AOC: A Society With Billionaires Cannot Be Moral

[Annie]

One risk pool versus many. It’s how countries much poorer than the U.S. provide universal healthcare.

I don’t think that government-funded health care works on risk pools. ISTM that it would be totally different.

And I don’t think that’s how other nations provide health care for their citizens at a much lower per capita rate.

In fact, one of things I was extremely disappointed with in the ACA was that they did not first investigate the reasons for the very high cost of medical care in the US, and before we go any further in tweaking or overhauling our health care–payment system, I hope they do search for those reasons and tailor the changes to address those issues.

 

[JonNC]

I would expect so, most people alive 90 years ago are dead.

And today’s 1% is different from 5 years ago.

It is condemning the love of other people’s money displayed by the ultra-wealthy who leech off their workers.

Leech off their workers? I think it is called employment. I don’t see anyone walking away from being the wealthiest people in the history of the world.

We wouldn’t be having this conversation if wages had kept pace with worker productivity, but they haven’t for over 40 years so we have to revert taxes to what they were earlier in the century to correct that disparity.

Sure we would. Socialists want this conversation all of the time. They had this conversation all through the last century. They are having this conversation in Venezuela, in Norh Korea. Wherever the greed of confiscatory and punitive taxation and oppressive government control of the market exists, people suffer.

One risk pool versus many. It’s how countries much poorer than the U.S. provide universal healthcare.

Larger risk pools formed voluntarily by free citizens would work better. Government dictated healthcare is paid for by queuing and rationing. Freedom always works better.

Which is how I got to “$200 billion a year.”

Show me where Medicare, in constant dollars, is anywhere near original estimates.
The $32trillion figure is Imaginary. It would be far higher.

 

[OneSheep]

For the record, what you quoted me as saying there came from a different poster.

 

[OneSheep]

Again, source. You’ve provided no evidence that elected officials have changed their votes in response to a campaign donation.

My source: My local congressman. Private conversation, but rendered true in the media. Look for it, its there. I already posted a few articles to read.

I’m a part of a special interest. I’m a voter.

Explain how overturning net neutrality helps voters. Explain how a foreign nation being able to donate millions to help their nation (and get millions in aid) helps voters. Explain how corporations being able to hide profits overseas helps voters. Explain how hundreds of millions building military eqmt we don’t need helps voters. Those actions don’t help the vast majority of voters, but the lobbyists have paid millions into campaign funds to make sure that they happen.

This is your proof that Israel controls our government?

You want more evidence? Israel cluster-bombs Lebanon, and the entire world condemns the action. Meanwhile, our congress overwhelmingly passes a referendum supporting Israel’s behavior.

Flooding South Lebanon

In this 131-page report, Human Rights Watch found that Israel violated international humanitarian law in its indiscriminate and disproportionate cluster munition attacks on Lebanon. The report provides the most comprehensive and detailed account yet of the nature and impact of Israel’s use of...

www.hrw.org

How about the fact that the UN has condemned Israel’s actions dozens of times, and the only dissenting vote has been the US? It’s something like 50 times now. And the special interests made an enormous issue when the Obama’s admin rep to the UN abstained from voting on one referendum that he couldn’t stomach voting “no” on.

Special interest run our government, and special interests with a lot of very wealthy people trump everyone else.

Welcome to the US.

 

[OneSheep]

Here’s an interesting article.

What makes it interesting to me is–aside from informing us that Medicaid for all would cost 4 or 5 times the military expwnditures-- that it outlines how Democrat nominee wanna-bees are offering free stuff to potential voters.

The federal budget does not currently include what voters pay in their workplaces and from their pocketbooks for health care. If that was taken into consideration, and the profit for insurance co. shareholders was eliminated, then the net effect is a savings for taxpayers; that is what I have read.

The health care industry is bloated with profit-takers getting their cut.

You are criticizing those who give money to politicians, but what do you think of politicians who offer money to voters? Especially when the money they are offering is not theirs but yours?

As I described above, if there is a net gain for the voters, I’m all for it! The ACA was written by insurance companies, so it needs a major overhaul.

Many proposals by candidates who want to make our deficit even worse than what it is now by spending more, without the means, are being ridiculous. Our military budget can stand a huge reduction, and if that is what it takes to balance the budget, let’s do that. If we can actually afford to do more for the environment or some other important issue, great, but IMO it better be with a balanced budget.

And yes, balancing the budget may involve ending loopholes for the very wealthy and having them pay high percentages on capital gains or whatever. They have benefited from the system, now it is time for them to give back.

 

[JonNC]

My source: My local congressman. Private conversation, but rendered true in the media. Look for it, its there. I already posted a few articles to read.

You’ve posted nothing that shows any politician has changed his position or vote in response to an otherwise legal campaign contribution.

Explain how overturning net neutrality helps voters. Explain how a foreign nation being able to donate millions to help their nation (and get millions in aid) helps voters.

Explain how these are illegal. If any group should favor government control of internet content, one would think it would be conservatives, since social media and tech in general is working full time to limit conservative speech.
I believe in free speech, not government control of speech.

Explain how corporations being able to hide profits overseas helps voters.

Are there any laws being broken? I expect the corporations represented in my IRA and 401k to protect my investment by every legal means possible. That’s how it benefits taxpayers.
Adopt a corporate tax code that isn’t punitive and confiscatory, and lower than our foreign trade partners, and people will protect their money here.

Explain how hundreds of millions building military eqmt we don’t need helps voters.

Check the constitution. Appropriations start in the House of Representatives. Defense spending is an enumerated power. Do I think we spend too much on defense? Yes.

Those actions don’t help the vast majority of voters, but the lobbyists have paid millions into campaign funds to make sure that they happen.

Some of them help me. But unless you have evidence that a representative has changed his vote in return for cash, you’ve just got accusations.

You want more evidence? Israel cluster-bombs Lebanon, and the entire world condemns the action. Meanwhile, our congress overwhelmingly passes a referendum supporting Israel’s behavior.

Gave you ever heard of Hezbollah, a client group for Obama’s friends in Iran?

 

[OneSheep]

I believe in free speech, not government control of speech.

Overturning net neutrality is the opposite of free speech. It’s “he who has the most money is given the most voice”.

Are there any laws being broken?

Of course not. The laws were written for corporations and wealthy individuals who want their profits hidden overseas, away from US taxation.

Check the constitution. Appropriations start in the House of Representatives. Defense spending is an enumerated power. Do I think we spend too much on defense? Yes

Of course it is in their power, and the military industry lobby makes sure that congress continues to have us buy very expensive military equipment. Since the military industry cannot “advertise”, their whole “advertising” budget goes to lobbyists and political campaigns.

Some of them help me.

Really? Which ones of the ones I mentioned?

You’ve posted nothing that shows any politician has changed his position or vote in response to an otherwise legal campaign contribution.

Here, take a look at this website:

OpenSecrets

www.opensecrets.org

You can learn all about lobbyists becoming politicians, politicians becoming high-paid lobbyists, etc.

If you think that all these donations are not because they are getting something in return, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[JonNC]

Overturning net neutrality is the opposite of free speech. It’s “he who has the most money is given the most voice”.

And right now, the most money is with extremist progressives at Google, FB, etc. Net Neutrality was government control of speech.

Of course not. The laws were written for corporations and wealthy individuals who want their profits hidden overseas, away from US taxation.

Then elect people who will change the laws.

Of course it is in their power, and the military industry lobby makes sure that congress continues to have us buy very expensive military equipment. Since the military industry cannot “advertise”, their whole “advertising” budget goes to lobbyists and political campaigns.

Why can’t Lockheed advertise? That’s news to me. And lobbying is a protected right under the constitution. I’m still not sure what the problem is.

If you think that all these donations are not because they are getting something in return, I have a bridge to sell you.

One more time. Do you have evidence of a particular elected official who has changed a position or vote in return for a campaign contribution? If not, hen you are making mere accusations.
And again, if you want to reduce influence, reduce government power.

 

[OneSheep]

Net Neutrality was government control of speech.

It was government prohibiting net-controlling corporations from having people pay to speak, depending on how much money they pay to those corporations.

Then elect people who will change the laws.

Will do!

Why can’t Lockheed advertise? That’s news to me. And lobbying is a protected right under the constitution. I’m still not sure what the problem is.

Oh, you think the public can buy a military jet? Or any foreign nation who will buy one?

The problem is that the special interest hold far too much power, they run the nation.

Do you have evidence of a particular elected official who has changed a position or vote

Like I repeated many times, “change” is not the point. The point is that the candidates are already purchased by corporations and special interests before they enter office.

And again, if you want to reduce influence, reduce government power.

It won’t reduce influence. How would reducing government in itself limit the influence of special interests on government? I don’t see the mechanism.

Politcal campaigns will continue to be bought by special interests unless there is major campaign finance reform. “Dark money” will continue to compromise the system until campaigns are put under more control and everything is in the open.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m still not sure what the problem is.

This might help:

How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy

Business didn't always have so much power in Washington.

www.theatlantic.com

What makes today so very different from the 1970s is that corporations now have the resources to play offense and defense simultaneously on almost any top-priority issue. When I surveyed corporate lobbyists on the reasons why their companies maintained a Washington office, the top reason was “to protect the company against changes in government policy.” On a one-to-seven scale, lobbyists ranked this reason at 6.2 (on average). But closely behind, at 5.7, was “Need to improve ability to compete by seeking favorable changes in government policy.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

They have benefited from the system, now it is time for them to give back.

Where is that in our Constitution?

 

[qui_est_ce]

JonNC:

I’m still not sure what the problem is.

This might help:

How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy - The Atlantic

What makes today so very different from the 1970s is that corporations now have the resources to play offense and defense simultaneously on almost any top-priority issue. When I surveyed corporate lobbyists on the reasons why their companies maintained a Washington office, the top reason was “to protect the company against changes in government policy.” On a one-to-seven scale, lobbyists ranked this reason at 6.2 (on average). But closely behind, at 5.7, was “Need to improve ability to compete by seeking favorable changes in government policy.”

And yet you want to give government more power and money.

 

[GKMotley]

Why can’t Lockheed advertise? That’s news to me. And lobbying is a protected right under the constitution. I’m still not sure what the problem is.

And I assure you that Lockheed Martin and any other supplier/contractor/wannabee advertise as they want.

 

[OneSheep]

And yet you want to give government more power and money.

Actually, that is not the case. What I would like to see is a shift in priorities.

Where is that in our Constitution?

Speaking of the Constitution, it was implemented in part in the spirit of the premise that too much power in the hands of very few people corrupts the entire system. For example, Thomas Jefferson opposed the idea of a central bank for that very reason. The more concentrated wealth is, the less viable a democracy.

AOC appears to be bringing us back to that line of thought, back to bringing more power to common people. Yes, she is idealistic and needs to take a bit more balanced approach, and I’d like to see her voice the objective of balancing the budget and reducing debt, of which the interest is a huge part of our budget.

 

[JonNC]

It was government prohibiting net-controlling corporations from having people pay to speak, depending on how much money they pay to those corporations.

Of FB is providing a service, the have s right to charge for it.

Oh, you think the public can buy a military jet? Or any foreign nation who will buy one?

The problem is that the special interest hold far too much power, they run the nation.

Which special interest?

Like I repeated many times, “change” is not the point. The point is that the candidates are already purchased by corporations and special interests before they enter office.

Change is precisely the point.
It is in fact the other way around. Corporations are, in many ways , beholden to government. Government has the power. “Do what we pl(politicians) say, or we will punish you. “

It won’t reduce influence. How would reducing government in itself limit the influence of special interests on government? I don’t see the mechanism

Of government lacks the power to either influence the market or impose regulations, who cared what government does?

Politcal campaigns will continue to be bought by special interests

Which special interest?

unless there is major campaign finance reform. “Dark money” will continue to compromise the system until campaigns are put under more control and everything is in the open.

Here is some campaign reform: every dime a candidate receives must be posted in the amount and by whom
Done.

 

[OneSheep]

Of FB is providing a service, the have s right to charge for it.

I’m not sure net neutrality ever applied to FB

Which special interest?

sorry, left out the “s”. special interests

It is in fact the other way around. Corporations are, in many ways , beholden to government. Government has the power. “Do what we pl(politicians) say, or we will punish you. “

I provided you with plenty of articles giving evidence the direction I presented. Do you have evidence of what you are saying?

Of government lacks the power to either influence the market or impose regulations, who cared what government does?

We all care what government does, that is a theme in this thread. Government regulations and their implementation very necessary, and most of the time they are implemented. Are you thinking of a specific time when they are not?

Which special interests?

Check the opensecrets website, and add AIPAC to the list also.

Here is some campaign reform: every dime a candidate receives must be posted in the amount and by whom
Done

That’s a good start, as long as the dimes going through super-PACs are also traceable. However, the whole system needs more limits.

 

[qui_est_ce]

qui_est_ce:> And yet you want to give government more power and money.

Actually, that is not the case. What I would like to see is a shift in priorities.

After accusing those in government of being bought by lobbyists and foreign governments, you trust them to make the right priorities. Why not just limit government to the powers enumerated in the Constitution?

 

[JimG]

Speaking of billions, I see that Google’s parent company Alphabet had 4th quarter 2018 income of $8.9 billion, on revenue $39.2 billion. Many people like to work for Google.

 

[JonNC]

Speaking of the Constitution, it was implemented in part in the spirit of the premise that too much power in the hands of very few people corrupts the entire system. For example, Thomas Jefferson opposed the idea of a central bank for that very reason. The more concentrated wealth is, the less viable a democracy.

Jefferson opposed democracy. But otherwise, you are correct. There is too much power in Washington. Re/disperse that power back to the states where it belongs and things will be far better.

AOC appears to be bringing us back to that line of thought, back to bringing more power to common people. Yes, she is idealistic and needs to take a bit more balanced approach, and I’d like to see her voice the objective of balancing the budget and reducing debt, of which the interest is a huge part of our budget.

She is a socialist. By definition, she removes rights from individuals and replaces it with government power. Socialism does not bring power back to any people but the ruling class.

Want to balance the budget? Reduce spending.

 

[ProVobis]

Want to balance the budget? Reduce spending

From an accounting standpoint, the budget is balanced though borrowing or by shifting funds. Good luck with reduction of spending, especially with the interest on the $22 trillion of debt.