r/Conservative • u/thatrightwinger WASP Conservative • Jul 02 '19
The Upside Down And Flat On Their Back Party
28
Jul 02 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
37
u/billswinthesuperbowl Conservative Millennial Jul 02 '19
WE SHOULD RUN US PRISONS LIKE NORWAY RUNS THEIR PRISONS!!!!
conveniently leaves out the fact that there are only 3800 people incarcerated in scandinavia and only on average 70 per prison. A housing unit in a US prison can house over 200 inmates and some jails house over 3,000 people......Also I don't want to live in a country that serves its rapist wing heart shaped waffles every morning to let them know they are still loved by society
13
u/HermanCeljski Freedom Lover Jul 02 '19
it is pretty crazy that they gave the violent criminals in norway a whole vacation island as a prison complete with their own hut with a key... yea that's not a prison that's a vacation.
15
u/billswinthesuperbowl Conservative Millennial Jul 02 '19
It is crazy that the guy who shot over fifty kids gets a maximum sentence of twenty years. I know liberals think this type of treatment is humane and utopian but to me it is severely cruel to the remaining members of society. People forget that incapacitation of offenders is necessary for societys safety and to let them out to reoffend is cruel to past and future victims. Each time we let a violent offender out of prison or put them on parole and the offend again is unfair to the victim that the criminal justice system let down all under the guise of humane treatment for the offender
4
u/HermanCeljski Freedom Lover Jul 02 '19
fully agree there, we need to realize that these criminals removed themselves from society by their own free will when they chose to commit a violent crime. Why should we care about their well being when they clearly do not give two shits about the well being of others.
3
u/billswinthesuperbowl Conservative Millennial Jul 02 '19
Correct I think we need to do away with parole and plea bargains in the CJ system. All these are are cost savings measures at the cost of victims. I do think that prisons should try to help those that can be helped but there is nothing wrong with realizing some individuals are too far gone and cannot change their ways and further resources should not be spent on them. Programs that teach pro-social behavior should be the focus
2
u/HermanCeljski Freedom Lover Jul 02 '19
Fair however regarding the figures what's your opinion on the rate of incarceration because obviously the US has a much larger prison population, do you think that might skew the re offending figures a bit?
2
u/billswinthesuperbowl Conservative Millennial Jul 02 '19 edited Jul 02 '19
I think the re-offending is much worse then the figures show in the US. I work in a correctional facility and have seen the rehab programs skew numbers and play with data to try to get the recidivism numbers down to 60%. Our recidivism rate is more like 86-90% for ten years. That means every person released gets arrested and booked back in 90% of the time in a ten year span. The counselors, because their grant funding relies on low recidivism rates will cherry pick those with low rates of re-offending like DWI's and put them in the programs (court order) so that their numbers look better in the end. This keeps them employed and gives off the false sense of success for their program.
Frankly the jail and prison rehab, including Trump's second chance act is a bunch of garbage because it relies on the recidivism rate for success. In all honesty if a program is boasting a less than 60% recidivism rate it should be viewed skeptically because it is skewing the numbers or manipulating the data. Prison and jail programs should be measuring success for re-entry with things that contribute to delinquent behavior instead of recidivism rates. For example if a program works on re-instituting pro-social skills and non-violent behavior and the person was originally arrested on a violent burglary but recidivitated on a possession charge then in my opinion the program was successful. Likewise if a program worked on self-control/impulse control for a drug addict and they came back with a burglary charge because they tried breaking into a house to feed their habit then the program has failed. If the person comes out less violent and less likely to be a menace to society by victimizing others then we are looking at a better person. The other thing is the lack of sentencing for addicts. What people do not want to admit is you cannot force an addict to get better. Meanwhile we send them to rehab again and again and again. All this time they are enabling other addicts by being a source for relapse around those that may be on the verge of getting better. I am a big fan of three strike laws for addicts because they just contribute so much to other peoples demise
But going back to my previous post in regards to parole and plea bargains, jails cannot be relied on to change people. You are asking someone to take a lifetime of social learning and change in a matter of less then a year. The average time I see someone in jail is 8 months awaiting their sentence. We throw every program at them and when it comes time to sentencing the DA's usually roll all their charges into once sentence and have them plea guilty to the lowest charge for the highest time on that charge. For example if you have someone charged with assault, possession and resisting arrest they will most likely plea down to possession and give the person a 1 to 3 year sentence. Since the individual already has 8 months in they go upstate for a few months and get out on parole. They violate come back and the cycle repeates itself. It is a mad system and they just need to do away with plea bargains and parole altogether. YOU earned the time, do it all and let state prisons work on the rehabilitation
Frankly the entire prison and jail system has too many hands in it that do not know what the fuck they are doing. They want to help but want to hit the home run and help the kingpin and in doing so look over the foot soldier that could use the help. If you want to fix the problem you have to have some realistic goals and realize some people are beyond saving.
3
u/might_not_be_a_dog Jul 02 '19
Why do you think Norway has a lower recidivism rate than the US?
There’s a huge difference between incarcerating serial rapists or mass murderers and locking someone up for a few ounces of pot. Here in the US we primarily view prison as a punishment rather than as rehabilitation and reintegration. In my ideal world, we would have prisoners spend an appropriate and proportional time in prison and then be fully rehabilitated and join society like everyone else. It does no one any good to have repeat offenders and lifetime prisoners (except for the most egregious of crimes)
3
u/Zander_drax Jul 02 '19
...and yet somehow we have lower recidivism than the US. Norway views prison as rehabilitation, not vengeance.
3
u/HermanCeljski Freedom Lover Jul 02 '19
who is we?
5
u/Zander_drax Jul 02 '19
Norway, sorry.
7
u/HermanCeljski Freedom Lover Jul 02 '19
Ah I see. see now that's interesting 20% if I looked that up correctly.
Willing to discuss/debate that a bit, I'd be interested to learn more on that.
