Iraq?

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 110
#61
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
She certainly isn't rich.
Given the average member of Congress has a median net worth of around $511,000 in 2019, Congress members are roughly five times wealthier than the median net worth of an American household of $97,300, according to the Federal Reserve.

If Ocasio-Cortez can remain in Congress for nine years and maintain her spending habits, she will likely have over a $1,000,000 net worth by the time she is 38 years old


wow you might have pointed out ONE exception bravo, clearly the rich doesn't control the government, thanks I feel better now.
#62
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
wow you might have pointed out ONE exception bravo, clearly the rich doesn't control the government, thanks I feel better now.
Being a congressman/woman is a reasonably well paying job. So if you manage to win 2 or 3 elections your net worth would easily be considerably higher than average. Perhaps the issue is that companies are so significantly under paying their employees that the national average is far too low. If only there were some democratic candidates who had platforms about how to fix that......


#63
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
so you aren't denying the rich run the government, correct?
I ask this because many of the rich in government say the other rich in government and or business are described negatively.  Which I don't think isn't deserved in a lot of cases.  But that is all the more reason to remove the authority and power from the government only leaving which is actually NEEDED for things like protecting the country etc

Under the guise of "U.S. interest" people have been killed, foreign and domestic.  Got into conflicts the U.S. has no business being in.  If you agree with that then it would seem at odds to advocate more power for the very people who start and authorized these events.

Do you think one party is immune from starting or being involved in these drone strikes and wars?
#64
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,005
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Power isn't a theoretical zero-sum game. There are various levels between total authoritarianism and anarchy. It isn't all or nothing.

Pretending you can't have a balance by limiting both the powers of an authoritative government and the crony rich isn't rational.

The answer is to tie both hands and limit the power and corruption that goes along with that power and give the power back to the people, and only a sycophant would argue anything else.


#65
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so you aren't denying the rich run the government, correct?
In large part, that is correct. Although people like Sanders are exceptions. 

I ask this because many of the rich in government say the other rich in government and or business are described negatively.  Which I don't think isn't deserved in a lot of cases.  But that is all the more reason to remove the authority and power from the government only leaving which is actually NEEDED for things like protecting the country etc
I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make. 

Under the guise of "U.S. interest" people have been killed, foreign and domestic.  Got into conflicts the U.S. has no business being in.  If you agree with that then it would seem counterintuitive to advocate more power for the very people who start and authorized these events.
I honestly have no idea how you could connect those 2 things. War is always going to be a power of the government. It doesn't matter how many regulations you want them to cut, the ability to declare war is a power of the government. full stop. If you cut regulations it would only make it easier for corporations to bribe the politicians who will make those decisions. 

Do you think one party is immune from starting or being involved in these drone strikes and wars?
no. Obama carried out lots of drone strikes. Trump is doing the exact same thing. The problem is money corrupting the system. I mean the current Secretary of Defense was a lobbyist and VP of Raytheon. If the US goes to war with Iran, Raytheon stands to make a fortune. 
#66
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
 Although people like Sanders are exceptions. 
yeah I wish I wasn't rich like Sanders too.

If the rich control the government and if the rich are bad (in context) then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.

if the rich start wars, control the government and are bad (in context) then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.

If no party or individual is immune from same or similar corruptions then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.


The government is supposed to be entrusted to use the military wisely, sparingly, judiciously if they don't/haven't then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.

You seem to have some warranted distrust of the government and its actions, yet you'd gladly had them more control over you.

#67
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,005
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yeah I wish I wasn't rich like Sanders too.

Sanders was against the exploitation of Americans with illegal labor until he was for it.

Wonder why...
#68
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,005
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You seem to have some warranted distrust of the government and its actions, yet you'd gladly had them more control over you.

There is little evidence to suggest as government has grown more powerful in scope since FDR that the rich have become less crony with the government.
In fact, they have become MUCH more crony with the government.
Asking for even more government power is a sure-fire recipe to invite even more levels of cronyism from the rich and more exploitation.
#69
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Asking for even more government power is a sure-fire recipe to invite even more levels of cronyism from the rich and more exploitation.
that's so painfully obvious so why can't people see it, or is it that they won't because they don't want to be responsible for themselves and their choices, like slaves who didn't want to be free really.  I can understand why someone might find a nanny state or someone taking care of them attractive, until they realize the cost that goes with it.
#70
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yeah I wish I wasn't rich like Sanders too.
He has worked hard his entire life fighting for people. He only became a millionaire recently when he wrote a popular book. 

