It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:31 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1190 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
long time guy wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Ok, the country was demanding tougher penalties for crime back then. It had spiked to crazy levels with no end in sight. I have trouble blaming the Clintons for trying to solve what was an epidemic. And whether it worked or not, I can't say, but crime is down significantly since then.

I get your larger point though......


As Alexander details, the Clintons disinvested from social welfare programs at the same time they escalated the war on (black) crime. They chose to warehouse black youth in privately run penitentiaries (a great boon for corporate America) while closing down avenues to social stability and advancement for poor blacks. They sacrificed black lives to ensure the upward trajectory of their political careers.



The crime bill gets unfairly slammed by progressive democrats looking to make excuses for crime and criminals. That fact is that many blacks pushed for tougher crime laws too. Urban areas were war zones at the time I know because I lived in one. I'm from the low end of Chicago and I came of age during precisely the time in which crime was peaking in this city and other Cities like L.A. and New York. There was a movement to get "tough on crime" and it just wasn't the Clintons that were promoting it. Black leaders were as well.

Drugs and violence were running rampant in Chicago and the Hosing Projects in particular were as wild as anything you'd see in Beirut. The vast majority of my friends were knee deep in the drug trade and violence and it was absolutely destroying neighborhoods and communities. Turf wars over drugs was the single biggest problem in impoverished areas during the late 80's and early 90's. Most of my friends dropped out of high school to participate in it. I had a number tell me directly that Govt couldn't do anything to stop it and they didn't care about getting caught because they'd be out in an hr. Communities were decimated and you had teenagers assuming the role as head of household because they were essentially the breadwinner in welfare dependant homes.

The Crime Bill was an outgrowth of the violence and destruction which haunted impoverished neighborhoods during this priod. The murder rate in Chicago New York and L.A dropped as a result of this bill too. That is the dirty secret no one ever quite discusses either.






Reagan ushered in the Crack epidemic, why has not a single politician ever publicly said this?

The crime bill "worked" but it was just wrong, if CPD didn't need warrants and could enter any residence at anytime to conduct a weapon search..it would cut crime by 90% but it doesn't mean its a good plan.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
312player wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Ok, the country was demanding tougher penalties for crime back then. It had spiked to crazy levels with no end in sight. I have trouble blaming the Clintons for trying to solve what was an epidemic. And whether it worked or not, I can't say, but crime is down significantly since then.

I get your larger point though......


As Alexander details, the Clintons disinvested from social welfare programs at the same time they escalated the war on (black) crime. They chose to warehouse black youth in privately run penitentiaries (a great boon for corporate America) while closing down avenues to social stability and advancement for poor blacks. They sacrificed black lives to ensure the upward trajectory of their political careers.



The crime bill gets unfairly slammed by progressive democrats looking to make excuses for crime and criminals. That fact is that many blacks pushed for tougher crime laws too. Urban areas were war zones at the time I know because I lived in one. I'm from the low end of Chicago and I came of age during precisely the time in which crime was peaking in this city and other Cities like L.A. and New York. There was a movement to get "tough on crime" and it just wasn't the Clintons that were promoting it. Black leaders were as well.

Drugs and violence were running rampant in Chicago and the Hosing Projects in particular were as wild as anything you'd see in Beirut. The vast majority of my friends were knee deep in the drug trade and violence and it was absolutely destroying neighborhoods and communities. Turf wars over drugs was the single biggest problem in impoverished areas during the late 80's and early 90's. Most of my friends dropped out of high school to participate in it. I had a number tell me directly that Govt couldn't do anything to stop it and they didn't care about getting caught because they'd be out in an hr. Communities were decimated and you had teenagers assuming the role as head of household because they were essentially the breadwinner in welfare dependant homes.

The Crime Bill was an outgrowth of the violence and destruction which haunted impoverished neighborhoods during this priod. The murder rate in Chicago New York and L.A dropped as a result of this bill too. That is the dirty secret no one ever quite discusses either.






Reagan ushered in the Crack epidemic, why has not a single politician ever publicly said this?

The crime bill "worked" but it was just wrong, if CPD didn't need warrants and could enter any residence at anytime to conduct a weapon search..it would cut crime by 90% but it doesn't mean its a good plan.


I think in the partisan country we live it is sort of expected that Republicans will do this sort of thing.

I think in terms of crime we need to a better job of economically rehabilitating criminals once they are released from prison. If we are going to stigmatize felons and put systems in place which prohibit them from working no amount of social programming will have much effect.

The barriers to finding employment need to be removed and that may prevent revolving door that we currently have from working.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Nobody ever helped me. I had to do it myself. Even the doctor didn't know!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
312player wrote:
Nobody likes or wants to go to the doctor, that's absurd to think people would overuse medical services.

People already overuse medical services. Drug seekers are just one example.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
312player wrote:
Nobody likes or wants to go to the doctor, that's absurd to think people would overuse medical services.

People already overuse medical services. Drug seekers are just one example.


Another abuse is people using the ER for what should be routine matters. I am not talking about uninsured people without options. There are people that are too lazy to have a PCP and go to the ER for anything.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
pittmike wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
312player wrote:
Nobody likes or wants to go to the doctor, that's absurd to think people would overuse medical services.

People already overuse medical services. Drug seekers are just one example.


Another abuse is people using the ER for what should be routine matters. I am not talking about uninsured people without options. There are people that are too lazy to have a PCP and go to the ER for anything.







You go to the ER for a sore throat or a sore back and you will sit there for 18 hours before anybody sees ya..then they will give ya a few Advil, I ain't buying that.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
long time guy wrote:
312player wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Ok, the country was demanding tougher penalties for crime back then. It had spiked to crazy levels with no end in sight. I have trouble blaming the Clintons for trying to solve what was an epidemic. And whether it worked or not, I can't say, but crime is down significantly since then.

I get your larger point though......


As Alexander details, the Clintons disinvested from social welfare programs at the same time they escalated the war on (black) crime. They chose to warehouse black youth in privately run penitentiaries (a great boon for corporate America) while closing down avenues to social stability and advancement for poor blacks. They sacrificed black lives to ensure the upward trajectory of their political careers.



The crime bill gets unfairly slammed by progressive democrats looking to make excuses for crime and criminals. That fact is that many blacks pushed for tougher crime laws too. Urban areas were war zones at the time I know because I lived in one. I'm from the low end of Chicago and I came of age during precisely the time in which crime was peaking in this city and other Cities like L.A. and New York. There was a movement to get "tough on crime" and it just wasn't the Clintons that were promoting it. Black leaders were as well.

Drugs and violence were running rampant in Chicago and the Hosing Projects in particular were as wild as anything you'd see in Beirut. The vast majority of my friends were knee deep in the drug trade and violence and it was absolutely destroying neighborhoods and communities. Turf wars over drugs was the single biggest problem in impoverished areas during the late 80's and early 90's. Most of my friends dropped out of high school to participate in it. I had a number tell me directly that Govt couldn't do anything to stop it and they didn't care about getting caught because they'd be out in an hr. Communities were decimated and you had teenagers assuming the role as head of household because they were essentially the breadwinner in welfare dependant homes.

The Crime Bill was an outgrowth of the violence and destruction which haunted impoverished neighborhoods during this priod. The murder rate in Chicago New York and L.A dropped as a result of this bill too. That is the dirty secret no one ever quite discusses either.






Reagan ushered in the Crack epidemic, why has not a single politician ever publicly said this?

The crime bill "worked" but it was just wrong, if CPD didn't need warrants and could enter any residence at anytime to conduct a weapon search..it would cut crime by 90% but it doesn't mean its a good plan.


I think in the partisan country we live it is sort of expected that Republicans will do this sort of thing.

I think in terms of crime we need to a better job of economically rehabilitating criminals once they are released from prison. If we are going to stigmatize felons and put systems in place which prohibit them from working no amount of social programming will have much effect.