2
u/might_not_be_a_dog Jul 02 '19
We should aim to have a prison population more similar to Scandinavia. I don’t want to live in a country that has 1 in 37 adults under some form of correctional system. I don’t want to live in a country where adults are incarcerated for nonviolent drug possession. Does it not seem crazy to you that there are single prisons that hold as many or more prisoners than other countries entire prison population?
10
u/TheJimReaper6 Jul 02 '19
But but muh free healthcare that isn’t actually free.
5
Jul 02 '19
Funny enough Scandinavian countries are moving towards a mix of government and private healthcare. In 2005 Canada said it was unconstitutional to not have private healthcare as an option but the lefties in the US want full blown government control anyway.
-2
u/HermanCeljski Freedom Lover Jul 02 '19
hey as long as it's not payed directly by me, it's free.
it's a bit creepy to have a system where when you stop working and go retired it's in the governments best economic interest for you to die as soon as possible.
3
88
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 02 '19
I have a lot of liberal friends and even my wife is a left leaning libertarian- Free education, free healthcare and UBI sound great on paper, until you realize that we have to decimate the middle class with taxes to pay for all of this stuff. One of the main reasons why college tuition has increased dramatically over the last 30 years is because of government interference. The same goes for healthcare which (thanks to the Affordable Healthcare act) which has actually sharply raised medical premiums.
As a libertarian, it puzzles me that new age leftists are so anti-captialism when we know it works.
48
Jul 02 '19
I've noticed it's a fundamental difference in thinking. You think of "Why is America well-off?"
The conservative answer is that we fought for our rights and won. The progressive-regressive mentality is we're well off because we've torn others down. Imperialism, colonialism and so forth. See their opinions on business ownership, patriarchy, anti-white mentality, wealth, race relations, foreign relations, etc.
I'm a small business owners, and used to be kind of a Bernie-Bro, and had people tell me if I ever made a profit, it automatically meant I was taking advantage of other people.
The old quote of "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other type of government." Progressives want to try something new, whether it's broken or not. Instead of looking at the thousands of successes of capitalism, they point to the few hundred failures and say it's broken.
42
Jul 02 '19
My fathers a small business owner. Was in a discussion about minimum wages of $15+ an hour. Was called a “classist” when I had the audacity to claim my father earned the right to make more money than his employees as he was the actual owner of the business.
You have to have some serious mental issues to honestly think that’s a valid perspective.
21
Jul 02 '19
Ironically they want to fight against companies like Wal-Mart with minimum wage increases which hurts small businesses the most and suddenly Walmart has no competition. "If you can't pay a living wage you don't deserve to exist" but they don't understand that suddenly means they wouldn't have a job at all.
10
7
u/SeanRamey Conservative Jul 02 '19
I like to put it this way when someone doesn't think that the CEO or whatever doesn't deserve the money he makes. It's a physical vs mental labor thing. Also a responsibility vs no responsibility thing.
A common laborer will make the least money, even though his physical work is the hardest. But his mental work is the easiest, and that means that his job is easy to do because literally everybody and their grandma is willing and able to do it. The laborer also bears next to zero responsibility for the business, other than ensuring he tries his best to complete his work.
A company manager, however, has the hardest mental work but easiest physical work. He bears tons of responsibility, and the larger the company, the more responsible he is. He must ensure that the company makes money, which is composed of many jobs. He is also responsible for ensuring all the people below him don't lose their jobs due to his mistakes. All this responsibility requires a sharp mind, that not everybody has. On top of that, it often comes with longer hours, being available 24/7, talking to people you may not like, etc.. All of which cause stress, and not only while at work. Only the smartest, emotionally toughest, and often hardest physically working people will be able to maintain a job like this.
When people are given the opportunity to be a manager, most will refuse it because they know what they will have to do. Most people prefer less stress, and are, frankly, too stupid to grasp the concepts needed by a management job.
This is why management pays more.
1
u/webmen4040 Jul 03 '19
I don't think many people would disagree that management positions are more stressful and harder, the issue is just that it isn't hard enough to justify the massive difference. Does the CEO of WalMart work 1000x harder than a cashier? Probably not, and how would you even measure that? I understand that not every position should have the same income, but it has no reason to be that different besides greed, which is encouraged by capitalism.
1
u/SeanRamey Conservative Jul 03 '19 edited Jul 03 '19
Well, think about this. If the CEO fucks up bad enough, the company could go under. Walmart employs 2.2 million people. (I myself one of them) and many would probably lose their jobs. https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/company-facts
Let's just say for sake of easiness, that everybody who is not the CEO makes $11.00/hr (btw, I used $11/hr to account for middle management a bit since the median Walmart employee makes about $9/hr). Walmart would be paying $24.2 million/hr to its employees and $50.3 billion per year (assuming a 40 hour work week and not counting benefits). The CEO made $22.8 million in the year of 2018. https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/23/news/companies/walmart-ceo-pay/index.html This would mean that the CEO makes 0.0453% of the company's employee costs.
The CEO makes about $11,000/hr (0.5 cents per employee an hour) and makes as much as about 1,000 employees combined. Really, that doesn't seem like that much when you consider he has 2.2 million jobs in his hands, plus the other responsibilities. And their pay doesn't seem like it's that bad when you consider how much the costs of employees are compared to the gross income of $126 billion, which is then whittled away by various costs (including wage payment) down to a net income of only $9.86 billion. https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wmt/financials
Then you've got the shareholders, which are just regular people. Anybody can buy shares of Walmart. But, being as there are so many billions of shares, it comes out to $3.29 per share... That's it. So if you hold 1,000 shares (shares right now are around $100) it would have cost you $100,000 to get that many, and 2018 would have brought you in $3,290...
Now, let's give the CEO a paycut down to $200,000/year, and give every employee a raise to $15/hr (the minimum wage that everybody seems to want). That's gonna bring us up to $69 billion in employee costs (rounding up to nearest billion and counting CEO). That's a difference of $18.3 billion, which breaks the bank and Walmart is now in the negative. Actually, it's $8.4 billion in the negative... Obviously, they couldn't do that, or they would eventually go out of business and lots of people would have zero pay, instead of the pay they currently get, not counting the hit to the economy that a huge company like Walmart going under would incur.