If the rich control the government and if the rich are bad (in context) then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.
This doesn't even make sense. The basis of my point is to get money out of politics so that the rich cannot unduly influence politicians. You point seems to be to hamstring the government but leave the corruption in place so the rich control the government as well as taking all the power the government is losing. It is the worst of both. 

if the rich start wars, control the government and are bad (in context) then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.
Certain rich people start wars. Typically the ones who profit from it. But whether or not the government has power over regulation is completely unrelated to their power to start wars. The government will always have that power. Nothing you say or do will ever change that. 

If no party or individual is immune from same or similar corruptions then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.
You seem to be willfully missing my point. No party is immune because both parties are corrupted by the corporate money the need to win elections. Once we deal with that underlying problem we can deal with the corruption. 

The government is supposed to be entrusted to use the military wisely, sparingly, judiciously if they don't/haven't then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.
you are repeating yourself, but it still doesn't make sense. Military power and regulatory powers are 2 completely separate things. 

You seem to have some warranted distrust of the government and its actions, yet you'd gladly had them more control over you.
governments aren't perfect. I think there is alot of work to do to clean up the corruption. But as a voter we have the power to force change and clean up corruption in politics. But if you managed to take that power away from the government, you would just be handing more power to billionaires you have no power at all over and that is much, much worse. 
#71
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Asking for even more government power is a sure-fire recipe to invite even more levels of cronyism from the rich and more exploitation.
and hamstringing the government is a sure fire way to cut out the middle man and just give the power directly to the billionaires. At least when the government has that power the people can push to make changes. If you got your way and handed that power to billionaires, american democracy would just turn into an oligarchy. 

#72
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,005
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Government isn't the middle man. The voter is.

The only power the rich get comes from government by force and consumers by consent.
#73
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
we certainly agree money needs to be taken out of government and the awful influence it has.  I don't think that will happen to any real degree in out life time.  However until that happens you seem to be willing to hand them more power over you, become more dependent on government where I am not.
#74
Pinkfreud08
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 578
2
7
11
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Pinkfreud08
2
7
11
-->
@Alec
We kill more innocent civilians than ISIS does and it costs so much money. 
You get an applause man 
#75
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do I think a $15 minimum wage is a terrible idea? Yes, I would certainly be against that.

Okay me too but do you at least think it should be increased somewhat to account for inflation in the several decades since it was last updated? I think $15 is a bit much but there are also those that think it should stay where it is and that doesn't seem right to me either.
#76
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don’t believe in a federal minimum wage, personally. I think they should be as localized as possible to accurately reflect the cost of living in that area. California will need a higher one than Nebraska, for example.
#77
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Government isn't the middle man. The voter is.
Government is currently the middle man between the rich and their control of the country. They pay off the politicians. The politicians do what they want. If we tie the hands of the government, then they won't have to use the government to have that power any more. They can just take it for themselves. IE you are cutting out the middle man in them controlling you. 

<br>
The only power the rich get comes from government by force and consumers by consent.
The power the rich have comes from their money and their influence. They use that to get what they want. If you prevent the government from controlling those rich people, then they will just be able to do whatever they want and that is a very bad thing. 
#78
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
we certainly agree money needs to be taken out of government and the awful influence it has.  I don't think that will happen to any real degree in out life time.  However until that happens you seem to be willing to hand them more power over you, become more dependent on government where I am not.
The 2 things are integrally linked. We need to fight for cleaning up government and getting money out of politics at the same time we are fighting for universal health care. Letting one evil continue indefinitely while we fight a different, but closely related evil, is a bad plan. 