The barriers to finding employment need to be removed and that may prevent revolving door that we currently have from working.






Reagan was a huge piece of shit, no Dems ever call his phony legacy out.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
312player wrote:
Reagan was a huge piece of shit, no Dems ever call his phony legacy out.



Between you and Reader I am not sure who has the biggest hard on for Reagan even after 28 years.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57670
312 there are plenty of people who go to the doctor and ER way more than they should. It is crazy. My wife has a friend who is an ER nurse. She has some amazing stories of people coming for the stupidest things and these same people come back all the time. It is just reality. There are some people who never go to the doctor even when they should and some people who go all the time

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
312player wrote:
long time guy wrote:
312player wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Ok, the country was demanding tougher penalties for crime back then. It had spiked to crazy levels with no end in sight. I have trouble blaming the Clintons for trying to solve what was an epidemic. And whether it worked or not, I can't say, but crime is down significantly since then.

I get your larger point though......


As Alexander details, the Clintons disinvested from social welfare programs at the same time they escalated the war on (black) crime. They chose to warehouse black youth in privately run penitentiaries (a great boon for corporate America) while closing down avenues to social stability and advancement for poor blacks. They sacrificed black lives to ensure the upward trajectory of their political careers.



The crime bill gets unfairly slammed by progressive democrats looking to make excuses for crime and criminals. That fact is that many blacks pushed for tougher crime laws too. Urban areas were war zones at the time I know because I lived in one. I'm from the low end of Chicago and I came of age during precisely the time in which crime was peaking in this city and other Cities like L.A. and New York. There was a movement to get "tough on crime" and it just wasn't the Clintons that were promoting it. Black leaders were as well.

Drugs and violence were running rampant in Chicago and the Hosing Projects in particular were as wild as anything you'd see in Beirut. The vast majority of my friends were knee deep in the drug trade and violence and it was absolutely destroying neighborhoods and communities. Turf wars over drugs was the single biggest problem in impoverished areas during the late 80's and early 90's. Most of my friends dropped out of high school to participate in it. I had a number tell me directly that Govt couldn't do anything to stop it and they didn't care about getting caught because they'd be out in an hr. Communities were decimated and you had teenagers assuming the role as head of household because they were essentially the breadwinner in welfare dependant homes.

The Crime Bill was an outgrowth of the violence and destruction which haunted impoverished neighborhoods during this priod. The murder rate in Chicago New York and L.A dropped as a result of this bill too. That is the dirty secret no one ever quite discusses either.






Reagan ushered in the Crack epidemic, why has not a single politician ever publicly said this?

The crime bill "worked" but it was just wrong, if CPD didn't need warrants and could enter any residence at anytime to conduct a weapon search..it would cut crime by 90% but it doesn't mean its a good plan.


I think in the partisan country we live it is sort of expected that Republicans will do this sort of thing.

I think in terms of crime we need to a better job of economically rehabilitating criminals once they are released from prison. If we are going to stigmatize felons and put systems in place which prohibit them from working no amount of social programming will have much effect.

The barriers to finding employment need to be removed and that may prevent revolving door that we currently have from working.






Reagan was a huge piece of shit, no Dems ever call his phony legacy out.


I agree with you and that is one of the reasons that I didn't really care for Obama. He praised Reagan during his first run saying that he transformed America.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
pittmike wrote:
312player wrote:
Reagan was a huge piece of shit, no Dems ever call his phony legacy out.



Between you and Reader I am not sure who has the biggest hard on for Reagan even after 28 years.

Its hard to even judge Presidents prior to like 20 years after their out. Its the perfect time to discuss Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19929
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
long time guy wrote:
312player wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Ok, the country was demanding tougher penalties for crime back then. It had spiked to crazy levels with no end in sight. I have trouble blaming the Clintons for trying to solve what was an epidemic. And whether it worked or not, I can't say, but crime is down significantly since then.

I get your larger point though......


As Alexander details, the Clintons disinvested from social welfare programs at the same time they escalated the war on (black) crime. They chose to warehouse black youth in privately run penitentiaries (a great boon for corporate America) while closing down avenues to social stability and advancement for poor blacks. They sacrificed black lives to ensure the upward trajectory of their political careers.



The crime bill gets unfairly slammed by progressive democrats looking to make excuses for crime and criminals. That fact is that many blacks pushed for tougher crime laws too. Urban areas were war zones at the time I know because I lived in one. I'm from the low end of Chicago and I came of age during precisely the time in which crime was peaking in this city and other Cities like L.A. and New York. There was a movement to get "tough on crime" and it just wasn't the Clintons that were promoting it. Black leaders were as well.

Drugs and violence were running rampant in Chicago and the Hosing Projects in particular were as wild as anything you'd see in Beirut. The vast majority of my friends were knee deep in the drug trade and violence and it was absolutely destroying neighborhoods and communities. Turf wars over drugs was the single biggest problem in impoverished areas during the late 80's and early 90's. Most of my friends dropped out of high school to participate in it. I had a number tell me directly that Govt couldn't do anything to stop it and they didn't care about getting caught because they'd be out in an hr. Communities were decimated and you had teenagers assuming the role as head of household because they were essentially the breadwinner in welfare dependant homes.

The Crime Bill was an outgrowth of the violence and destruction which haunted impoverished neighborhoods during this priod. The murder rate in Chicago New York and L.A dropped as a result of this bill too. That is the dirty secret no one ever quite discusses either.






Reagan ushered in the Crack epidemic, why has not a single politician ever publicly said this?

The crime bill "worked" but it was just wrong, if CPD didn't need warrants and could enter any residence at anytime to conduct a weapon search..it would cut crime by 90% but it doesn't mean its a good plan.


I think in the partisan country we live it is sort of expected that Republicans will do this sort of thing.

I think in terms of crime we need to a better job of economically rehabilitating criminals once they are released from prison. If we are going to stigmatize felons and put systems in place which prohibit them from working no amount of social programming will have much effect.

The barriers to finding employment need to be removed and that may prevent revolving door that we currently have from working.


This is may thoughts, more or less, on the matter. To take it one step further we could begin to dismantle the War on Drugs and simply not fill our jails with non-violent criminals. Follow on would be less people needed to be sucked in from the nations south of our border.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
rogers park bryan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
312player wrote:
Reagan was a huge piece of shit, no Dems ever call his phony legacy out.



Between you and Reader I am not sure who has the biggest hard on for Reagan even after 28 years.

Its hard to even judge Presidents prior to like 20 years after their out. Its the perfect time to discuss Reagan


Absolutely. That is a great time frame to use. I am just poking at them because really few people bother with Reagan and those two are all Reagan sucks all the time. Its funny.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33243
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
RFDC wrote:
312 there are plenty of people who go to the doctor and ER way more than they should. It is crazy. My wife has a friend who is an ER nurse. She has some amazing stories of people coming for the stupidest things and these same people come back all the time. It is just reality. There are some people who never go to the doctor even when they should and some people who go all the time


Our system is spending twice what the next closest developed country is spending on healthcare as a percentage of GDP. And we have poor outcomes and lots of uninsured people. But everything is being overused, starting with prescription drug abuse. By having people pay large premiums with low to no copays, you are just encouraging the buffet mentality. There's very little focus on reducing chronic conditions, namely diabetes. Apparently at our company, type 2 diabetes consumes over 25% of the total health care costs for the entire organization.

If people drove their cars as recklessly as they treat their bodies, you wouldn't live to 30. But with car insurance, people feel the direct impact of being reckless. In the health care realm, you go to the doctor and get another prescription.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33243
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
I know there is plenty of Reagan hate from the left. But his administration broke stagflation at a significant short term cost (i.e. teen level short term interest rates), oversaw the end of communism, simplified the income tax code, and laid the ground work for the prosperity that took hold from his term until the dot com bust. Go ahead and tell me how a bunch of mental health facilities closed, and I'll politely invite you to go back to 70's styles price controls, the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet union, double digit inflation, and high unemployment.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
pittmike wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
312player wrote:
Reagan was a huge piece of shit, no Dems ever call his phony legacy out.