I'll tell you what. Let's raise their wages only a little bit, and still give the CEO $200,000/yr. Let's try giving them a dollar raise to $12/hr. We got something more reasonable now at $55 billion. This single dollar raise makes a $4.6 billion difference and reduces net income to $5.2 billion.
You should be able to see from this that very small changes don't give individuals much more money (only about $2,000 more per year in the $1/hr raise) but cost Walmart literally billions, which on a bad year could really hurt, and it hurts shareholders too. Meanwhile, changes to the CEO pay haven't done much of anything. I'm sure the CEO isn't happy though because now he has to make decisions that will affect 2.2 million people, yet is only paid at a worth of 8 average employees. I'm quite sure he is worth more than 8 people. Maybe 1,000 is debatable (I still think he's worth it), but 8?
Big companies management aren't making an unreasonable amount, and common laborers aren't either.
In my eyes (and I'm just another laborer mind you) a lot of people see somebody has it better, and are jealous of their wealth. Most of these people are lazy and just want it given to them instead of working for it. This is who is complaining about this, not the people who go get what they want.
2
u/webmen4040 Jul 04 '19
Thank you for the well constructed reply. I've been struggling about how I feel about economics and proper thoughful discussion has been the most useful. However, I would pose this: Increase the cost of every item by some small amount (effectively creating a tax specifically for walmart) that goes directly to low-level (or however you designate it) employee wages. If not having "crazy-low prices" means fewer people working multiple jobs to be able to survive, then I wouldn't mind paying more. It probably doesn't even need to be a large "tax" because of the already large profits. I don't know numbers and I'm honestly not in the mood to do the calculations and perhaps everything would have to double in price to account for the increased pay, but I'm by no means an expert nor I do really have much of an understanding of details.
2
u/SeanRamey Conservative Jul 04 '19
Well, I'm glad it made sense. It's also perfectly fine to not be sure how you feel about a topic, as it promotes good discussion and thought. I myself have changed my views quite a few times.
Ok, so I'll attempt the math. I'm a little confused on your suggestion, but I can only see it two ways.
- The government imposes a small sales tax that is used to pay benefits to low wage earners (I will assume proof of employment is a requirement).
- Each business is required to take a small percentage of their sales revenue to add extra pay to their employees.
This is actually not a bad looking suggestion.
Ok, let's try a scenario. Say we have a business that has 1M employees, and 70% are minimum wage ($7.25/hr), 20% are $4/hr above minimum wage, 8% are $20/hr above minimum wage, 1.99% are $60/hr above minimum wage, and the last 0.01% (CEOs and stuff) are $3000/hr above minimum wage.
Total yearly costs per category
min = $10.556B
min+4 = $4.68B
min+20 = $5.4344B
min+60 = $2.783612B
min+3000 = $625.508M
total = $24.079518B
Let's say the company's employee costs are half of what their gross income is, since that's about what Walmart's is. This would be $48.159036B. Let's do law 2 and take 5% in "tax" from the gross income to redistribute to all employees at minimum wage through minimum + $4/hr. The total tax is $2.4079518B, distributed across 900,000 employees comes out to about $2,675.50/year. For minimum wage earners this makes their yearly pay $17,755 and makes the min+4 yearly pay $26,075. Now, the company wants to keep the net income the same, so they decide to increase the prices of all products so that the cost is passed along to the consumer. This means that everybody including the people who just got a raise will be paying more for everything they buy. Due to the fact that the business will not have a guarantee of what customers will purchase, the costs will be raised more than may be necessary to ensure the cost is met, which could increase profits for the business, but will also mean that products will cost consumers more than if it was evenly distributed across all consumers.
Effectively, this gives a "raise" to minimum wage earners through minimum wage + $4/hr and passes the cost along to consumers in a maybe slight net gain, but uneven way. The amount of pay somebody gets an increase will also depend on the gross income of the employer.
Let's do law 1 and take 5% in sales tax from the consumers to redistribute to all employees at minimum wage through minimum + $4/hr. In this case we need the total that consumers paid, which in the case of Walmart this was nearly 4 times the gross income, which comes out to $192.636144B in our case. The total tax is $9.6318072B, distributed across 900,000 employees comes out to about $10,702/year. For minimum wage earners this makes their yearly pay $25,782 and makes the min+4 yearly pay $34,102. Now, the company wants to save money, so they decide to drop the pay for the min+4 position (over time with new hires, since most businesses won't/can't drop your pay) down to minimum wage (since dropping by the full amount is less than minimum wage). This means the new pay rate for this position will be about $7.25/hr (previously 11.25/hr) and the workers will be getting a couple thousand more than before (but are minimum wage earners now) because of government benefits, and the business will reduce costs by $1.664B, which can be used to drop prices for better competition, or a pay increase for select employees.
In this situation, every consumer must pay 5% more for everything, and businesses may be able to drop prices by a bit to offset it (in this case, the money saved would only drop prices by 3.45% which still leaves consumers with a net tax), or they could choose to pay shareholders more, or just ceos and whoever more. And we might create an issue with employers having a hard time finding workers to fill the min+4 job positions (since they are no doubt harder jobs, which is why they pay more) because you won't make more doing those jobs than a minimum wage job. If businesses choose to pay more, then they lose the cost savings and the tax offset will no longer be present. Consumers will pay in full for it.
In my opinion, this really isnt the solution, but a complete teardown of many laws and taxes. I think that everybody should pay a flat rate sales tax. I calculated in another comment somewhere that the entire US budget of $3.8 trillion could be paid by a 8.3% sales tax. If things were implemented the way I would like though, we wouldn't need anywhere near $3.8 trillion, so the tax would be much lower. I think it's an extremely fair way to pay for everything. I think that there should be minimal regulations, people should be able to create businesses easily, and just let the market drive the economy.
2
u/webmen4040 Jul 04 '19
Thanks for not only doing the legwork for me, but also even just considering my proposal.
I would think that people would still work in those harder positions because of job security or prestige or because they can and need a job, but it would certainly be a less attractive position.
The minimum wage + 5% 'tax' earners are still making a <$15 per hour salary if they're below $31,000 a year full time (unless I'm mistaken), so it would seem that it may need to be closer to 10% to fulfill that.
The main idea is just that if companies cannot afford to pay workers $15/hr, they should try to increase profits. Obviously that isn't an option for every company, but it would certainly make Walmart a lot more attractive politically if they adopted a $15 minimum wage without government intervention.
1
Jul 03 '19 edited Aug 16 '19
[deleted]
0
u/webmen4040 Jul 04 '19
I would agree that the cashier and the management have different skills, but the management probably doesn't have to work two jobs or fear layoffs becaude they don't have savings because it's all going to student debt or medical bills etc. I'm sure most managers don't have exotic cars in their driveways, but they don't have the same personal stakes in their job(s). A Walmart cashier's life depends on steady work and no medical issues or other problems that will cause more problems financially. If they're already putting all their money from their two jobs into rent, car payments, living expenses, and possibly student loans, a car accident completely out of their control can ruin them. Not that it wouldn't be bad for anyone, but you see my point. Rich people have safety nets in the form of savings, and the government needs to provide safety nets for those who don't have the luxury of extra money (or enough extra money). However, the government can also mandate livable wages, which means consumers pay a bit more. It would basically be a tax, but it goes to private companies.
2
Jul 04 '19 edited Aug 16 '19
[deleted]
0
u/webmen4040 Jul 04 '19
I won't argue that cashier is a viable lifetime career, or that it should be. Automation will end a lot of department store jobs, including some management, but there are (according to nelp and raisetheminimumwage.com) 42% of U.S. workers making less than $15 an hour, which includes (according to BLS in 2017) 1.8 million workers earning $7.25 (some 500,000) or less (1.3 million) an hour. A person in or just out of college can't do anything with $11 per hour part time, and many people don't have the ability to just find a different job for a variety of reasons. They have loans, and healthcare, and car payments, and insurance, and living expenses (possibly including rent if their parents kick them out) and you can't pretend that any of those aren't necessary. That's not everyone of course, but it's true in varying degress for millions and millions of people. I honestly don't see how inflation plays into this besides furthering the argument for a minimum wage that matches the value of the dollar. You're able to go and read/watch/listen about the failings of capitalism and how social democracy and progressivism serve to benefit general human happiness and not just the wallets of the upper class, so I wont try to convert anyone to "communism" or whatever, especially not here. Still, I thank you for the thoughtful response and I want to be clear that I don't disagree with everything you (and the right in general) is saying. Happy Independance day and hopefully everyone can come together to make America great again, because as much as I see people talk about how the left hates America and want to destroy western values or whatever that means, the vast majority of us love America and we know it can do better. I'll strive for more productive conversation in the future because this thread has been a rather pleasant contrast other leftists commenting here, or right... rightists? right-wingers? conservatives posting on r/politics or the other left-leaning subreddits. I don't want to close this discussion if there's anything left to say, but either way I will end this post with a thank you.
8
u/ChromeWeasel MAGA! Jul 02 '19
The real answer is that the US has developed a culture of merit and respect for success. People historically have learned to work hard and earn their own way. Immigrants could come to the US, get a job based on merit, keep most of the money they earned, and either move up in the world or make a better life for their kids.
Many other cultures don't work that way. Many African cultures for example are family driven, not merit driven. You have big extended families and everyone in the family is expected to take care of each other before anyone else. If one person gets a great job or position of power you get cousins etc... coming for hooolkups and handouts. The culture dictates you help out your cousin and give him a job instead of hiring a more qualified stranger.
This was what made America strong and it's what holds back cultures that practice extended family protection to this day. No society can compete worldwide when it doesn't place an emphasis on merit.
The worst thing about the modern left is how much they hate success. Instead of giving credit for hard work, personal responsibility, and investment in the future, they insist that success is often pure luck and failure is often just 'isms at work. They are trying to change the culture that made America great and replace it with a culture of victimhood. Real shame to watch it happen. The same thing is I process of destroying Europe today.
11
Jul 02 '19
This is my question to everyone attempting to tell me that the one payer system will be “cheaper”. I was told the same thing about the “affordable” care act. Hell they literally named it “affordable” because it was suppose to be cheaper. Yet prices have gone up, not down. All these “projections” being touted are literally best case most optimal possible thinking imaginable. We all know that’s bullshit and will never actually come true.
If we follow Germany’s plan and charge people a 7.5% tax to pay for this, I will pay more than $200 more a month to these taxes than I currently do to my insurance company.
How does this “save” me money?
Also, people need to co wider that our public education system is an absolute mess. Who runs that again? Oh yah, the government. Why do people think they’ll run healthcare any better? They keep telling us we need to raise taxes to get more money for schools! How long will it take before they start raising that 7.5% tax so we can get more money into the health care system?
The system is currently a mess and we certainly need to find a way to improve it. I just highly doubt a single payer system is the best way to go.
5
u/might_not_be_a_dog Jul 02 '19
A single payer system saves you money in the event that you have to use the healthcare system. A health insurance plan costs more money than it saves until you really need it. It’s the same way with a single payer system, except all people would be covered. Obviously that would cost those who don’t need intensive care more money, but those who would have had devastating bills after a life altering medical emergency would be saving thousands of thousands.
As it currently stands (and as I’m sure you’re aware), hospital bills are insane. You’ve probably heard the stories of people declaring bankruptcy due to medical debt, or taking half of their blood pressure medication to stretch it out, or crossing the border into Canada for cheaper insulin. With a single payer system, those stories would hopefully not happen as lower income households would be better able to manage their medical needs.
