Republicans Have No Solutions

No,no one does!!

 

Let the establishment fail so we can start anew. If the republicans accelerate the crumbling downward process, so be it.

 

Ok don’t you see the basic flaw to your thinking a clue is in the statement - how much I don't know - you seem to be supporting something you haven’t even bothered to look into – have you just been told an argument and then accepted it without question?

It’s a complex issue and many don’t think it would make much difference to medical costs

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-care-/nRpcp/

Anyway I thought you wanted something new but all you seem want is just take the old flawed healthcare system and try and reduce costs by limiting payouts to victims that the courts have deemed to have been wronged or by denying other even the chance to be heard, while leaving all the other problems in place.

Wouldn’t it be better to look at other countries with what seem like better systems, cheaper and with virtually universal cover – like the UK’s NHS?
Again your ‘solution’ seems likely to make things worse rather than better.

And who decides which lawsuits have no merit other than the court, wouldn’t you have to just replace one investigative and judicial judgement with another and be back where you started?

As to large payouts isn’t that the role of tort in a free market system? I mean Tort often seems the base on what a lot of free market ideas are built; free marketers often argue that the ability to sue for unlimited amounts should be the basis of consumer and environmental policy replacing government regulation and fines.

If someone pollutes the environment they say for example people could sue those who are involved for an unlimited amount – so the free marketeers argue this is such a deterrent that people just would not pollute.
The free market view on medical malpractice should be the same…however it seems that is until they see suing as a drain and burden on business and so want to ‘reform’ it capping the amount that can be claimed, watering down the deterrent of the market system (and you can see how in future tort in the consumer and environmental areas could go the same way to keep costs down etc)

 

It’s been explained before why such gimmicks as the Sales Tax or Flat tax would seem to end up favoring wealth.

Put simply -

In a sales tax the rich have much greater levels of disposable wealth which is left unspent whereas many people live from paycheck to paycheck. The more you have to spend the more sales tax you will have to pay. Even with the rebate system some suggest it works out in wealth’s favour.

In a flat tax those at the bottom would receive very little benefit while those at the top would receive huge benefits.

And who is pushing for such things – well the usual suspects of the wealth sponsored lobbying and propaganda system [Cato, Heritage etc].

Again a ‘solution’ that would make things worse for the majority of people.

 

Again this is just another aspect of the same old race to the bottom argument debunked before that’s pumped out by the wealth sponsored propaganda machine.

What the right wing neo-liberal /free markeers claim is that US taxes have to be low to compete with the lower taxes elsewhere – we will stay they say as long as you cut our taxes - just as they promote the idea that America workers must compete with the lowest paid people on the planet – we will stay only if we can pay you less.

A solution that is good only for a very few

But as I’ve said before why not look at it from the other way around. To repeat James K Galbriath again –

“We must confront the global inequality crisis. For this, we must, in the final analysis, raise real wages in the countries with which our workers compete, expand their markets for our goods, and reduce their pressure on our wage structure”

 

and why do we want these people to stay??

 

Yeah, that reminds me of the whole Keynsian cycle idea; the power in the government was to subsidise and spend on good business, and the power in the financial markets was to cause inflation OR higher interest rates. Nobody said anything about good or bad value yet. :dizzy2:

 

The Keynsian cycle has values explicit to the rising standard of living for a culture progressing in it's Art and Technology, There is the standard of living index, there is prime lending rate for borrowing to consumers, annual percent rise of the GDP, and the annual inflation index.

 

As I said before it’s not that the right don’t have ‘solutions’ it’s just that those supposed solutions seem likely to make bad situations worse – to me the reason for this it that many on the right seem to be driven by ideology rather than an empirical approach to the world and its problems.

Their desire for more neo-liberal/free market policies puts me in mind of the soviet leaderships attitude toward forced collectivisation, it was predicted to cause problems, it caused great hardship but they pushed on regardless because their ideology told them that was the way to ‘make things better’ so they ignored the reality of the suffering and the staving.

Many of the problems the US and others are encountering today are the result of neo-liberal/free market based policy ideas, yet they refuse to see this and instead want push on because that’s what their ideology tells them to do and to hell with reality.

See above they cling to ideas they seem incapable of defending from criticism – many must even know they cannot defend them from criticism but still they hold on to them because ideologies don’t have to be rational or fit in with the real world they just have to be believed in.

This is both sad and if they get their way dangerous.

 

Really, last I checked at least 50% of americans are for the legalization according to statistics, where did you get that most of america still opposes legalization?

 

I do not think either party has any real solutions.

 

Comfort

I prefer to talk about left and right and as I’ve said many times - to me there is no real left in the US [and one of the problems with its political system] basically the US has two right wing parties the liberal right of centre Democrats and the further right Republicans [with much further right wing elements trying to pull the system even further to the right]

Many in the Democratic Party embraced neoliberal/free market ideology years ago oh they may not be as fervent in their beliefs as many Republicans but still it means that their projects and policies are often tainted by these regularly flawed ideas.

 

Hi Balbus, seriously, in the middle east, does the left believe that the human looking at nothing for evil can do more harm than the human with something in the closet of his wasting decisions for leadership? Is evil caused by idolness, or is evil caused by not doing?


I just disagreed. The left now say: I agree, but I give you the right to disagree.

 

O.K. here goes: the leader of ISIS a good man with intentions of creating a just government; the leader of ISIL is a heroic man with foolish knowledge for communication and truth about the common listener for war conclusions; the leader of Syria is a bad man with the will to be listened to by the Koran.

 

Anaximenes

Sorry I don’t talk to algorithms (we all guess you are a Turing test attempt a very bad Turing test attempt), but if you want to put your programmer on I’d talk to them, they might make sense.

 

You people can join the flat earth society. I was good now. Bad governments are just as much in Israel.

 

I did notice that in Nashville this year the country beat was proud for the life of Nature. The music business was satisfied to remain in a more arid climate, and the republicans would believe in, ha, ha, magic.

 

This faith-based approach has always been the downfall of the Old South. Our Bible tells us to trust, not to study evidence and apply reason. Or at least it's commonly interpreted that way.

The invention of air conditioning triggered a mass migration to America's warmer regions, somehow giving us more political power without making us any smarter. The net end result has been a partial reversal of the Civil War. Secular enlightenment from the Northeast is no longer the most dominant factor in our politics.

 

[SIZE=12pt]Meagain [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]This reminds me of something I wrote after trying to work out many Americans attitudes toward guns - [/SIZE]

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.
They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.