Between you and Reader I am not sure who has the biggest hard on for Reagan even after 28 years.

Its hard to even judge Presidents prior to like 20 years after their out. Its the perfect time to discuss Reagan


Absolutely. That is a great time frame to use. I am just poking at them because really few people bother with Reagan and those two are all Reagan sucks all the time. Its funny.



Blacks from that Era bother with him. His policies were disastrous for blacks. I think people in unions arent that fond of him either.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:52 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102665
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
RFDC wrote:
312 there are plenty of people who go to the doctor and ER way more than they should. It is crazy. My wife has a friend who is an ER nurse. She has some amazing stories of people coming for the stupidest things and these same people come back all the time. It is just reality.
This. I have a buddy who is an ER doctor that says he treats 4 or 5 people each day (when he works day shift) who basically have a runny nose.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
denisdman wrote:
I know there is plenty of Reagan hate from the left. But his administration broke stagflation at a significant short term cost (i.e. teen level short term interest rates), oversaw the end of communism, simplified the income tax code, and laid the ground work for the prosperity that took hold from his term until the dot com bust. Go ahead and tell me how a bunch of mental health facilities closed, and I'll politely invite you to go back to 70's styles price controls, the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet union, double digit inflation, and high unemployment.


Inflation was curbed by Paul Volcker who took a tough stand against low interest rates. Paul Volcker was chosen by Jimmy Carter. Also Reagan's wild spending was one of the leading causes of the recession that GHW endured. The S&L scandal was directly tied to Reagan also.

Most historians believe that the Cold War was ending regardless of Reagan as Soviet Union was a dying nation anyway. Afghan war did more to demonstrate that than anything Reagan did.

He talked tough and fought proxy wars against third rate countries; all the while not having a clue as to how to deal with Middle Eastern hostage situations.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
denisdman wrote:
I know there is plenty of Reagan hate from the left. But his administration broke stagflation at a significant short term cost (i.e. teen level short term interest rates), oversaw the end of communism, simplified the income tax code, and laid the ground work for the prosperity that took hold from his term until the dot com bust. Go ahead and tell me how a bunch of mental health facilities closed, and I'll politely invite you to go back to 70's styles price controls, the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet union, double digit inflation, and high unemployment.


I guess you make my point. There is a discussion to be had besides Reagan should be hanged for treason (if he weren't already dead) on the White House lawn.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
Frank Coztansa wrote:
RFDC wrote:
312 there are plenty of people who go to the doctor and ER way more than they should. It is crazy. My wife has a friend who is an ER nurse. She has some amazing stories of people coming for the stupidest things and these same people come back all the time. It is just reality.
This. I have a buddy who is an ER doctor that says he treats 4 or 5 people each day (when he works day shift) who basically have a runny nose.
Most ER staff can give you plenty of stories of parents who took their child to the ER hoping they were admitted so they could go out for the night with free babysitting.

What we need is strong catastrophic care for every American. That is the major problem. No one should go bankrupt from medical bills. However, it is vital that every doctor visit/procedure costs some amount of money no matter how big or small.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
denisdman wrote:
I know there is plenty of Reagan hate from the left. But his administration broke stagflation at a significant short term cost (i.e. teen level short term interest rates), oversaw the end of communism, simplified the income tax code, and laid the ground work for the prosperity that took hold from his term until the dot com bust. Go ahead and tell me how a bunch of mental health facilities closed, and I'll politely invite you to go back to 70's styles price controls, the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet union, double digit inflation, and high unemployment.