#79
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
The 2 things are integrally linked. We need to fight for cleaning up government and getting money out of politics at the same time we are fighting for universal health care.
they are not actually, even by your own words, one is a need the other a desire.  do you think it's realistic to give a corrupt government more power and control with the hopes it will maybe, possibly, fixed sometime in the future?  
you faith is zealot level, mine is not.

even if Sanders were elected he won't be president forever, nothing he could do could permanently get the money and influencers out of government, this is why the power has always meant to be with the people.  Over time they have taken that power and will never give it up.  As long as people are willing to be dependent on the government they will maintain that power, it can never be otherwise.

think about it, whatever you are dependent on, rely on has power over you.

in a sense the Amish are some of the freest people there are.

this is why I use the term and it applies so well "gilded cage"
#80
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
or, we could let people keep more of the money they earn?  all that is really important is the money you bring home, what you get to spend.

this got me thinking, what companies still pay minimum wage?  Not the big box stores.  Lowes and Home Depot actually pay fairly decently.  I really can't think of any place that might pay minimum except a small business.
#81
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
they are not actually, even by your own words, one is a need the other a desire. 
Well I agree that everyone having healthcare is a need because without it people will die. But i also think getting money out of government is also a need. I don't see how either of those could be a "desire" rather than a need. 

do you think it's realistic to give a corrupt government more power and control with the hopes it will maybe, possibly, fixed sometime in the future?  
What is the alternative? Right now we have a system that lets corrupt and greedy corporations literally kill people with little to no consequence to them while they earn huge profits. That system is horrendous. Do I believe america needs a universal healthcare system to fix that, absolutely. Does money in politics also have to be address, definitely. 

even if Sanders were elected he won't be president forever, nothing he could do could permanently get the money and influencers out of government,
That isn't an argument in any way. Literally nothing is permanent. If you stripped power from the government that wouldn't be permanent either. Things are always changing. That is not an acceptable reason to leave things in a broken state. 

this is why the power has always meant to be with the people. 
democracy is the power of the people. You are arguing that power should be taken away from the body that represents the people and handed over to the rich where the people get no say. That is the exact opposite of power being with the people. 

Over time they have taken that power and will never give it up.  As long as people are willing to be dependent on the government they will maintain that power, it can never be otherwise.
The government has taken on additional roles because they needed to and people wanted them to. it is in the best interest of the people that they do so. 

think about it, whatever you are dependent on, rely on has power over you.
what is your point? There will always be people that have power over you. Do you want those people to be elected members of a government that you have a say in picking or do you want it to be a billionaire oligarch that you have no ability to influence in any way?


#82
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
 everyone having healthcare is a need because without it people will die.
they will die with healthcare, that doesn't make sense.

democracy is the power of the people.
the U.S. is a representative republic democracy.

what is your point?
the point is you are advocating to handing them over even more power over you and making the decision for everyone else as well.

which causes more deaths, lack of insurance or obesity?  I'll bet you can guess.  Why aren't you asking for government intervention to stop obesity, it's the #1 preventable disease?
An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are due to the obesity epidemic (57).

about 10x higher than reasons associated with lack of insurance (if you pick the most generous number they attempt to provide of about 40k per year)

it would better logic to have the government regulate what and how much food we eat than to just give us insurance.

June O’Neill, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and her husband Dave, both highly respected economists, approached the question of how health insurance affects health from another direction. They concluded that uninsured people with lower-incomes were only 3% more likely to die over a 14-year period than those with health insurance and being uninsured had no statistically significant effect on anyone else.

“any plausible effect of insurance on health status in the general population will likely be small” and perhaps nonexistent.






#83
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
 everyone having healthcare is a need because without it people will die.
they will die with healthcare, that doesn't make sense.
They will die without a universal healthcare system when the current system bankrupts them or refuses them care. Medicare for all is a life and death issue. It is absolutely a need, not a "desire". 

democracy is the power of the people.
the U.S. is a representative republic democracy.
yes. The us is a specific kind of democracy. what is your point?

which causes more deaths, lack of insurance or obesity?  I'll bet you can guess.  Why aren't you asking for government intervention to stop obesity, it's the #1 preventable disease?
classic deflection. we are discussing a horrible thing and instead of engaging on the topic you go "well what about that horrible thing, look at that. if you don't look at that you are a (insert insult). 

about 10x higher than reasons associated with lack of insurance (if you pick the most generous number they attempt to provide of about 40k per year)
so because people also die from another issue, we shouldn't do anything to save 10's of thousands of lives? what a shitty argument. Is your next argument going to be that people die in car crashes so we shouldn't enforce food safety regulations?
#84
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm pointing out the obvious lack of priorities and a sincere desire to fix what is correctable though it would cause discomfort.  It's far more comfortable to live in the gilded cage then it is to take on the real issue, the one that offers far more beneficial changes but is the more difficult route and less popular.

you claim that throwing money at the problem will help and the links and studies I have provided does not support that, at all.

