Quantcast
US Midterm Elections 2018- Dems take the House, GOP Keeps the Senate.

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Midterm Elections 2018- Dems take the House, GOP Keeps the Senate.

Who did you vote for?

GOP Rep and GOP Senator 20 30.77%
 
Democrat Rep and Democrat Senator 38 58.46%
 
GOP Rep and Democrat Senator 0 0.00%
 
Democrat Rep and GOP Senator 4 6.15%
 
Third Party/Other 3 4.62%
 
Total:65
Snoopy said:
Hiku said:

First point, the rich do not get taxed to death. They're still rich. And the Estate tax is not for everyone. Like I said, in 2016 only 5,200 estates in the country were qualified expensive enough to pay that tax. I'm sure you're aware of this, but rich people constantly try to look for loopholes so that they can pay less than they're supposed to. Turning their assets into estate and stock was one of those. Repealing the estate tax only benefited a small portion of the country who had estate worth that much.

Regarding leaving the country, there are several reasons for why that can be difficult for them. Economically, the US is the ONLY country which has citizenship based taxation, which means relinquishing or renouncing US citizenship if you are wealthy and want to leave with your money.
When it comes to renunciation, the US government has defined ‘wealthy' as a person who triggers either one or both of the tests set out in IRS 8854 ( https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8854.pdf ). Individuals who trigger these tests are called  ‘Covered Expatriates.  It is only Covered Expatriates who trigger a capital gains deemed disposition. This capital gains event is the same that would occur upon sale or death, with the same rules, exemptions and rates applying. It is often referred to as an ‘Exit Tax’.

Aside from the Exit Tax, rich people just like everyone else want to live where they like living. They want to be near their friends. Near their relatives. Where they grew up. In the place they like to be. Once you have a lot of money, the marginal benefit from having more diminishes.

And a community building a road is the principle behind pooling our money (taxes) together to benefit our society. But when you ignore what the majority want, and instead leave everything to the whim of individuals who may have wildly different priorities and ideas about what they want, much in our society just wouldn't function.

Second, in spite of charities there are around 40 000 people who die every year in the US because they can't afford healthcare. If people rely on charities such as the ones you are referring to, they are at the mercy of which cause those charities happen to benefit. For reference, that number is 0 in every other developed nation on the planet.
And that's just one example of how private charities are not designed to reach or identify specific problems.

What do you mean by "Pharma Bro would have been forced to lower prices or go bankrupt if the government stop interfering with health care?"
You'll have to explain that one. I just explained earlier that the US government is unable to negotiate drug prices. Which makes your own drugs cheaper to buy from Canada in some instances.

As for your great grandparents, I was referring to a time further back than that. Universal public education law was first passed in one state in 1885. Not until 1918 did all states have this law enacted. But my point was that there was a time when a general education, even at elementary level, was something for privileged rich kids. Until people stood up for themselves and said their kids deserve an education as well.

Lastly, you are right about the importance of having the majority of elected officials not be corrupt. But in order to get there, we have to support more and more representatives who make it a point not to take corporate donations or corporate PAC money, to the point where those contributions are legally defined as bribes.
While some will find loopholes, making it more and more difficult for them to be financially corrupt will weed out more and more bad players, who will pursue different venues instead like Wall Street. That way more of our elected officials are actually there to represent their constituents, rather than prioritize their wallets.
And refusing corporate and corporate PAC money is growing a lot in popularity in recent years. I think largely because of Bernie Sander's campaign in 2016. And you saw what the establishment Democrats thought of that. They didn't like that an independent was more popular than their corporate funded candidate, and rigged the primaries against him.

Until then, we look at the donation records of our elected officials, and how they voted. And we vote them out.
Speaking of which, I like the fact that Nancy Pelosi currently does not have the votes to become speaker of the house. And this is largely because of the new group of independent Democrats who just got elected. They even had a protest (about a different matter) in her office before they have even been sworn in.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr4yY9O4Sdg

It's not even Day 1 and they're already at it. I like where this is going.

1. Yes, they do get taxed a lot and they pay a lot more than any of us. It isn't even close. We shouldn't be taxing them this much. So what if they are rich? We are not entitled to their money.  Also, those "loopholes" are tax laws that are available for anyone who falls in the category. Also, seems that particular "loophole" protects them from a discriminatory tax code that hurts a specific group.  Giving money to poor people won't solve anything. If you don't know how to manage money, it won't do anything. That is why a lot of lottery winners or professional athletes who were poor before end up being poor again.

Companies should keep the money so they can invest money in the next product. If I split 10 billion dollars for example to everyone in the United States, that might pay their cell phone bill for the month. If I let a company or investor keep it, they can make the next big product which will lead to more jobs and create more income for the United States.

2. Doesn't matter if it's difficult, which it isn't since you are rich you have a lot of resources. You can always find a way to visit the United States or move your family with you. Also, there are many ways to store your money in other countries without leaving the country. I don't think I have to go to much into that.

3. With the government subsidizing or paying someone's health care completely with Medicaid, companies have no incentive to lower prices for anything health care related. Again, look at my College example, it is very similar. Companies can charge a lot more and they know they will get the money because the government will just pay it and bill us.

4. Regarding the 40,000 people who die, that is a small fraction and their fault most of the time. Hospitals will not turn away someone and again Medicaid should cover it. Also, I'm not sure the 40,000 is an accurate number.

According to this:

https://fee.org/articles/if-american-healthcare-kills-european-healthcare-kills-more/

"The question is hotly contested, and approximations range from 0 to 45,000 people per year. The latter figure is obviously what most progressives prefer to cite,"

According to Fraser Institue, Canada has a similar problem.

Increases in wait times for medically necessary care in Canada between 1993 and 2009 may have resulted in between 25,456 and 63,090 (with a middle value of 44,273) additional deaths among females.

Keep in mind that the United States population is almost 9 times bigger than Canada.

Life in 1885 was so way different, that traditional education wasn't as important for everyone. Kids still have to work to support their family and stay alive. Their work didn't call for a higher education. Around the 1920's, the nature of work was changing significantly which require higher learning. This was one of the reasons for the law. Also, you can get a higher education when you are older in 1885. America is about creating your own adventure.

The government should step away from education allow the private sector to take over. Privatized education is much better than public schools.

Lastly, we need to downsize the feder government and give power back to state and local so the last issue won't be a problem.

1. The rich got to where they are by stepping on poor people, one way or another. They both need each other. What was it, something like 12 people have more money than 50% of the earth's population? If those who earn a lot more don't also pay a lot more, society wouldn't function.
As for 'managing money', someone can be financially responsible and savvy their entire life, and still not be able to afford multiple extremely expensive heart surgeries for their new born child. I know some people like to think that poor and sick people just 'had it coming', but that's usually not the case.

I'm not talking about paying anyone's phone bills. Just the right to live. That's all.

2. And that's why all rich people don't just leave USA and move to a country with 0% taxation.

3. Neither Medicaid nor Medicare come close to covering everything. Even if you're insured, you may end up dead or bankrupt depending on what you need. And then there are the many millions who are completely uninsured. If your reasoning is that they would lower their prices to get more customers, they can definitely do that. But like @Final-Fan gave you an example of above, there are a lot of ways to make more money even if everyone can't afford your product. 

4. How are you so convinced that it's "mostly their fault"? This is not something you can just base on a gut feeling. It's life or death. Yet I often see this BS justification from people.
Canada, just like every other developed nation have wait times for elective and non-urgent procedures. If it's something urgent, you do not wait.
And even regarding non urgent procedures where people had to wait, the link you posted even states:

"Of course, not all studies of delays in cancer treatment have found an increased risk of mortality. Coates et al. (1999) identify a potential problem in trying to establish a link between wait times and mortality for cancer. Depending on the study, it may appear that a greater incidence of mortality is associated with shorter wait times. This paradox occurs because late stage cancers are treated more immediately and often, if a cancer has progressed far enough, no cure can be provided. Thus, high rates of mortality may be correlated with short waits, while lower rates of mortality may be correlated with prolonged wait times."

If you want to, you can even make it look like short wait times lead to more death, and long wait times lead to more people living, as in the quote above.
But that's obviously really true. Just like there's no inherent connection between subsidized healthcare, and worse healthcare. It doesn't matter who pays for it.
Furthermore, each country handle their healthcare differently. Their policies for organ donations may differ, for example. Which may lead to a shortage for transplants. But that again has nothing to do with how the healthcare is funded.
And some countries have a mix of private and public healthcare. And some mixed or public healthcare systems have the same, or shorter wait times than USA to see a specialist, btw.
That doesn't mean you have to have private or mixed healthcare systems to get shorter wait times.

The one major difference however is that thousands die every year (and some 'lucky' people only go bankrupt) in the US because they can't afford healthcare.
That's not a thing in any other of the 30+ developed nations on Earth. And it really shouldn't be anywhere, if you have an ounce of compassion for people who have it worse than you. But of course, if you just tell yourself "it was their fault most of the time", then there's no problem.

Last edited by Hiku - on 19 December 2018

Around the Network

Election update: One race has still not concluded, North Carolina's 9th congressional district. The state Board of Elections (4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 1 independent) has not certified the results due to allegations of election fraud. With all votes counted, Republican Mark Harris leads by about 900, but things get strange in Bladen County, where he won over 60% of absentee ballots even though only 19% were requested by Republicans. At the center of it is Leslie McCrae Dowless, a local campaign worker, who directed the alleged collection of those ballots against state law and apparently filled them out for Harris or discarded ballots for his opponent.

There's much more to it, as documented here:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-heck-is-happening-in-that-north-carolina-house-race/

And apparently the Constitution gives the House of Representatives final say on seating Harris. So, stay tuned!



After four days of hearings in the uncalled 9th District race in North Carolina, the state elections board has called for a new election after finding significant evidence of an illegal ballot harvesting scheme paid for by Mark Harris, the Republican candidate.

Harris' own son, John, an attorney, testified he had warned him early in the race to avoid McCrae Dowless, the ringleader of the operation, because of suspicious vote totals in previous races he'd worked on.

https://www.wral.com/after-harris-admissions-a-new-election-in-9th-district/18208305/

----------------------

The email produced by the attorney representing Harris' campaign showed Harris reaching out to Judge Marion Warren about procuring Dowless' help. Dowless worked for another candidate, Todd Johnson, who nearly swept Bladen County's absentee ballot totals in 2016, and Harris refers to that victory in his email.

"On the other issue of your gracious offer to meet me in Bladen County and spend a day connecting me to the 'key people' that can help me carry that part of the county in a future US House NC-9 race," Harris wrote to Warren on March 8, 2017. "You know the political and financial connections better than anyone else I would know, including the guy whose absentee ballot project for Johnson could have put me in the US House this term, had I known, and he had been helping us."

https://www.kcbx.org/post/email-shows-nc-gop-candidate-sought-out-operative-accused-illegal-ballot-scheme

 

Normally, a new race would feature the same two candidates, but the legislature changed the law last December to re-do the primaries as well. I'm glad the crooks got caught!



laughable that Harris would have no idea. Dowless has done this for several year to turn elections, and its an absolute embarrassment how Trump and the North Carolina Republicans have acted during this whole process. Calling it that Democrats are trying to steal the election, spreading misinformation.... Disgusting (and ironic). Hope Dowless spends a long time in prison, hopefully those withing Harris Campaign who also knew and did nothing also go.



     

Check out my lastest games review: Fast RMX and  Snipperclips: Cut it out Together

Final midterm update: North Carolina's special elections for the 3rd and 9th House districts came and went. In the 9th, the Democrats' 2018 candidate was back, while the GOP nominated a new fellow, who led his party to victory by 2%, improving on the 0.3% margin in the fraudulent election, but still about 10 points less than Trump's back in '16. The 3rd (and much more Republican) district held an election to replace its late GOP representative, who died back in February. The Republican won by 24 points, which was roughly Trump's margin. There's no 2018 comparison, as the Dems did not field a candidate last year.