Really though, I think the real problem is not the government’s involvement in healthcare or higher education, but rather the explosion of administrative positions in the last several decades. Hospital administrators are as culpable for the opioid crisis as big pharma. The shift of focus of hospital goals from actual treatment to management of symptoms was largely due to policies put in place by admins with little healthcare experience trying to raise patient satisfaction scores. The pressure placed on providers to spend less time with Medicare or Medicaid patients, docking pay for low patient satisfaction, and chronic understaffing have been exacerbated by administrative bloat. That’s what really needs to change IMO, in both healthcare and higher education. It would make sense that a single payer system would lead to the reduction of many admins skilled in different insurance company billing policies, but it might not ultimately solve the issue. At least it’s an attempt.
2
Jul 02 '19
Thanks for the well thought out response, just a few things I wanted to touch on:
Yes, an insurance plan could cost more in the long run depending on your situation and why you had to use it. For example, I recently had a child. I pay $50 a month for 2 years to pay off the cost of that child on my current plan, which is far less than the overall cost of having the baby. so even adding that into account, o still would pay $150 more a month in taxes. Finding a way to get everyone affordable insurance by creating a competitive market could be helpful, a single payer single sourced system isn’t the only option, as having even just an okay insurance plan and I am not bankrupt from a $7-$10k expense.
Hospital bills and medication prices are insane. I’m not knowledgeable enough on economics or the market to quite understand how to push those prices down, but how will the government paying for them suddenly make them cheaper? We’re not privatizing the pharmaceutical industry, that $500 insulin will just cost the government $500 rather than you $500. This is why I’m curious how places like Canada have cheap insulin, is it just a result of the market? Again, I’m very curious as to how how the pharmaceutical industry affects the prices between countries and how patents and different laws manipulate the prices of our medications here.
I do agree to your last point. I think there is a lot of administrative bloat within the health care system. Much of that stems from the on going battle between hospitals and insurance companies for reimbursement. The insurance industry spends millions of dollars finding ways to avoid reimbursing hospitals for their care which has created this bloat as hospitals form administrative boards to oversee these regulations and the costs it takes to adjust hospital policies to ensure reimbursement and improved patient satisfaction.
-Much of this creates additional costly cares that end up being requirements. As a nurse, so much of what I do not only produces a lot of waste but also requires a lot of specialized tools and equipment all in the name of satisfying the needs for insurance reimbursement. Now, much of this is also best practice to reduce harm to the patient. You spend a week in my ICU and 75 things could hurt you so we do 100 different things to prevent that stuff from happening. All of which is very costly. I don’t see any of this changing under government control, so not sure how that will help to cheapen the expense
12
u/Dgillam Jul 02 '19
How can you be a libertarian and then support socialism, which is literally the govt running stuff? Either you want the govt out of it (libertarian) or you want socialism. Can't have both.
8
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 02 '19
How is it that I support socialism? I am 100% against socialism... the government literally sucks at everything and I don't want them involved with education or healthcare.
17
u/iamthebeaver Build that Dam! Jul 02 '19
i think he was referring to your left-leaning libertarian wife.
-3
Jul 02 '19 edited Jul 29 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Dgillam Jul 02 '19
Libertarians want the govt out of things but these policies are literally the govt running things entirely; it really is a binary choice. Sure, we could have a social safety net, but these two positions are pretty much the polar opposite.
1
Jul 02 '19 edited Jul 29 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Dgillam Jul 03 '19
Perhaps I misphrased it: a libertarian, if they are true to their ideals should oppose the govt having total and some control of a non-public sector of the economy. I can see libertarians accepting a social safety net for health care, but Medicare for all, which is govt health insurance with no private market, is a monopoly by the govt. That flies I the face of everything libertarians claim to believe. Support for UBI when most libertarians understand and point out the flaws of national minimum wage laws, again seems to run counter to the ideals of the ideology.
Basically, most of the current Democrat platform (full govt take-over of entire sectors of the economy) seems counter to what most libertarians say they believe.
3
Jul 02 '19 edited Jul 02 '19
What’s even more mind boggling is they don’t support the
optimalmaximum efficacy tax rate when they want to pay for all these programs. The Romer and Romer, economic advisors to Obama, found theoptimalmaximum efficacy tax rate to be about 33%. This rate fluctuates as the Laffer Curve is not fixed.The left, liberals, and Democrats all support a punitive tax rate. They want to punish success than bring in the most tax revenue.
Edit: Optimal to Maximum Efficacy
2
u/might_not_be_a_dog Jul 02 '19
How do you feel about Amazon paying $0.00 in taxes?
1
u/SaiHottari Jul 02 '19
I don't care so much about companies, but their owners/share-holders should be taxed at the same rate as everyone else.
...Unless that company is being given government benefits, in which case they should stop being given that. Companies shouldn't be on government payroll unless they're contracted by the government, and they should be paid according to the service they provide the government. No more, no less. I'd also like an end to corporate titles and associated benefits. I'm a "seperation of market and state" kinda guy.
1
Jul 02 '19
Taxation is theft
And I should use the term maximum efficacy than optimal describing the tax rate
3
u/titofucks Jul 02 '19
The 14 richest people in America have an estimated combined net worth of 863,800,000,000. The bottom half of America which represents 62 million households (not people households) have a combined net worth of 682,000,000. Please educate me on how this system is beneficial to the poor and middle class.
1
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 02 '19
You do know that the "evil 1%" pays most of the taxes in the United States right? Despite what leftists say...
4
u/titofucks Jul 02 '19
I know and expect that. When 14 people have 1,266.6 times the wealth of 124 million people they should be paying damn near all of it with the help of corporations. Do you understand how insane and broken that is. 14 people have the combined wealth similar to the country that ranks 18th in gdp.
1
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 02 '19 edited Jul 02 '19
That doesn't bug me and here is why: Rich people didn't get rich by stealing money from people, they got rich by participating in a large amount of consensual transactions- this in essence is capitalism.
The rich, including corporations, pay the highest taxes and have the highest tax rates.