I find these solutions rather fickle, the willingness to take people's money, spend billions and for what?  to possibly, maybe save a few lives?  If lives were that important then the things so easily done to prevent loss of life would be the priorities right?  It doesn't sound logical otherwise.

this universal health care is about control not saving lives which is supported by the economist and statistics.
#85
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you claim that throwing money at the problem will help and the links and studies I have provided does not support that, at all.
When did I say that? I said a universal healthcare system will save lives as well as saving money. That is the exact opposite of "throwing money at the problem". If anything, the current system is the "throw money at it" version as the medical industry crushes the working class while getting insanely rich. 

I find these solutions rather fickle, the willingness to take people's money, spend billions and for what?  to possibly, maybe save a few lives?  If lives were that important then the things so easily done to prevent loss of life would be the priorities right?  It doesn't sound logical otherwise.
So spending trillions less than america spends now, saving 10's if not hundreds of thousands of lives and preventing millions of bankruptcies, isn't logical? That is, by a wide margin, the more logical thing. 

this universal health care is about control not saving lives which is supported by the economist and statistics.
Lol. it is about making sure that every single american, no matter how much money is in their bank account, no matter what party they vote for or what state they live in, receives the health care they need to live. It isn't about "control". It is about saving lives, saving trillions of dollars, and helping the middle and lower class. The fight against universal health care is about protecting the profits of a parasitical industry that feeds on the middle and lower class causing massive pain, bankruptcy and death. It is literally about putting money before people. 
#86
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
my mistake, I don't believe it will save money and infact cost the average taxpayer more money.

saving 10's if not hundreds of thousands of lives
my sources say that's not true at all

receives the health care they need to live.
you can not be denied emergency care due to lack of ability to pay, you can be denied an organ transplant you need to live.

so this needed healthcare seems to be a bit of a ghost.

St. Judes afaik doesn't require insurance and their commercials say people never get a bill, that doesn't seem to fit this need you keep using.

maybe we need more organizations like St. Judes instead of government run healthcare?


#87
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
my mistake, I don't believe it will save money and infact cost the average taxpayer more money.
that is your opinion. The facts say otherwise. 

saving 10's if not hundreds of thousands of lives
my sources say that's not true at all
What sources? How could that possibly be the case. People die because they cannot get, or cannot afford healthcare. That is a fact. Medicare for all with give everyone healthcare. Therefore no one will die because they cannot afford care. We are can argue about how many lives it will save, but the fact that it will save lives is pretty much an objective fact. 

you can not be denied emergency care due to lack of ability to pay, you can be denied an organ transplant you need to live.
You can be denied drugs you need to live because you can't pay. you can go bankrupt because of the absurd bill you get from the current system. People who are bankrupt are much more likely to get sicker and die since they can't afford proper food, housing etc. 

St. Judes afaik doesn't require insurance and their commercials say people never get a bill, that doesn't seem to fit this need you keep using.
please provide a link. I'm not really sure what you are talking about. 

maybe we need more organizations like St. Judes instead of government run healthcare?
The idea that charity can replace government care is a common refrain from the right. But the fact is that charities simply do not have anywhere near enough money to help everyone. At best they can help a small subsection of the worst cases. But the vast majority still get screwed. 
#88
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff

again for as many that say it will save money there are the ones that say it won't so that is YOUR opinion as well

sources in #82 not sure how you didn't read that already.

#89
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I looked up St. Judes. They are a charity hospital that appears to only accept catastrophic cases involving children. They are able to help a tiny fraction of the people that need help. Charity is never a sustainable model. Charitable donations go up and down. You can't count on them being there from one year to the next. You cannot have a system that relies on charity or people will die. Governments are predictable. They can make sure that people get the help they need. A charity will never be able to do that. 

again for as many that say it will save money there are the ones that say it won't so that is YOUR opinion as well
imagine that, studies funded by health insurance companies say that eliminating the greedy for-profit motive is bad.... that's shocking. 

“any plausible effect of insurance on health status in the general population will likely be small”
and a small effect on a population of hundreds of millions will still be 10's of thousands of deaths. Not to mention 100's of thousands of bankruptcies and immeasurable misery and pain.
#90
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff