ADVERTISEMENT

One Last Political Comparison Before Memorial Day Weekend

Howard,
Thank you for that excellent reference. The article tells it all, but unfortunately most Liberals
Will never read it, and, with few exceptions, even if they did, their minds will remain closed.
 
The real from the fictional. Trump compared to Obama and the American media.

Sometimes you don't know if you should be laughing or crying. Victor Hanson is one of the best writers we have. Find a liberal and read it to them slowly - very slowly.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447864/trump-critics-left-right-want-him-removed


One being a terrible Prez (OB) does not mean the other is automatically good.
Let's not pre judge DT to be good or great till he proves good or great!
So far he has struggled badly. And he has failed to really take advantage of the wrak Liberal position or to attempt to unify.
This country has a massive divide.
 
One being a terrible Prez (OB) does not mean the other is automatically good.
Let's not pre judge DT to be good or great till he proves good or great!
So far he has struggled badly. And he has failed to really take advantage of the wrak Liberal position or to attempt to unify.
This country has a massive divide.
Speaking of terrible.... how's that Obamacare working out for you?
Meanwhile, as if a 100% average increase isn't bad enough, residents of many states incurred even more devastating increases of over 200%.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Bodizephax and rgc7
Here's the legacy of last tard:
Per the chart below from the Department of Health and Human Services, the average individual purchaser of health insurance across the United States saw their premiums increase from $232 per month in 2013 to $476 per month in 2017, a 'modest' increase of over 100% in just a few years. To put that into perspective, that's nearly $3,000 per year and roughly 9% of what the median American earns each year.







And while many will try to blame the Trump administration for the 2017 increases, recall that 2017 rates were set in the summer of 2016, a time when most viewed Trump as a long-shot for the White House.
 
While the media can't get enough of Trump/Russia This was just reported:


The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.

More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.

The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm. Trump was elected less than two weeks later.

The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.

The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans.


Circa has reported that there was a three-fold increase in NSA data searches about Americans and a rise in the unmasking of U.S. person’s identities in intelligence reports after Obama loosened the privacy rules in 2011.

Officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice have argued their activities were legal under the so-called minimization rule changes Obama made, and that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored to avoid abuses.

The intelligence court and the NSA’s own internal watchdog found that not to be true.

“Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collections under Section 702,” the unsealed court ruling declared. “The Oct. 26, 2016 notice informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries inviolation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”


Speaking Wednesday on Fox News, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said there was an apparent effort under the Obama Administration to increase the number of unmaskings of Americans.

"If we determine this to be true, this is an enormous abuse of power," Paul said. “This will dwarf all other stories.”

“There are hundreds and hundreds of people,” Paul added.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard American’s privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.
 
One being a terrible Prez (OB) does not mean the other is automatically good.
Let's not pre judge DT to be good or great till he proves good or great!
So far he has struggled badly. And he has failed to really take advantage of the wrak Liberal position or to attempt to unify.
This country has a massive divide.


The Grand Canyon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgc7
Lol at the idea that healthcare premiums won't rise in a country trying to insure a significant portion of previously uninsured people. It's no Democratic or Republican government's fault. If you want socialist healthcare that is high quality and makes sure everyone is covered, it's EXPENSIVE, it requires people to be a little tougher and not run to the hospital everytime they have a hangnail and it requires substantial taxation to implement... It's a particularly bad idea in a country that believes so fundamentally in free markets that they won't put reasonable caps on what drugs companies and HMO'S can charge.

I can't belive that there are Americans out there that want high quality, socialist medicine, without taking any of the proven, essential steps to implementing it. That's why your rates are on the rise... Obama implementation was friggen horrific. You guys brought doctors and policy experts from Canada, Norway, Germany, etc, etc to the USA to pick their brains on the implementation of universal healthcare and you fully ignored everything they told you about successful implementation.
 
Lol at the idea that healthcare premiums won't rise in a country trying to insure a significant portion of previously uninsured people. It's no Democratic or Republican government's fault. If you want socialist healthcare that is high quality and makes sure everyone is covered, it's EXPENSIVE, it requires people to be a little tougher and not run to the hospital everytime they have a hangnail and it requires substantial taxation to implement... It's a particularly bad idea in a country that believes so fundamentally in free markets that they won't put reasonable caps on what drugs companies and HMO'S can charge.

I can't belive that there are Americans out there that want high quality, socialist medicine, without taking any of the proven, essential steps to implementing it. That's why your rates are on the rise... Obama implementation was friggen horrific. You guys brought doctors and policy experts from Canada, Norway, Germany, etc, etc to the USA to pick their brains on the implementation of universal healthcare and you fully ignored everything they told you about successful implementation.

IIO I understand what you are saying. But politics is the art of the possible. Democrats wanted a much more robust health care plan (that retained private insurers) along the lines of Switzerland or Singapore, but couldn't get anything better through a Congress in which not a single member of the GOP would vote for something supported by Obama, whom they had vowed to make a one-term president. This was the case, even though essentially the same plan as Obamacare had its genesis in conservative circles, and was successfully implemented by a Republican governor in Massachusetts, who ironically became the GOP nominee in 2012.
 
IIO I understand what you are saying. But politics is the art of the possible. Democrats wanted a much more robust health care plan (that retained private insurers) along the lines of Switzerland or Singapore, but couldn't get anything better through a Congress in which not a single member of the GOP would vote for something supported by Obama, whom they had vowed to make a one-term president. This was the case, even though essentially the same plan as Obamacare had its genesis in conservative circles, and was successfully implemented by a Republican governor in Massachusetts, who ironically became the GOP nominee in 2012.

You're making my point to for me Hayaka. You either all want it, and are willing to make the sacrifices towards implementing it properly, or you don't want it and it won't work. If the right isn't interested in it as much as the left is, guess what? It fails... the implementation of socialist policies require the entire nation to be on board and working in the same direction... I fully understand that you are a Republic that is deeply divided on key issues. That isn't for one sec9nd lost upon me. But programs like Universal Healthcare are tricky to implement in the healthiest of countries (which the United States is not), who are United in their cause of making it work. In my opinion it has no chance of working in a country in which 30, 40 or maybe as many at 50% of the people don't want it.
 




Margaret Thatcher once said that the problem with socialism “is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”. As you will see below, the combined enrollment in America’s four largest safety net programs has reached a staggering 236 million. Of course that doesn’t mean that 236 million people are getting benefits from the government each month because there is overlap between the various programs. For example, many Americans that are on Medicaid are also on food stamps, and many Americans that are on Medicare are also on Social Security. But even accounting for that, most experts estimate that the number of Americans that are dependent on the federal government month after month is well over 100 million. And now that so many people are addicted to government handouts, can we ever return to a culture of independence and self-sufficiency?
 
You're making my point to for me Hayaka. You either all want it, and are willing to make the sacrifices towards implementing it properly, or you don't want it and it won't work. If the right isn't interested in it as much as the left is, guess what? It fails... the implementation of socialist policies require the entire nation to be on board and working in the same direction... I fully understand that you are a Republic that is deeply divided on key issues. That isn't for one sec9nd lost upon me. But programs like Universal Healthcare are tricky to implement in the healthiest of countries (which the United States is not), who are United in their cause of making it work. In my opinion it has no chance of working in a country in which 30, 40 or maybe as many at 50% of the people don't want it.

I'm not so sure that is true, IIO. The right was dead set against social security in the 1930s, but Roosevelt had the votes and it passed. Now it is overwhelmingly popular. The right was dead set against the establishment of Medicare in the 1960s, but Johnson had the votes and it passed. Now it is overwhelmingly popular.

The odd thing about Obamacare is that it really should have been the conservative alternative to universal healthcare (single payer), but because it was Obama's plan it didn't have a chance with the GOP.

I don't think the country is ready for single payer, and the insurance lobby at this time is too powerful in any case. But Obamacare can be fixed, by increasing the penalty for not buying health insurance to the point that it makes economic sense for a young healthy person to make the purchase. That would increase the pool to hopefully make the system solvent (actually it already is in many states, mostly blue states). But unless Trump sees the light, that can't happen until 2021 at the earliest.

I don't know what the GOP is going to with health care until then, and I don't think they know either.
 




Margaret Thatcher once said that the problem with socialism “is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”. As you will see below, the combined enrollment in America’s four largest safety net programs has reached a staggering 236 million. Of course that doesn’t mean that 236 million people are getting benefits from the government each month because there is overlap between the various programs. For example, many Americans that are on Medicaid are also on food stamps, and many Americans that are on Medicare are also on Social Security. But even accounting for that, most experts estimate that the number of Americans that are dependent on the federal government month after month is well over 100 million. And now that so many people are addicted to government handouts, can we ever return to a culture of independence and self-sufficiency?

No, you run out of money for strong social systems when you have a country of taxpayers who don't want to pay the cost for those social systems to exist. Mrs. Thatcher's theory has been proven wrong by responsible Government's and responsible taxpayers around the world.

Meanwhile, Trump was in Brussels today lecturing the rest of the NATO leaders that they need to spend more on their militaries, so the poor US of A can save taxpayers money. Kick ****ing rocks Donald. Don't blame the rest of the free world because your country chooses to employ your nation based on a military complex, and sees the need to have a more powerful military than the rest of the world combined. That is your choice... And a huge reason why you can't pay for anything.

If the United States cut it's military budget by 20% and put hard caps on drugs prices, prices charged by HMO's and doctor's fees, and taxpayers were willing to take a sizeable tax hike, everyone in the United States would have fantastic, affordable, healthcare... Although there were be a substantial pool of people laid off and the defensive contractors that are some of the most influential people in the US would be none to pleased, nor would their good buddies the Drug Company owners...

I laughed at the one guy in the room telling everyone else that they are the problem... It's no wonder that when they broke off into groups after the formal part of the event that nobody would even talk to him.

Facepalm.
 
BGI,
I agree with you for the most part except on Social Security. Social Security was a Retirement Program
That all Working Americans were FORCED to pay into.
FDR and His actuaries figured out that most people would die before the age to receive benefits ( as was the case in the 1930's) and therefore, never collect their Social Secrity. He also promised that the Social Security money collected
Would be put into a " Lock Box " and not be used for anything else except " Social Security Pensions"
Of course thanks to better health care , people are living a lot longer than FDR's actuaries calculated,
So people now argue that , SS beneficiaries are taking out a lot more money than they put in. Not True !
A lot more INFLATED dollars, yes, but we paid into the system With dollars that were backed by GOLD, not with the fiat money that we now receive.
I think that Any older SS beneficiary would gladly take out just the amount of money with interest compounded annually and then adjusted for inflation in one lump sum.
However, the SS beneficiaries were "screwed " just like the Government screws all hard working
Tax paying Americans. Our government ( mostly Liberals, but also Conservative ) broke the lock box,
Stole the money and put that money into General Funds, and took us off the gold standard. They stole the money !
In short, Social Security in not a Welfare Program. It is a pension that people were forced to pay into.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bodizephax
No, you run out of money for strong social systems when you have a country of taxpayers who don't want to pay the cost for those social systems to exist.
Don't blame the rest of the free world because your country chooses to employ your nation based on a military complex, and sees the need to have a more powerful military than the rest of the world combined. That is your choice... And a huge reason why you can't pay for anything.

If the United States cut it's military budget by 20% and put hard caps on drugs prices, prices charged by HMO's and doctor's fees, and taxpayers were willing to take a sizeable tax hike, everyone in the United States would have fantastic, affordable, healthcare... Although there were be a substantial pool of people laid off and the defensive contractors that are some of the most influential people in the US would be none to pleased, nor would their good buddies the Drug Company owners...

I laughed at the one guy in the room telling everyone else that they are the problem... It's no wonder that when they broke off into groups after the formal part of the event that nobody would even talk to him.

Facepalm.


Exactly!
 
somewhere along the way we all developed a Messianic loyalty to our party and until we get away from that we won't have anything close to cooperation.

This allows our leaders to lie, spin, and scapegoat to a blindly loyal audience. We are in fact more loyal to our political affiliations than anything involving our families or careers
 
somewhere along the way we all developed a Messianic loyalty to our party and until we get away from that we won't have anything close to cooperation.

This allows our leaders to lie, spin, and scapegoat to a blindly loyal audience. We are in fact more loyal to our political affiliations than anything involving our families or careers

Amen Wicker.

I've been saying that for years on this board. People are probably sick of me saying it and I don't blame them.... That said, the borderline cultist connection to the right or the left in the United States, rather than ton the best ideas, regardless of who comes up with them, has always perplexed me.
 
Last edited:
No, you run out of money for strong social systems when you have a country of taxpayers who don't want to pay the cost for those social systems to exist. Mrs. Thatcher's theory has been proven wrong by responsible Government's and responsible taxpayers around the world.

Meanwhile, Trump was in Brussels today lecturing the rest of the NATO leaders that they need to spend more on their militaries, so the poor US of A can save taxpayers money. Kick ****ing rocks Donald. Don't blame the rest of the free world because your country chooses to employ your nation based on a military complex, and sees the need to have a more powerful military than the rest of the world combined. That is your choice... And a huge reason why you can't pay for anything.

If the United States cut it's military budget by 20% and put hard caps on drugs prices, prices charged by HMO's and doctor's fees, and taxpayers were willing to take a sizeable tax hike, everyone in the United States would have fantastic, affordable, healthcare... Although there were be a substantial pool of people laid off and the defensive contractors that are some of the most influential people in the US would be none to pleased, nor would their good buddies the Drug Company owners...

I laughed at the one guy in the room telling everyone else that they are the problem... It's no wonder that when they broke off into groups after the formal part of the event that nobody would even talk to him.

Facepalm.
So Canadian Debt/GDP at over 90% is an example of a country of willing tax payers ? Sounds like they need to raise your bill.
 
BGI,
I agree with you for the most part except on Social Security. Social Security was a Retirement Program
That all Working Americans were FORCED to pay into.
FDR and His actuaries figured out that most people would die before the age to receive benefits ( as was the case in the 1930's) and therefore, never collect their Social Secrity. He also promised that the Social Security money collected
Would be put into a " Lock Box " and not be used for anything else except " Social Security Pensions"
Of course thanks to better health care , people are living a lot longer than FDR's actuaries calculated,
So people now argue that , SS beneficiaries are taking out a lot more money than they put in. Not True !
A lot more INFLATED dollars, yes, but we paid into the system With dollars that were backed by GOLD, not with the fiat money that we now receive.
I think that Any older SS beneficiary would gladly take out just the amount of money with interest compounded annually and then adjusted for inflation in one lump sum.
However, the SS beneficiaries were "screwed " just like the Government screws all hard working
Tax paying Americans. Our government ( mostly Liberals, but also Conservative ) broke the lock box,
Stole the money and put that money into General Funds, and took us off the gold standard. They stole the money !
In short, Social Security in not a Welfare Program. It is a pension that people were forced to pay into.

Amen brother! Unfortunately the maths clearly point that the current trajectory is not sustainable without major budget/tax reforms and enforcement of anti trust laws against the medical monopolies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgc7 and Bodizephax
So Canadian Debt/GDP at over 90% is an example of a country of willing tax payers ? Sounds like they need to raise your bill.

Canada's Current Federal Debt: 1.2 Trillion
Canada's Current GDP: 1.55 Trillion
Canadians Who Die Each Year Without Healthcare Coverage: 0

Note: Canada operates around an average of 66% Debt/GDP. The only reason it has risen to around 90% in the short term has been Canada's planned, massive ongoing overhaul of it's airforce, coupled with a federally funded plan to completely overhaul and rebuild elementary and high schools, coast-to-coast and. It is fully expected to return to normal soon. Note that until 2015, when those two federal projects began, Canada was operating at 66.6% GDP/Debt. I would be shocked if it doesn't return to that neighbourhood. Maybe 70% at the most.

America's Current Federal Debt: 19.0 Trillion
America's Current GDP: 18 Trillion
Americans Who Die Each Year Without Healthcare Coverage: 45,000

Note: America's debt is expected to reach in the neighbourhood of 20.4 trillion by year's end, without any signs of it getting back under control anytime soon.

Just putting your numbers into context. A temporary spike in the Canadian GDP / Debt ratio was both expected and done with a plan to return to normal.
 
Last edited:
Canada's Current Federal Debt: 1.2 Trillion
Canada's Current GDP: 1.55 Trillion
Canadians Who Die Each Year Without Healthcare Coverage: 0

Note: Canada operates around an average of 66% Debt/GDP. The only reason it has risen to around 90% in the short term has been Canada's planned, massive ongoing overhaul of it's airforce, coupled with a federally funded plan to completely overhaul and rebuild elementary and high schools, coast-to-coast and. It is fully expected to return to normal soon. Note that until 2015, when those two federal projects began, Canada was operating at 66.6% GDP/Debt. I would be shocked if it doesn't return to that neighbourhood. Maybe 70% at the most.

America's Current Federal Debt: 19.0 Trillion
America's Current GDP: 18 Trillion
Americans Who Die Each Year Without Healthcare Coverage: 45,000

Note: America's debt is expected to reach in the neighbourhood of 20.4 trillion by year's end, without any signs of it getting back under control anytime soon.

Just putting your numbers into context. A temporary spike in the Canadian GDP / Debt ratio was both expected and done with a plan to return to normal.

It turns out that the state of half of US finances, deplorable as it may be is positively shining, not to mention "twice as good", when compared to the country's neighbor to the north, where a recent Ipsos survey on behalf of accounting firm MNP, found that more than half of Canadians are living within $200 per month of not being able to pay all their bills or meet their debt obligations. Needless to say, if $500 in savings is bad, half that amount is outright bizarre.



“With such a small amount of wiggle room, any kind of unanticipated hardship, such as a job loss or even a car repair, could send an already struggling family into financial despair,” Canada's Global News quoted Grant Bazian, president of MNP’s personal insolvency practice, which is one of the largest in Canada. He also revealed that for 10 per cent of Canadians, the margin of error when it comes to household finances is even thinner, at $100 or less.
It gets worse as those with anything at all left at the end of the month were in better shape than many: A whopping 31% of respondents said they already don’t make enough to meet all their financial obligations.

The poll also found that while debt is causing Canadians a fair bit of stress, few appear to be overly worried or on track to buff up their monthly financial cushion. Two-thirds of survey takers said they are “less than very confident” about their ability to create an emergency fund.

And then this hair-raising finding from the survey: "Roughly 60 per cent said they don’t have a firm grasp of how interest rates affect debt repayments." According to Bazian, the statistic helps explain why many indebted Canadians end up taking on more debt and high-cost loans. “That’s how so many end up in an endless cycle of debt,” he noted. It also explains charts such as this one, showing the harrowing difference surge in Canadian household debt, which has grown by 60% since the start of the century.



According to Global News, the concerning data also raises the question of whether Canadians understand the implications of an interest rate hike by the Bank of Canada. A decision by the BoC to start lifting its key policy rate from historic lows would raise the cost of carrying debt across the country; should rates raise enough Barclays will have to change its caption in the chart above. A one percentage point rise in the BoC’s key interest rate would likely push up variable mortgage rates by a similar amount. A variable mortgage rate that’s currently set at 3 per cent, for example, would go up to 4 per cent, which represents a 33 per cent increase in interest payments for the mortgage holder. That’s an extra $83 a month for every $100,000 in outstanding mortgage debt.

According to a new survey from Manulife Bank, nearly 75% of Canadian homeowners would have difficulty paying their mortgage every month if their payments increased by as little as 10%. And, given that the average house in Canada costs roughly $200,000 and carries a monthly mortgage payment of $1,000, that means that most Canadians couldn't incur and $100 hike in their monthly mortgage payments without possibly going under. Per CBC:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bodizephax
Canada's Current Federal Debt: 1.2 Trillion
Canada's Current GDP: 1.55 Trillion
Canadians Who Die Each Year Without Healthcare Coverage: 0

Note: Canada operates around an average of 66% Debt/GDP. The only reason it has risen to around 90% in the short term has been Canada's planned, massive ongoing overhaul of it's airforce, coupled with a federally funded plan to completely overhaul and rebuild elementary and high schools, coast-to-coast and. It is fully expected to return to normal soon. Note that until 2015, when those two federal projects began, Canada was operating at 66.6% GDP/Debt. I would be shocked if it doesn't return to that neighbourhood. Maybe 70% at the most.

America's Current Federal Debt: 19.0 Trillion
America's Current GDP: 18 Trillion
Americans Who Die Each Year Without Healthcare Coverage: 45,000

Note: America's debt is expected to reach in the neighbourhood of 20.4 trillion by year's end, without any signs of it getting back under control anytime soon.

Just putting your numbers into context. A temporary spike in the Canadian GDP / Debt ratio was both expected and done with a plan to return to normal.

I'm curious...did you support your comrades or even get a tax refund?
This is in addition to your share of Federal Debt.

Christmas is a time for giving and that is what Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is asking of her citizenry. With almost $300 billion in debt, and almost 1 in 10 dollars of revenue going to pay interest, and already facing the highest tax rates in North America, The Star reports that Ontario officials are asking that 'patriots' voluntarily donate their tax refund or write a cheque to defray the province's massive debtload.

Nearly one in every ten dollars spent by the Ontario government goes towards paying interest on the provincial debt.



Ontario’s provincial government owes approximately $300 billion. That is $300,000,000,000 — with 11 zeros.

And so the government constantly looks for ways to get its hands on more cash.

Perhaps most surprisingly, the government’s plea for donations has not gone unanswered.
Ontario collected $135,289 in voluntary tax return donations last year. Around 36,000 people chose to donate an average of $3.75 to this bizarre cause.
At that rate, the government only needs another 80 billion donors and Ontario’s debt will be paid off.
Of course, there are only about 14 million people in Ontario, and we imagine most taxpayers would rather lose their wallets than enable this government with more resources.
 
Last edited:
IIO I understand what you are saying. But politics is the art of the possible. Democrats wanted a much more robust health care plan (that retained private insurers) along the lines of Switzerland or Singapore, but couldn't get anything better through a Congress in which not a single member of the GOP would vote for something supported by Obama, whom they had vowed to make a one-term president. This was the case, even though essentially the same plan as Obamacare had its genesis in conservative circles, and was successfully implemented by a Republican governor in Massachusetts, who ironically became the GOP nominee in 2012.

Wrong
This was doomed to failure from the onset.
The dems goal is single payer.
Romney care failed much like Vermont single payer. Much like the California single payer will fail when/if it's implemented
 
Wrong
This was doomed to failure from the onset.
The dems goal is single payer.
Romney care failed much like Vermont single payer. Much like the California single payer will fail when/if it's implemented

Poet,
The other big problem with Obama Care was that the Republicans had no imput into it, and not one ,
Democrats even read or had any idea what the heck was in it before they voted on it !
Remember that " Mental Gaint " Nancy Pelosi : " You have to pass it to find out what's in it "
So the Liberals all voted for a bill without any idea what they were voting for !
The whole thing would be laughable if it was not so damaging to our country !
Time to " Drain the Swamp ! "
 
No, you run out of money for strong social systems when you have a country of taxpayers who don't want to pay the cost for those social systems to exist. Mrs. Thatcher's theory has been proven wrong by responsible Government's and responsible taxpayers around the world.

Meanwhile, Trump was in Brussels today lecturing the rest of the NATO leaders that they need to spend more on their militaries, so the poor US of A can save taxpayers money. Kick ****ing rocks Donald. Don't blame the rest of the free world because your country chooses to employ your nation based on a military complex, and sees the need to have a more powerful military than the rest of the world combined. That is your choice... And a huge reason why you can't pay for anything.

If the United States cut it's military budget by 20% and put hard caps on drugs prices, prices charged by HMO's and doctor's fees, and taxpayers were willing to take a sizeable tax hike, everyone in the United States would have fantastic, affordable, healthcare... Although there were be a substantial pool of people laid off and the defensive contractors that are some of the most influential people in the US would be none to pleased, nor would their good buddies the Drug Company owners...

I laughed at the one guy in the room telling everyone else that they are the problem... It's no wonder that when they broke off into groups after the formal part of the event that nobody would even talk to him.

Facepalm.
The best thing going for Canada is the luxury of being between the United State

President Trump did the correct thing in telling the freeloaders it's time to ante up.
Canada is part of NATO have they paid their promised amount?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bodizephax
Poet,
The other big problem with Obama Care was that the Republicans had no imput into it, and not one ,
Democrats even read or had any idea what the heck was in it before they voted on it !
Remember that " Mental Gaint " Nancy Pelosi : " You have to pass it to find out what's in it "
So the Liberals all voted for a bill without any idea what they were voting for !
The whole thing would be laughable if it was not so damaging to our country !
Time to " Drain the Swamp ! "

These Republicans have power and still have no input they are as weak as Kleenex
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bodizephax and rgc7
Poet,
The other big problem with Obama Care was that the Republicans had no imput into it, and not one ,
Democrats even read or had any idea what the heck was in it before they voted on it !
Remember that " Mental Gaint " Nancy Pelosi : " You have to pass it to find out what's in it "
So the Liberals all voted for a bill without any idea what they were voting for !
The whole thing would be laughable if it was not so damaging to our country !
Time to " Drain the Swamp ! "

I think the Republicans essentially conceded this argument when the House passed the AHCA.
 
