Politics Thread

[SemajParlor]

benghazi!!!!!

Lol I was being serious

[GoMuskies]

Lol I was being serious

i think my online book actually has a prop bet on this (they did in February, at least). Let me check the odds.

[STL_XUfan]

i think my online book actually has a prop bet on this (they did in February, at least). Let me check the odds.

Would you need the hedge the bet with a second bet that he resigns? That way you are covered in case he pulls a Nixon.

[GoMuskies]

I found a PBS article from April that says he's 3-2 to be impeached. But I'd have to dig into that a bit more. I mean, is that like Bill Clinton impeached, or is it impeached and removed (or resigned)?

[SemajParlor]

I found a PBS article from April that says he's 3-2 to be impeached. But I'd have to dig into that a bit more. I mean, is that like Bill Clinton impeached, or is it impeached and removed (or resigned)?

Hmm. Yeah I think to avoid confusion maybe it should be "leave office." I'm willing to put $20 on it and loser donates to site. Come on everyone wins, even this deranged place of lunacy we call Xavier Hoops. Either that or I'm suffering withdrawals until the Preakness.

[GoMuskies]

I'm in for $20. Wouldn't be surprised to lose that one for any number of reasons, but I don't think it will be Russia. Most likely loss for me (IMO): he just gets tired of it and claims some sort of health issue and resigns. Or he randomly grabs a stranger by the pussy. Equally likely.

[Strange Brew]

Can I ask you an honest question? What is your purpose in participating in this discussion? What value do you think it adds when you intentionally misstate people's arguments and then partially respond to them? Is there a comprehension issue coming in to play that prevents you from taking into account previous posts in your subsequent responses? What you are doing contributes nothing to the discourse and is disrespectful to people who take the time to formulate and communicate a thought-out argument.

I have previously stated that I don't see a value in anyone 'kicking in' 10% to the government 'just because'. It doesn't change policy, or actually provide for people.

I have also already articulated what I thought was a pretty clear example in which people might be paying an 'extra' 10% in taxes offset by a 10% reduction in healthcare costs, netting neutral. You responded that I can pay an extra 10% on top of my healthcare premiums, which is very clearly not what I have stated in any of the above posts. If I wasn't clear above I would be happy to provide additional clarification if requested.

I pretty strongly disagree with you last point, but I acknowledge your opinion. My primary reason for disagreeing is my belief that any time people enter into a society they (at times) work for the benefit of others. It mitigates their own risk, and is a fundamental building block of why people initially organized into societies at all. We can accomplish more working together than we can individually, and it benefits all parties. People who add more value (as society determines it) are compensated for that, but the healthy help the weak. The young help the old. The rich help the poor. It doesn't mean they all are (or should be) equal in how they are compensated and the level of luxury in which they live.

I'll grant you your last point as a response to my (admittedly hyperbolic) example of tribal Africa.

I'm pointing out there are costs to what your advocating and I'm making sure you personally are willing to bear those costs. Sounds like you are and X-Man is not unless the President pays a slightly higher % of his income to govt regardless of the fact we know he already contributed more to the system in 2005 than X-man will make in a lifetime. Unfortunately most people who believe in govt run systems tend to think like X-Man. Also what makes you think costs will go down and innovation will thrive in a govt run system? There's no real world example you can point to that illustrates that argument. Also, we have medical safety nets in Medicaid and Medicare so I'm not sure the argument being made is about helping those who can't help themselves but more about leveling the benefits for all regardless of what you contribute to the govt/system.

Finally yes, sometimes we do work for others but in this country it should be voluntary.

[bobbiemcgee]

1 is exactly what Lovely wife and I decided to do. We are now eligible & signed up for Medicare parts A (hospitalization) and B. We are also doing a supplemental policy for Parts D (drugs) and G (replaces F) that covers the deductibles & co-pays. We're paying an extra premium over the standard Part B cost, but it locks in our annual cost with no surprises or limits. If we wanted to gamble that we'd have no medical issues we could get a cheaper policy but would have to risk high deductibles & much higher co-pays at 20%.

Very happy with my Medicare Advantage with 0 premium. Has Part D included with all my scripts @ 0 per month (mail order). Coupled it with a hospital indemnity plan for about 20 a month that pays the deductibles Medicare doesn't for ambulance and hospital stays. When I was in Florida, the Advantage Plan even gave me back my Part B premium every month.

[X-man]

I'm pointing out there are costs to what your advocating and I'm making sure you personally are willing to bear those costs. Sounds like you are and X-Man is not unless the President pays a slightly higher % of his income to govt regardless of the fact we know he already contributed more to the system in 2005 than X-man will make in a lifetime. Unfortunately most people who believe in govt run systems tend to think like X-Man. Also what makes you think costs will go down and innovation will thrive in a govt run system? There's no real world example you can point to that illustrates that argument. Also, we have medical safety nets in Medicaid and Medicare so I'm not sure the argument being made is about helping those who can't help themselves but more about leveling the benefits for all regardless of what you contribute to the govt/system.

Finally yes, sometimes we do work for others but in this country it should be voluntary.

And there we have it...Strange is against all government safety net programs. It should all be "voluntary". Never mind the public goods issue that makes a voluntary system inoperative because of free ridership problems. And can we also assume that all contributions to pay for national defense should also be voluntary?

And it also seems clear that Strange doesn't believe that tax dollars paid should somehow be relative to income, even proportional apparently. Trump has paid more than I so I should have no beef with the fact that he pays a lower percentage of his income than I do.

[Caf]

And there we have it...Strange is against all government safety net programs. It should all be "voluntary". Never mind the public goods issue that makes a voluntary system inoperative because of free ridership problems. And can we also assume that all contributions to pay for national defense should also be voluntary?

And it also seems clear that Strange doesn't believe that tax dollars paid should somehow be relative to income, even proportional apparently. Trump has paid more than I so I should have no beef with the fact that he pays a lower percentage of his income than I do.

I think you've come to the end of the libertarian/conservative rope. Many don't really believe in anything. They just want lower taxes, less government spending (except for military sometimes), and people to ditch all of the freeloaders. There's no end to those desires, it's always gotta be "less", "lower", etc. It's a special form of nihilism.

Must be nice to never consider solutions to problems and instead just rail on others'.