1. It was not his administration that "broke" stagflation.

2. He did next to nothing to "oversee" the end of communism in Russia. It broke because it was a rotten system. He gets credit for being in charge when the music stopped, but fighting communism was a 50 year bi-partisan effort that had a lot of negative side effects. (Censorship, Vietnam, huge defense spending).

3. The prosperity included several slow or down periods, including the recession that brought us the Clinton Presidency.

There has also been a threat of nuclear war even without the Soviets. In fact, nukes are more spread out now.

Reagan started this entire political party over country shit. He was a flippant asshole about nuclear war with the Russians. He ran up huge deficits, which doubled down on the era of big government. And the decline of cities can be traced back to his indifference.

Yet, he's a saint because he told us how great American is and lowered taxes.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
RFDC wrote:
312 there are plenty of people who go to the doctor and ER way more than they should. It is crazy. My wife has a friend who is an ER nurse. She has some amazing stories of people coming for the stupidest things and these same people come back all the time. It is just reality.
This. I have a buddy who is an ER doctor that says he treats 4 or 5 people each day (when he works day shift) who basically have a runny nose.
Most ER staff can give you plenty of stories of parents who took their child to the ER hoping they were admitted so they could go out for the night with free babysitting.

What we need is strong catastrophic care for every American. That is the major problem. No one should go bankrupt from medical bills. However, it is vital that every doctor visit/procedure costs some amount of money no matter how big or small.


The co-pays are so small, you can basically go an infinite amount of times with no repercussions, which is a bad system. We've discussed before that health insurance isn't really "insurance" because it's not. It's a horrible system that allows unlimited use of health care by paying a monthly premium. There is no way to control cost with that type of system.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
The co-pays are so small, you can basically go an infinite amount of times with no repercussions, which is a bad system. We've discussed before that health insurance isn't really "insurance" because it's not. It's a horrible system that allows unlimited use of health care by paying a monthly premium. There is no way to control cost with that type of system.
That is true, but some cost is better than no cost.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
RFDC wrote:
312 there are plenty of people who go to the doctor and ER way more than they should. It is crazy. My wife has a friend who is an ER nurse. She has some amazing stories of people coming for the stupidest things and these same people come back all the time. It is just reality.
This. I have a buddy who is an ER doctor that says he treats 4 or 5 people each day (when he works day shift) who basically have a runny nose.
Most ER staff can give you plenty of stories of parents who took their child to the ER hoping they were admitted so they could go out for the night with free babysitting.

What we need is strong catastrophic care for every American. That is the major problem. No one should go bankrupt from medical bills. However, it is vital that every doctor visit/procedure costs some amount of money no matter how big or small.


The co-pays are so small, you can basically go an infinite amount of times with no repercussions, which is a bad system. We've discussed before that health insurance isn't really "insurance" because it's not. It's a horrible system that allows unlimited use of health care by paying a monthly premium. There is no way to control cost with that type of system.



I would like beer "insurance" like that. $30 per month for as much as I want to consume.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33243
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
long time guy wrote:
denisdman wrote:
I know there is plenty of Reagan hate from the left. But his administration broke stagflation at a significant short term cost (i.e. teen level short term interest rates), oversaw the end of communism, simplified the income tax code, and laid the ground work for the prosperity that took hold from his term until the dot com bust. Go ahead and tell me how a bunch of mental health facilities closed, and I'll politely invite you to go back to 70's styles price controls, the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet union, double digit inflation, and high unemployment.


Inflation was curbed by Paul Volcker who took a tough stand against low interest rates. Paul Volcker was chosen by Jimmy Carter. Also Reagan's wild spending was one of the leading causes of the recession that GHW endured. The S&L scandal was directly tied to Reagan also.

Most historians believe that the Cold War was ending regardless of Reagan as Soviet Union was a dying nation anyway. Afghan war did more to demonstrate that than anything Reagan did.

He talked tough and fought proxy wars against third rate countries; all the while not having a clue as to how to deal with Middle Eastern hostage situations.


