the one not present in the others. I do not think anyone to be better than anyone else merely based on the wealth of their parents.

 

I see no reason why those who get the most out of living in an affluent society ought not to pay more than do the poor, who, after all, don't actually experience the affluent part of 'affluent society' despite, in many cases, working far, far harder than the wealthy.

 

Indeed, with the ever-growing degree of economic inequality, in my view the wealthy have an ever-increasing moral obligation to the society that affords them the chance to live their lives of luxury.

 

Make no mistake about it: very few, if any, rich people could enjoy a comfortable life if deprived of the benefits afforded by living in a wealthy country. Even if they were to move, say, to a third world country, to live luxuriously, safely and healthily, they'd need to import much of what a NA society affords them.

 

Imagine being a billionaire 200 years ago. Richest person in the world. But, no refrigeration, no access to fresh out-of-season foods local to one's location, no telephone, no mass media, no internet, no radio, no health care that we'd recognize (the phrase 'catch your death of cold' meant something back then, literally), and so on. Being rich is meaningless in a vacuum. It is meaningful only within a society able, at a price, to sell one the luxuries one so craves. Well, being in a society, to any moral or civilized human, comes with obligations as well as rights.

 

Libertarians (and you sound as if you might be one of those) never seem to understand this. It's weird to me to converse with someone so selfish and unaware.

[ldrews]

May I suggest taking a remedial course in logical thinking? A wealthy person didn't become wealthy as a side-effect of the existence of muggers, nor do the efforts of the muggers in society bestow any benefit upon the wealthy.

 

The main difference between us may be philosophical. I see nothing innately superior in someone born to rich parents than someone born to middle class or poor. I see no intrinsic moral entitlement in the one not present in the others. I do not think anyone to be better than anyone else merely based on the wealth of their parents.

 

I see no reason why those who get the most out of living in an affluent society ought not to pay more than do the poor, who, after all, don't actually experience the affluent part of 'affluent society' despite, in many cases, working far, far harder than the wealthy.

 

Indeed, with the ever-growing degree of economic inequality, in my view the wealthy have an ever-increasing moral obligation to the society that affords them the chance to live their lives of luxury.

 

Make no mistake about it: very few, if any, rich people could enjoy a comfortable life if deprived of the benefits afforded by living in a wealthy country. Even if they were to move, say, to a third world country, to live luxuriously, safely and healthily, they'd need to import much of what a NA society affords them.

 

Imagine being a billionaire 200 years ago. Richest person in the world. But, no refrigeration, no access to fresh out-of-season foods local to one's location, no telephone, no mass media, no internet, no radio, no health care that we'd recognize (the phrase 'catch your death of cold' meant something back then, literally), and so on. Being rich is meaningless in a vacuum. It is meaningful only within a society able, at a price, to sell one the luxuries one so craves. Well, being in a society, to any moral or civilized human, comes with obligations as well as rights.

 

Libertarians (and you sound as if you might be one of those) never seem to understand this. It's weird to me to converse with someone so selfish and unaware.

 

You are right, I am a libertarian. I believe and try to adhere to the code of not initiating the use of force or coercion in any of my relationships. I seek only voluntary agreements. To me it is a moral code. If that makes you consider me selfish and unaware, so be it. It seems that you do condone and/or participate in the initiation of force and coercion to implement the type of society that you prefer. "Might makes right". To me that makes you immoral.

[y66]

From Trump is performing the role of president, not doing the job. He doesn’t want to be president, he just wants to play one on TV. by Matthew Yglesias

 

The Donald Trump Show is getting stale, old, and, frankly, a little bit boring.

 

President Trump’s big speech before Congress on Tuesday night was the epitome of the show. There was the gross hypocrisy of “the time for trivial fights is behind us,” the campy propagandism of creating a Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office, the prepared remarks in all caps calling to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

 

Trump knows a thing or two about publicity stunts.

 

Shorn of context, to witness a president of the United States deliver a speech so devoid of the customary humility or sense of America’s role in the world would be shocking. Just as it would ordinarily be shocking to see a president attacking the media as the “enemy of the American people” or denouncing a “so-called judge” or any of the other dozen or so bizarre things that Trump does in a given week.

 

His campaign was fascinating from state to finish — if at times horrifying — because of the litany of similar novelties. His business — brand licensing and real estate — succeeded by the same attention seeking. His reality TV career is the same story.

 

But Trump is no longer a novelty candidate, a branding magnate, or a B-List TV show host. He’s now the president of the United States. He’s the subject of constant, obsessive media attention. And like any overexposed celebrity, he’s getting tiresome.

 

If you take any one moment from the Trump Show out of context, it’s striking. But together, Trump’s antics are now banal. He says, tweets, and does weird things. He gets attention. He pisses people off while thrilling others. Tonight, he even managed to attract attention and garner praise for slightly dialing it down. But speeches are supposed to be tools to help do the work of actually being president — learning about the issues, making decisions about trade-offs, and collaborating to get things done.

 

Amid the nonstop and increasingly tedious theatricality, Trump is only ever performing the role of the president; he’s never doing the job.

[barmar]

What you're all missing in this discussion of taxation, and what the taxes are used for, is the notion of the "social contract". We live together in a society, and entrust the government to manage the society for all our benefit. In order to partake of these benefits, we're expected to do our part to contribute to it as well -- there's no free lunch.

 

The difference between taxation and robbery is that taxation doesn't involve separate parties taking advantage of each other. In the case of taxation, we're one big group of citizens, not mugger versus victim. The tax laws were created by our elected representatives -- you can't steal from yourself. And by living in our society and taking advantage of it, you're implicitly agreeing to abide by the rules. If you violate them, the government is authorized to punish you.

 

I understand that pure libertarians may not agree with all facets of this. But how many of them are willing to live without a fire department if their house catches fire? In a pure free market, it wouldn't be necessary, we'd all pay someone to put out our fires, perhaps with the assistance of fire insurance. But in general, most people aren't willing to live in such a society. They may say that they want to avoid all possibilities of socialism, but I don't think most of them really want to go that far.

 

So the question ends up where to draw the line.

[Elianna]

I haven't seen many Latinos among the democratic leadership.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Perez (the newly elected DNC chair)

 

I guess our next step is to argue about what "many" means. Feel free to do so, I won't respond.

[ldrews]

 

So the question ends up where to draw the line.

 

I agree. The question is where to draw the line. As a limited government libertarian I recognize that to live with other people a limited form of government is required. The defense of the group against outside aggressors, the fair and consistent settlement of disputes among the citizens of the group, the protection of individuals in the group from aggression by other members of the group, these are to me the essentials of such a limited government. Since the effective enforcement of the government functions ultimately depends on the use of force, anything additional must have an overwhelming justification.

 

Consent to this limited government should, in my opinion, be explicit and in writing. Anyone not willing to voluntarily enter into a binding agreement should be asked to leave. The age at which this agreement is presented to youth would be set at an appropriate age, say 18.

 

How to pay for this limited government is open to debate. Some forms of taxation would probably be required, but again minimized. Subscription fees, import tariffs, etc., are alternative ways of funding.

 

This is all fantasy, however. We do not live in that kind of world. But, to me, it is a worthy goal.

[mikeh]

You are right, I am a libertarian. I believe and try to adhere to the code of not initiating the use of force or coercion in any of my relationships. I seek only voluntary agreements. To me it is a moral code. If that makes you consider me selfish and unaware, so be it. It seems that you do condone and/or participate in the initiation of force and coercion to implement the type of society that you prefer. "Might makes right". To me that makes you immoral.

whereas the notion that 'I've got mine, Jack...so f*ck off' is a perfectly valid moral code by which to live in a society? Even when the 'mine' you've 'got' was inherited and not earned? And the 'f*ck off' applies to any attempt to make you pay for shared services, of which you consume a disproportionate share?

 

You libertarians both amuse and horrify me with your simplistic beliefs about both human nature and how societies function.

 

Ryan is a classic.....he and his family gladly accepted government assistance while he was young, but he now thinks that government assistance is evil. He's got his now, of course.

 

Next thing, you'll tell us how wonderful Ayn Rand was.

[ldrews]

whereas the notion that 'I've got mine, Jack...so f*ck off' is a perfectly valid moral code by which to live in a society? Even when the 'mine' you've 'got' was inherited and not earned? And the 'f*ck off' applies to any attempt to make you pay for shared services, of which you consume a disproportionate share?

 

You libertarians both amuse and horrify me with your simplistic beliefs about both human nature and how societies function.

 

Ryan is a classic.....he and his family gladly accepted government assistance while he was young, but he now thinks that government assistance is evil. He's got his now, of course.

 

Next thing, you'll tell us how wonderful Ayn Rand was.

 

You do carry around a lot of stereotypes, don't you? Profile much?

[akwoo]

My utopia is the anarchist one.

 

I think, in an ideal society, there would be no force or coercion.

 

On the other hand, there would also not be a notion of property, so there would be nothing wrong with burglary or theft or trespassing. (I note that, in England, it's not a crime to pick the lock of an empty house and live there, though the owners can evict you (and eviction is one of the fastest processes in civil law) once they find out.) Of course, fraud and robbery would still be wrong.

 

Good luck for the rich person keeping very much.

 

I realize ideals are just that.

 

I just don't see any moral justification for property, and in particular for real property. I do realize notions of property are useful for avoiding various forms of tragedy of the commons, and avoiding tragedy of the commons by regulatory methods instead of assignment of property rights would be a huge impossible mess in many cases.

[Vampyr]

Isn't that what Obama originally wanted? But Congress wouldn't even allow such a proposal on the table. A big part of Obamacare is an extension of Medicare to more people, but many Republican governors refused to take the additional money.

 

This I hadn't heard of. I assume that would have been done by lowering the age of eligibility?

 

What I did read a lot about was the expansion of Medicaid, which would have covered people of all ages. Similarly, it was refused by many states. How do you go to the electorate and say, "the federal government offered to cover you, at no cost to the state or to you as an individual, but we said no thanks". Oh wait, the people affected are poor, and in many of these states they can't vote.

[rmnka447]

The U.S has had a functioning single payer health system for years, Medicare. Why not just extend Medicare to cover everyone?

 

But Medicare is going broke also. There are significant unfunded liabilities that are building up in it. If I recall correctly, the system is due to run out of money in about 11 years.

 

Since payroll taxes are the source of the revenues for Medicare and Social Security, the question would be "How much does everyone's payroll taxes have to increase to cover the additional costs associated with an expanded pool that is covered?". It wouldn't be an easy sell.

[rmnka447]

Isn't that what Obama originally wanted? But Congress wouldn't even allow such a proposal on the table. A big part of Obamacare is an extension of Medicare to more people, but many Republican governors refused to take the additional money.

 

 

Not right. Obamacare gained coverage for individuals through an expansion of the Medicaid program which is different from Medicare. Medicaid is a program providing medical care for those in poverty that is done through the Federal/State welfare systems. The federal government provides some money, but the brunt of the money to pay for the costs is supplied by the states (70% comes to mind, but don't quote on that).

 

In Obamacare, they provided medical coverage to additional people by changing the eligibility requirements, so that persons with incomes up to 140% of the poverty level could participate in it. The original Obamacare law tried to force States to accept this expansion by withholding all Federal Medicaid funds if they didn't. However, the Supreme Court ruled such coercion illegal. All states had to the option to opt out of expanding Medicaid if they desired. I think 31 states opted to expand Medicaid and 19 didn't.

 

Medicare is the medical coverage for seniors over 65 and is covered by a payroll tax all wage earners pay.

[ldrews]

But Medicare is going broke also. There are significant unfunded liabilities that are building up in it. If I recall correctly, the system is due to run out of money in about 11 years.

 

Since payroll taxes are the source of the revenues for Medicare and Social Security, the question would be "How much does everyone's payroll taxes have to increase to cover the additional costs associated with an expanded pool that is covered?". It wouldn't be an easy sell.

 

There seem to be funding problems associated with all of the US attempts to provide health care. Since other western nations seem to be able to handle the problem it is obvious that the US is missing something, or there is something in the US system that precludes a straight forward solution. What is it?

[Cyberyeti]

There seem to be funding problems associated with all of the US attempts to provide health care. Since other western nations seem to be able to handle the problem it is obvious that the US is missing something, or there is something in the US system that precludes a straight forward solution. What is it?

 

That you don't tax people enough to put in place a European style health system, and that hospitals charge way too much for procedures.

[Winstonm]

But Medicare is going broke also. There are significant unfunded liabilities that are building up in it. If I recall correctly, the system is due to run out of money in about 11 years.

 

Since payroll taxes are the source of the revenues for Medicare and Social Security, the question would be "How much does everyone's payroll taxes have to increase to cover the additional costs associated with an expanded pool that is covered?". It wouldn't be an easy sell.

 

You are wrong. The ACA (known as Obamacare) expanded Medicaid, not Medicare. There was a slight benefit added to Medicare - wellness visits - but the expansion was in Medicaid. This is the part that most Republican controlled states refused to do which led to the S.C. ruling that allowed the federal government to start exchanges for those states that refused to comply.

 

Two major problems with funding Medicare and Social Security is the earnings cap of $118,500 on FICA taxes, and that the wealthy do not have to pay taxes on capital gains into these social programs.

[Winstonm]

I haven't seen many Latinos among the democratic leadership. There are African Americans playing bridge in the bay area. I've had African Americans in my home games.

Also one African American's license plate is 1spade.

 

You'll have to take that last line to the next Trump rally as I bet most here in the WC find it more offensive than cute or funny. I know I found it unnecessary and offensive.

 

Would you have reported the very same license plate on the car of a Latino, Asian, or Caucasian?

[barmar]

My utopia is the anarchist one.

"Imagine no posessions, I wonder if you can..."

 

I guess you can. John Lennon would be proud. But the rest of us are more realistic. No attempt at a utopian society has ever succeeded, and those were just small experiments with people who were presumably committed to the ideals. "Imagine" trying it with an entire country.

[barmar]

Not right. Obamacare gained coverage for individuals through an expansion of the Medicaid program which is different from Medicare.

Oops, I always get them confused. I guess when I get to the age where I can take advantage of Medicare, I'll keep them straight. I don't think I'm likely to ever need Medicaid (knock on wood).

[barmar]

You'll have to take that last line to the next Trump rally as I bet most here in the WC find it more offensive than cute or funny. I know I found it unnecessary and offensive.

 

Would you have reported the very same license plate on the car of a Latino, Asian, or Caucasian?

Goes to show that context is everything.

 

There's probably a number of bridge players with "NO TRUMP" license plates. I wonder how many of them are Republicans who now regret it.

[Vampyr]

"Imagine no posessions, I wonder if you can..."

 

I guess you can. John Lennon would be proud.

 

He would. I'm pretty sure he could imagine no having apartment on Central Park West just to store his fur coats. But I may be wrong.

[mikeh]

That you don't tax people enough to put in place a European style health system, and that hospitals charge way too much for procedures.

Part of the problem is the cost of drugs. Canadians apparently pay the second highest drug prices, after the US. We pay, according to a recent CBC news story, on average 4x what people in New Zealand pay. Americans pay still more. This includes so-called generic drugs, where the cost of development has long been recovered by the original maker, so this seems likely to be mostly obscene gouging.

 

Part of the problem is too many tests. Doctors have pressures to order multiple tests, often to provide a placebo like assurance to patients. Perhaps also to avoid litigation. I have a bad back, with occasional sciatica on one side and femoral nerve pain on the other. I imagine many doctors would send me for an x-ray or MRI. My gp discussed this with me and said that either would be a waste of money. Clinically the diagnosis is obvious, and the problem isn't bad enough to warrant surgery, so there is no meaningful chance that imaging would alter treatment. So we agreed not to do it. My guess is that in the US, and with many Canadian doctors, I'd simply have been referred to radiology.

 

Part of the problem is the extremely high incomes doctors make in the US.

 

Part of the problem is the profit motive behind hospitals

 

As an example of the results, my wife had to have a procedure a number of years ago. There was a wait list in BC (although it ended up far shorter than we were originally told) so I researched the cost in the US. The Cleveland Clinic wanted 125,000 for a procedure that would probably not require even one night in hospital. The cheapest I found was Oklahoma at 11,500. The cost to the government in BC was 5,000. And the success rate in BC matched that of the Cleveland Clinic.

 

As long as a society runs health care as a profit centre for the major players, with no mechanism nor incentive to keep costs or profits under control, then the results are predictable.

 

Having said that, if you have the money, then the US does provide the best care in the world. Thus the question is one of priorities. Maximal care for those fortunate enough to afford it, while leaving millions with terrible care and economically crushing those in-between, or providing worse (but still pretty good) care to everyone at a significantly lower cost.