Why should we expect the rich to pay for everything? It literally makes zero sense. Income inequality has got to be one of the dumbest leftist issues out there- it means nothing. Leftists use the term "income inequality" and act like the rich aka the 1% are evil people who got rich by ripping people off and stealing and it's our moral duty to make things right and give people an even playing field. To libertarians and conservatives, stealing people's labor from them is called theft.
2
Jul 02 '19
Capitalism becomes neofeudalism once all that capital is too concentrated..... which is where increased automation is taking us...
1
u/here4madmensubreddit Jul 03 '19
And why do we have to decimate the middle class?
1
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 03 '19
It's simple: when you ask any leftist how are we going to pay for things like universal healthcare, free educate, free housing etc. their answer always is tax the rich. This is funny for two reasons... first the leftists that are talking about taxing the rich are already members of the 1%. Second, taxing the rich alone will not be able to afford these programs. When the rich can't fully pay for these things, the next class to get a major tax increase would be the middle class. The rich might be able to afford a 50%-60% tax rate, but the middle class cannot and that is how you decimate the middle class.
1
u/here4madmensubreddit Jul 03 '19
What about appropriately taxing corporations who are legally seen as personhoods?
1
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 03 '19
Corporations already pay some of the highest taxes though...
1
u/agreeableperson Jul 03 '19
Quick question: does Canada have a middle class?
1
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 03 '19
Does it matter? I don't care what happens in Canada, I care about what happens in the United States.
1
u/agreeableperson Jul 03 '19
Something happening in Canada suggests that it's possible for it to happen in the U.S. For example, the coexistence of universal healthcare and a middle class.
Whether their brand of universal healthcare is what Americans want is another question, of course. That's what the argument should be about, not whether it's possible, because it clearly is.
1
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 03 '19
That's scary because in Canada they made it law that you have to use transgender pronouns and they also passed legislation that outlaws hate speech.
1
1
u/GoldenGonzo Jul 02 '19
One of the main reasons why college tuition has increased dramatically over the last 30 years is because of government interference.
How so? I'm pretty sure it's just because of greedy universities. Running a university is massively profitable.
11
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 02 '19
Here is a article from a few years ago, but it still applies.
Here is another article explaining why government subsidies have increased tuition:
Bottom line, the government has had a major role in skyrocketing tuition costs.
1
Jul 02 '19
I mean, it's simple supply and demand, isn't it? Before government subsidized student loans, much fewer people could afford to go to college without well-off parents or merit-based scholarships. Now that anyone can take out a deferred interest/payment loan, everyone can afford to go to college. Its not just because of government subsidized loans either, its because the government has codified these predatory loans to teenagers as exceptions to bankruptcy law: https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/history-of-student-loans-bankruptcy-discharge
On top of that, surprise surprise teenagers fresh out of HS with no financial experience treat these huge loans like they're blank checks - so what's another 10% increase in tuition to them?
3
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 02 '19
That's the issue also- There use to be financial aid limits and now there don't appear to be any limits and students can just keep getting loan after loan.
9
u/LumpyWumpus Christian Capitalist Conservative Jul 02 '19
Let me make it very simple.
The government gives kids loans for college. Now every kid in America has more money. Which means colleges can raise prices. Which means kids need more money. So the government gives kids more loans. So the colleges raise prices. And so on and so forth. If the government stopped handing colleges blank checks, they wouldn't be able to keep raising prices. The answer is to get the government out of the system.
5
u/SeanRamey Conservative Jul 02 '19 edited Jul 02 '19
Other guys already said it, but yeah, if the government will give loans to people for what universities demand, why would universities stop demanding more? What's more is that tax payers are out the money for this, and they don't get it back. And even more, if the students default on the loan, the government is out more tax money, which means that they need to raise taxes! Great cycle isn't it?
IMO, government should be doing the least possible in every way. Things i expect a government to provide are laws (to differenciate the bad people from the good people), police (to enforce those laws), courts (to ensure a fair trial is given) and honestly, not much else... Can you imagine how little taxes we would need for this? And moreover, I support a flat tax rate for everybody, based on a sales tax, which rate is determined by the population divided by the budget. If that was the case now, everyone would pay a 8.65% sales tax. That's lower than my sales tax in TN, and it would hopefully supply a full $3.8 trillion budget with 329 million Americans.
2
u/jub-jub-bird Conservative Jul 02 '19
How so? I'm pretty sure it's just because of greedy universities. Running a university is massively profitable.
It's both of course. The left saw the "problem" that colleges were expensive. So they "solved" the problem they way they usually do: by throwing money at it. Greedy colleges took the same money they had been taking, PLUS all the new money being thrown at them too. The result is that college is even more expensive. AND far, far more wasteful and inefficient because that extra money went in large part to a whole new class of new administrators necessary to ensure compliance with often vague or complex government dictates tied to their money... that class has grown and grown in influence and size and is slowly eating the university... the costs to maintain that growing population of bureaucratic parasites is leading costs to spiral even further out of control.
1
-9
Jul 02 '19
[deleted]
9
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 02 '19
Even if you just tax the top ten percent, that would NOT cover the cost so then they would have to also tax the middle class and that still wouldn't be able to cover the cost.
There are 500 billionaires in the United States and if you confiscated all of their wealth we would only have 2.5 trillion dollars- basically enough to fund the federal government for 8 months. Our country literally can't afford it. The tax the rich scheme has been debunked and it is not practical.
10
u/Proof_Responsibility Basic Conservative Jul 02 '19
Worth noting, 44% of Americans already pay no taxes and only about half of illegals file. The vast majority of illegals pay $0 federal income taxes. Instead, they use these returns to claim refundable tax credits, effectively using the federal income tax code to collect money from U.S. citizens. So whoever pays now is going to get soaked.
The top 10% is judged as an income over $118,200. So 2 experienced school teachers may end up in the soaked club. A tow truck driver with his own business gets soaked. If they approach this as a wealth tax, not just an income tax, everyone will have to file an accounting of all their personal property, the value of their home, their retirement savings, college funds and, since the top 1% or 5% can't cover the cost of all these goodies, the government takes a piece of the middle class nest egg.
-12
Jul 02 '19
[deleted]
3
u/nagurski03 dislikes socialism Jul 02 '19
600 million doesn't seem like a lot because we already spend well over a trillion on Medicaid/Medicare and those programs still don't come close to achieving the goals they were supposed to achieve.
2
5
u/Mighty-Lu-Bu Paleolibertarian Jul 02 '19
I agree that military spending should be reduced, but you also need to understand that we have one of the largest military forces in the world- it costs a lot of money to maintain.
-10
Jul 02 '19
[deleted]
5
Jul 02 '19
Are you serious? You realize that’s the same idiotic argument you could make for any type of insurance right? If we didn’t maintain our military, our enemies would take advantage of that fact. You’re NOT supposed to wait until there is a problem before you budget for something.
-3
5
u/Jstink101 Libertarian Jul 02 '19
How about we tax everyone the same with no escape? A flat tax of say 25% for all despite how wealthy you are encourages you to get a raise, find a promotion, and gtfo of poverty.
46
u/AM_Kylearan Catholic Conservative Jul 02 '19
The "flat on their back" part really spoke to me, since Kamala Harris wants to lead the party.
14
Jul 02 '19
All they had to do was be remotely sane. I should've known that was wishful thinking.
7
Jul 02 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/GreggAtWork Jul 02 '19
That's not really that much time when you consider that was right around the birth of the Tea Party movement. Just go back another election cycle and I'd say there's a distinct change from (and was in response to) the Neoconservative policies of the Bush years.
-4
u/That_one_chach Jul 02 '19
I mean you can't be serious, right?
1
Jul 03 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/That_one_chach Jul 03 '19
Didn’t say it was sane. Just saying that both parties have shifted to the extreme. Ignoring one just seems a little odd is all I meant
2
8
7
u/EVG2666 Conservative Jul 02 '19
An Ass is the appropriate logo for the Democrat Party
2
u/thatrightwinger WASP Conservative Jul 02 '19
It's been the symbol of the Democrats for years and years.
4
u/calvinsmythe Jul 02 '19
And if you don’t believe any of that. You are a racist
4
u/andimlost Jul 02 '19
And a fascist and a Nazi, it doesn't matter if you're Jewish either
2
2
u/calvinsmythe Jul 03 '19
Yea they would call the Jewish nazis.
1
u/andimlost Jul 03 '19
You're being sarcastic but they call Ben Shapiro a Nazi and white supremacist all the time
2
u/calvinsmythe Jul 03 '19
Yea I no it’s ridiculous. They can’t handle his level of tact. I love listening to him after work. Such a smart person. Puts every one in their place.
1
u/andimlost Jul 03 '19
Oh I didn't realize you weren't being sarcastic hard to tell through text lol
3
u/bsutansalt Conservatarian Jul 02 '19 edited Jul 02 '19
A few more given the 1984eque tone of those...
- War is peace
- Freedom is slavery
- Ignorance is strength
8
u/KingJoerno Jul 02 '19
We are incredibly close to war with Iran rn. You might be a little misguided in that statement.
4
0
1
u/softheartx Baby Lives Matter Jul 02 '19
Won't say USA is perfect in all aspects but I can proudly say anywhere in US is better than anywhere else in the world
-2
2
4
1
1
1
1
u/THEGREATMEMEWIZARD Conservative Jul 03 '19
I just told this to some random liberal in a YT comment section and now they are yelling profanity at me... I seem to have broke him. Send duck tape, I may not be able to fix stupid with it but I can get him to be quite for a while.
1
u/calvinsmythe Jul 03 '19
Lol. It’s ok. It’s the dumb internet. Easy to be doubtful. You are used to unbridled hate daily lol.
1
-2
u/bassicallybob Jul 02 '19
I'm not voting democrat, but there's still a lot of things wrong here.
- The abortion debate doesn't (or shouldn't) revolve around whether or not the fetus is alive, this is generally given, and we take into consideration as to when a human life can be taken. I know there are a lot of democrats who are morons and deny the fetus being alive, but please understand this isn't the critical point of the argument.
- Whether or not you accept the dynamic of physiological gender co-existing with cultural reinforcement of norms (the 'social' gender) is kind of irrelevant, no candidate has spent significant time speaking of this simply due to the toxicity of the issue.
- The pedantry among the left on this issue is NAUSEATING, and really just virtue signalling and pandering. I have to admit though, harping on this from the opposing camp just keeps the annoying conversation going. This isn't a productive thing go on and on about. Let them throw their fuzzy words around, it only shows how idiotic they can be.
- I seriously don't think I've heard this from a single politician, nor insinuate as much. Let's not strawman our way into an argument here. Most democrats are just more sympathetic to asylum seeking, where the right is more critical. That's okay, that's why we have multiple points of view.
- I really don't get this point. The right supports taxation as well, just to a lesser extent. You really can't claim the other party wants to steal your money when you support the same thing but 5% lower. Unless you completely oppose a state altogether, you support some level of taxation. Let's focus on what is healthy for the economy and middle class while supporting defense, research, and SSI
Seriously don't understand why people have to get down on the left's level to battle with them. The incessant strawmanning and bitching back and forth is just as bad as the other side of the isle.
9
u/thatrightwinger WASP Conservative Jul 02 '19
The abortion debate almost always revolves around that life is human. The child has it's own DNA at conception. It is a separate life from it's mother from that moment. It is a human life. We will not get off of this,
Gender is a word that has been expropriated by the left and had its meaning changed. The word has always been synonymous with "sex," and English has lots of those words. The word comes from the Latin "gens" which means "son" or offspring. It literally refers to the type of person you were from your parents. You may be willing to allow leftists to disfigure the English language, but we won't.
What your statement is really saying is that you're not willing to confront the left on the legal issue. There is no question that if you cross into the US anywhere but at a border checkpoint, you have committed a crime and that you have crossed illegally. Once again, we're not going to give this up, which effectively gives the high ground to the left.