Then it sounds like Repbulican voters have no idea what they are doing.
The difference is when the Democrats voted they got what they wanted when the conservative voted they were sold a bad bill of goods.
I find a comical how they back away from the very things they said they were going to do
Outside of the freedom caucus the rest need to go
 
  • Like
Reactions: Walruzz and rgc7
The majority of the republicans in Congresse want just as much big government as the Democrats do
I mostly agree with this. The debate has evolved over the years from arguing the pros and cons of the need or benefits of existing or proposed government programs, to arguing scale or whether to administer from Washington versus States.
 
The best thing going for Canada is the luxury of being between the United State

President Trump did the correct thing in telling the freeloaders it's time to ante up.
Canada is part of NATO have they paid their promised amount?
No ... next door a senior auditor general of Canada who is also a former auditor for NATO is visiting.....we discussed this last night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bodizephax
Then it sounds like Repbulican voters have no idea what they are doing.

The Republican voters had a good idea of what they wanted. They wanted closed and safe borders, a strong military, a sound foreign policy, repeal and replace Obama Care, A lower and simplified tax system, to name a few things.
Problem is that too many Republican are part of the " Swamp " just like my Senators from Arizona.
So I have to hold my nose and vote for McCain !
One thing I'll say for the Democrates is they almost never break ranks ! On the other hand,
Republicans, as long as they retain power, " Go along to get along " .
They are a big part of the Establishment that got us into the mess we find ourselves in today !
 
Canada's Current Federal Debt: 1.2 Trillion
Canada's Current GDP: 1.55 Trillion
Canadians Who Die Each Year Without Healthcare Coverage: 0

Note: Canada operates around an average of 66% Debt/GDP. The only reason it has risen to around 90% in the short term has been Canada's planned, massive ongoing overhaul of it's airforce, coupled with a federally funded plan to completely overhaul and rebuild elementary and high schools, coast-to-coast and. It is fully expected to return to normal soon. Note that until 2015, when those two federal projects began, Canada was operating at 66.6% GDP/Debt. I would be shocked if it doesn't return to that neighbourhood. Maybe 70% at the most.

America's Current Federal Debt: 19.0 Trillion
America's Current GDP: 18 Trillion
Americans Who Die Each Year Without Healthcare Coverage: 45,000

Note: America's debt is expected to reach in the neighbourhood of 20.4 trillion by year's end, without any signs of it getting back under control anytime soon.

Just putting your numbers into context. A temporary spike in the Canadian GDP / Debt ratio was both expected and done with a plan to return to normal.

And oil is on its ass, meaning Alberta isn't paying all the bills it normally does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgc7 and Bodizephax
And oil is on its ass, meaning Alberta isn't paying all the bills it normally does.

Provincial Debt not as severe as Ontario.

Alberta's debt is projected to soar to $45 billion in the coming year as the NDP government continues to borrow heavily to finance operations and build infrastructure.



The 2017-18 provincial budget unveiled Thursday by Finance Minister Joe Ceci lacks specific details about how the NDP government plans to return the province to a balanced budget or to start paying off the debt.

The $45 billion debt amounts to a nominal GDP ratio of 13.8 per cent with debt servicing costs of $1.4 billion.

The debt is forecast to hit $71.1 billion by 2019-20, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 19.5 per cent. Debt servicing costs by then are estimated at $2.3 billion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgc7 and Bodizephax
The Republican voters had a good idea of what they wanted. They wanted closed and safe borders, a strong military, a sound foreign policy, repeal and replace Obama Care, A lower and simplified tax system, to name a few things.
Problem is that too many Republican are part of the " Swamp " just like my Senators from Arizona.
So I have to hold my nose and vote for McCain !
One thing I'll say for the Democrates is they almost never break ranks ! On the other hand,
Republicans, as long as they retain power, " Go along to get along " .
They are a big part of the Establishment that got us into the mess we find ourselves in today !
Well said
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT