Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I also agree that whatever a government can do, we can do cheaper.
We could be using tax dollars to reduce or even eliminate healthcare costs.
But letting people die is much cheaper.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
What. The actual. Fuck.
Ok I expected their arguments being "Getting rid of Obamacare will be cheaper because that is a whole category of expenses we won't pay anymore which means that money can go elsewhere" but them actually blatantly admitting it will cost human lives is a new level of brazen I was not expecting. Call me naive.
As a general rule, the government can (or at least should be able to) provide services to a lower cost than private competitors because the government has no need to create revenue. It pays exactly the cost for a service which is needed to provide it, while in the private sector, there is always the need to add some sort of revenue on top of the basic costs so that the company has money for investments, growth and above all, gracious bonuses for the managers. And that is even more true the bigger the government is. If it wanted, it could pretty much dictate prices to the pharma companies.
There are ways to culturally instill those values, but they're not fool proof. Usually it involves getting people to not Care but just go through the motions of tradition and peer pressure, where the end result happens to be beneficial.
It's good for small communities and sometimes can work on a larger scale, but nooooot something to bank on.
Read my stories!It's the good old monkeysphere. You guys whom I interact with on an online forum are real people. The neighbour across the street whom I've never met? He's not real.
I'd gladly pay my taxes to help maintain my neighbourhood instead of socializing with a bunch of strangers to make things work.
Edited by nightwyrm_zero on Apr 6th 2019 at 6:46:23 AM
Yeah. it's why you can simulate caring with cultural values (ie give some degree of your money to charity) but it's always gonna be an imperfect science. But it's not like... a totally worthless cause?
oh your edit made this post redundant XD
Edited by MrAHR on Apr 6th 2019 at 6:47:04 AM
Read my stories!The other thing is that childcare requires money and time.
Soban, I'm going to hazard a guess that you've never been properly part of the working poor - the class of people who work 60-80 hours through multiple part time jobs to keep food on the table. Now you're asking these people to band together and contribute more of their time to helping each other ("their community" is mostly working poor). It's not happening, because all of their resources are going toward basic survival. And they are not getting enough voluntary or government aid or they wouldn't be in a shitty situation like that.
Ironically, the people who you would be asking to give freely of their money and time are people like me, with secure income and nothing but time. And if you're asking me to give, you're barking up the wrong tree. If you're asking billionaires to give...first off, that's extremely difficult to make work because it's very hard to give away lots of money privately in an effective way (Bill Gates has discovered that this is a full-time job). Second, do you really expect most billionaires to be like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, or more like Peter Thiel?
I'm finding the "us" solution is so vague that it can actually cover "us deciding to vote for Elizabeth Warren precisely so she can implement the solution she suggested regarding childcare." Like, literally, if your solution is "us" it can cover anything that the public decides to do. It's a very nonspecific answer when I'm sure Soban meant something more specific, but failed to specify. Like, the solution a lot of us here in the forum want automatically involves government on some level; laws that mandate provisions for childcare, local government opening up city or county run daycares, paid time off as a federal standard for all businesses. So if "us" just means the forumgoers here, then we default to some sort of government interference.
I mean, did you just mean that "us" could open up more privately run daycares? Because that's an option, but even then the government is going to be interfering by having laws about what kind of building is safe and who can legally run such a business and so on and so forth.
There's been some amazingly generous billionaires.
I have a theory that is also one that we discussed in economics class that there actually is an ideology of Social Darwinism economics in America. Part of it is racial in nature but it's not just limited to racism (which at least people acknowledge—with a heavy asterisk of "barely")) but an actual belief the poor deserve to be poor and giving them relief is morally wrong.
It isn't just that people like Mitch are corrupt.
No, they really really hate the poor as something that leaches off the rich.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.No, I think it goes beyond not caring. Certainly in my state there's no benefit to trying aggressively to make the opioid crisis worse or strip all support for the poor. The poor being out of the way is cheaper than the alternative of them being angry and desperate.
But they HATE that they get anything free.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Yeah, they are morally against helping the poor. They are offended by the idea. They think of the poor as people who deserve their own fate. It's a kind of economic notion of "karma," in that you necessarily deserve whatever happens to you now because of what you did in a past life.
Edited by Clarste on Apr 6th 2019 at 7:36:31 AM

Actually, it’s not. Case in point: the US healthcare system versus most of the rest of the world. Scale matters.