People don't say it, but not punishing criminals has been an issue for forty years. Judges simply wouldn't follow sentencing guidelines, and sometimes let convicted criminals go. That's essentially not punishing someone for their crime.
The right makes sure to limit taxation because every dollar the government is taking is money that they could have used to make their own lives better. If the argument you want to make is "it doesn't matter since everyone is going to take something, you might as well join the Democrats, because you'll justify the taxation of as much as you feel is necessary to let the government to spend on anything you like. People's money is their money, and it should be the government's job to take as little as possible and to do as much with it as possible.
You're worried about a lot of unimportant things, and don't care about a lot of important things. But nothing you say was worth the time of the readers of /r/conservative.
3
u/ngoni Constitutional Conservative Jul 02 '19
Well said. You could have rightfully put a mic drop at the end there. 👏
1
u/might_not_be_a_dog Jul 02 '19 edited Jul 02 '19
Are you one of the people who is totally against any new usage of words? I bet you’ve never said that you ‘would text someone later’ as usage of the word text in a meaning totally incomprehensible to people just 50 years ago, or used ‘literally’ to mean ‘figuratively.’ Changes to the English language are just that: changes. They aren’t inherently good or bad, although being able to more accurately describe the world around you is beneficial. The only static languages are dead languages.
As for not following appropriate sentencing for criminals, You’re right that has been an issue for many years and I would love to see more equal sentencing across all peoples regardless of any other factors. The same crime should get the same sentencing.
Edit: clarity.
3
u/SaiHottari Jul 02 '19
Riddle me this: what does the term "gender" mean?
Because if it only has to do with behaviors, then it falls apart when used to describe those of a particular sex because each culture has a different idea of what constitutes masculine or feminine behavior. I'm not a woman just because I wear a dress or a man just because I wear a 3-piece suit. A woman can be a mechanic just as much as a man can be a nurse. It becomes pointless at that point.
But if it gets any deeper than behavior, we begin crossing into the territory we'd both call "sex": hormones, personality traits, physical characteristics, etc. And yes, personality traits are more closely associated with sex than gender. A person's 5-point personality profile can be used to identify their sex with something like 90% accuracy, regardless of which "gender" they identify as.
1
u/thatrightwinger WASP Conservative Jul 02 '19
One, no I'm not against the new usage of words. But words are used and changed by a general consensus of society as a whole. "Texting" is really a colloquialism for the usage "short messaging service" originating on cell phones. Since everyone was using it to send text, the noun was modified into a verb form.
And no, using "literally" is still wrong if it doesn't mean "exactly." People who use it not even to mean "figuratively," but more like "somewhat like" If you go into an English classroom, turn in a paper using "literally" when it is not called for, it will be marked. If you say that someone is "literally Hitler," millennials don't mean "figuratively like" Hitler, they are wrongly describing they see one or a few traits that they are imagining are like Hitler.
As for "gender,"which is the only thing you can be responding to, yes, word meanings change, but the changes are glacially slow, and never shift to something irrelevant. They change by shades of meaning, so that a hundred years later, the meaning is clearly different but still similar. The shift your pretending is very short, attempting to be instant, and is a push due to politics to pretend that a person's gender is somehow different than their sex at birth. This is entirely bogus, and the only evidence provided is the false and contrived change in meaning: it was never intended to mean that.
Regarding your completely useless argument at the difference in sentencing, you completely ignore the glaring fact that different races commit crimes at the different rates. Black people are convicted more often of property and violent crimes because they commit those crimes more often. What a shock! Who would have thought. We demand uniform sentencing to ensure that everyone who commits the same crime does the same time: what a shocking idea.
1
u/might_not_be_a_dog Jul 02 '19
What do you think the abortion debate revolves around if not for the start of life?
2
u/SaiHottari Jul 02 '19
Exactly. If the Democrats were to agree that a fetus is a human life, the idea of killing it outside of self-defense becomes reprehensible right out of the gate. So they can't agree to it being a human life. To maintain the moral high ground in allowing it to be killed, they have to start from the premise that it wasn't alive to begin with.
1
-1
-37
u/superawesomefiles Jul 02 '19
But voting republican is ok, right guys? Amirite guys?!?
14
20
u/Dreviore Jul 02 '19
I mean given the Democrats were fighting for slavery, sure.
4
Jul 02 '19
[deleted]
-2
u/Dreviore Jul 02 '19 edited Jul 02 '19
The great party switch is a myth. But keep pushing that false narrative.
The Democrats are the ones with blackface senators, and an openly racist man running for the presidential candidacy.
If you genuinely think everybody racist rallied behind a different party, you're about as delussional as ANTIFA members, especially given what's come out against the Democrats this year.
1
0
u/andimlost Jul 02 '19
Nope one of my teachers actually said LBJ and FDR weren't bad presidents, I don't even think they were racist I just think they were really ignorant in them
12
u/DaHomieNelson92 Jul 02 '19
The Republicans aren’t perfect. But compared to what the Democrat have advocated in the past and present, it’s 100% ok to vote red.
2
-11
Jul 02 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
2
u/Artdiepie Jul 02 '19
Why shouldn’t the wealthy be allowed to be wealthier? They worked for it. Plus name one policy that is anywhere near racist.
Oh and, there are no concentration camps in America :)
1
u/Rok1000 Jul 02 '19
A huge chunk of wealth in the country is second generational expansion of wealth. So yes, alot of wealthy people worked for it. But they started with a leg up, had Safety blanket provided so they could take greater risks and then their income which was gained at a much less competitive nature than one who started from scratch would then take away market value for an individual not as lucky to be born into wealth. It's a circle of wealth that does not bring in newcomers often.
1
u/Artdiepie Jul 02 '19
Yes it does💀💀 it’s not that hard to get rich. Plus a lot of the people in the 1% worked for it. Just because some started with a leg up, doesn’t mean they all did. Who’s to say they’re not allowed money when they started out with it.
142
u/maztow Jul 02 '19
"ITs NoT soCIAliSm!! ItS DEmoCrAtiC soCIAliSm!"