Ok smarty pants, then why didn't Volcker break inflation during the Carter administration? He didn't have the political rope to do so, which Reagan had the guts to kill the economy to end inflation. It was painful for the entire country.

The S&L crisis had much to do the lifting of the deposit rate cap (Reg Q) that caused the banks cost of funds to go up, while S&L's were stuck with low yielding real estate loans (negative gap). There was also an element of the Texas/OK real estate bust in the wake of oil falling to $8/barrel.

I knew you'd bring up that the Soviet was already failing, which is why I stated that he "oversaw the end" not created the end.

I love hearing all these arguments. If you look at where the U.S. was when we entered 1980 and where it ended by 1990, it is amazing. Japan was the China of the day, and they were hobbled by the end of 1990. The Soviet Union and the Eastern block were done and largely turned democratic. Inflation and unemployment were low. The economy went on a decade long run including massive increases in the stock markets. The U.S. regained its role as the economic engine of the world with a tech revolution.

Fight away. The facts are against you.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
The co-pays are so small, you can basically go an infinite amount of times with no repercussions, which is a bad system. We've discussed before that health insurance isn't really "insurance" because it's not. It's a horrible system that allows unlimited use of health care by paying a monthly premium. There is no way to control cost with that type of system.
That is true, but some cost is better than no cost.


No, I'm in agreement. There just has to be some built-in mechanism to deter people from abusing it... and there are studies that show that people abuse it. There are legitimately people who need to see a doctor frequently (the elderly or people in poor health), but there are tons who take advantage of it for a myriad of reasons.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33243
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
leashyourkids wrote:

The co-pays are so small, you can basically go an infinite amount of times with no repercussions, which is a bad system. We've discussed before that health insurance isn't really "insurance" because it's not. It's a horrible system that allows unlimited use of health care by paying a monthly premium. There is no way to control cost with that type of system.


It is a dollar trading scheme designed to waste money. You're dead on.

Your employer offers you a meal plan where you pay $250 per paycheck. With that payment, you and your family pay $25 each time you go to a restaurant. After which, you can consume as much as you want as often as you want. We're going to Morton's tonight.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
There are also issues with doctors ordering unnecessary tests and procedures, but I think it's a bit overstated how much tort reform would correct this. MANY doctors are ordering these things not out of fear of being sued but because it's just easier, and some just do it because they aren't great at their job... like any profession. Also, of course, they don't want people to die. I guess that one's legit.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
denisdman wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:

The co-pays are so small, you can basically go an infinite amount of times with no repercussions, which is a bad system. We've discussed before that health insurance isn't really "insurance" because it's not. It's a horrible system that allows unlimited use of health care by paying a monthly premium. There is no way to control cost with that type of system.


It is a dollar trading scheme designed to waste money. You're dead on.

Your employer offers you a meal plan where you pay $250 per paycheck. With that payment, you and your family pay $25 each time you go to a restaurant. After which, you can consume as much as you want as often as you want. We're going to Morton's tonight.


Yep... and proportionately, it'd probably be more like paying a dollar for every meal and having everything free after that. There is literally no incentive not to overuse it or to try to use preventative health care to save costs (and just be healthier).

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
denisdman wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:

The co-pays are so small, you can basically go an infinite amount of times with no repercussions, which is a bad system. We've discussed before that health insurance isn't really "insurance" because it's not. It's a horrible system that allows unlimited use of health care by paying a monthly premium. There is no way to control cost with that type of system.


It is a dollar trading scheme designed to waste money. You're dead on.

Your employer offers you a meal plan where you pay $250 per paycheck. With that payment, you and your family pay $25 each time you go to a restaurant. After which, you can consume as much as you want as often as you want. We're going to Morton's tonight.


Yep... and proportionately, it'd probably be more like paying a dollar for every meal and having everything free after that. There is literally no incentive not to overuse it or to try to use preventative health care to save costs (and just be healthier).
It's a shame that Democrats are so dead set against HSA's that they can never be really good.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1190 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group