Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

So, the answer is to concentrate everybody in the cities and suburbs (urban sprawl nonwithstanding)?

The way it's being argued in here makes it sound like there's absolutely no hope for these places and the only fate is to become ghost towns. I know frumple is saying otherwise, but at the same time, possible solutions keep getting shot down.

[EnigmaticHat]

you would have pushed a samely bad candidate, except one with more interests in wars and conflict. but hey, you'd have "won"

that's why the bipolar political system is failing. you're basically waging a civil war and you don't even know.

I don't think we are.  But if I have to beat a confederate to death with a rifle butt, you'll be the second person I apologize to.

Seriously tho, whenever both parties in the US get along its awful.  Here's some bipartisan legislation passed in my lifetime:

1.  The Iraq War
2.  No Child Left Behind
3.  A shitton of gerrymandering
4.  Race to the Top
5.  Obamacare

There's only one thing on that list that I'm even slightly OK with.  Why would I want cooperation with the Republicans?

[smjjames]

Uh, Obamacare wasn't bipartisan, the Republicans have been trying to get rid of it. I don't know what the 'race to the top' thing is, and while both parties have done gerrymandering, the Republicans have been doing it with willful glee.

[Rockphed]

The irony of the ACA is its exactly what republicans would do if they wanted to close the coverage gap.  But they've been condemning it for so long if they want to replace it they've had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for things that are neither Obamacare or proper socialized medicine.

Except that it is entirely backwards.  Republicans would rather see people be free to buy the health insurance they wanted, rather than being forced to get it through employers.  The best ways to do so are to either remove the pre-tax status of employee health care contributions (which would go over like a lead balloon), or give everyone the ability to deduct all health care expenses from their earnings (which would cause people all sorts of head-aches due to paperwork).

And yeah, Obamacare passed with 0 Republican votes.

[misko27]

I wish Donald Trump would come to my house and snap my neck, killing me instantly

Make sure you check the box that you don't need him to vacuum suck your blood or eat your liver with tequila, I've heard that really moves you up the listing fast.

Is this a thing now? I could get behind this. Where do I sign up?

you would have pushed a samely bad candidate, except one with more interests in wars and conflict. but hey, you'd have "won"

that's why the bipolar political system is failing. you're basically waging a civil war and you don't even know.

"Basically civil war." he says.

There's a huge difference between "basically a civil war" and "actually a civil war", let me remind you. A lot of difference between "division" and "death". Between the arguing in the halls of Washington DC and the blood on the walls of Aleppo. And it's all the difference in the world.

The way it's being argued in here makes it sound like there's absolutely no hope for these places and the only fate is to become ghost towns. I know frumple is saying otherwise, but at the same time, possible solutions keep getting shot down.

*shrugs* Maybe those towns just weren't meant to be. There's no rule that says there needs to be a way to solve this problem. Maybe there isn't, at least not for a price we are willing to pay.

[Sergarr]

So, the answer is to concentrate everybody in the cities and suburbs (urban sprawl nonwithstanding)?

The way it's being argued in here makes it sound like there's absolutely no hope for these places and the only fate is to become ghost towns. I know frumple is saying otherwise, but at the same time, possible solutions keep getting shot down.

Well, yes, urbanization is economically optimal due to reduction in distances and the following reduction in infrastructure investments and in fuel expenditures, and, as we all know, economical incentives guide society's development. Haven't you noticed that urbanization rates have been constantly increasing throughout the last century, and that higher urbanization is also correlated with higher GDP per capita? Check out this report, page 34/290.

Spoiler: it looks even better in logarithmic scale (click to show/hide)

It's not a super-strong correlation, but there's definitely a trend.

Speaking of rurals, I'm pretty sure that the ones that vote Republican are effectively a part of Republican hivemind and cannot be convinced to vote Democrat unless you cut them off their Republican media channels, including radio talk shows and the like.

[EnigmaticHat]

Uh, Obamacare wasn't bipartisan, the Republicans have been trying to get rid of it. I don't know what the 'race to the top' thing is, and while both parties have done gerrymandering, the Republicans have been doing it with willful glee.

Race to the Top is Obama's version of No Child Left Behind.  Its different but still bad.

You're right about gerrymandering and Obamacare, its 3 in the morning and neither of those things are actually bipartisan.  Not sure what I was thinking.  I'll not edit it just so this exchange stays coherent.

Anyway, my intended point is that competition between the two parties makes more sense than cooperation.  If we have two parties working together its not a democracy anymore.  Hardly equivalent to a violent internal conflict.  Sure the government is blocking itself constantly but like, historically that's pretty normal for us.

The irony of the ACA is its exactly what republicans would do if they wanted to close the coverage gap.  But they've been condemning it for so long if they want to replace it they've had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for things that are neither Obamacare or proper socialized medicine.

Except that it is entirely backwards.  Republicans would rather see people be free to buy the health insurance they wanted, rather than being forced to get it through employers.  The best ways to do so are to either remove the pre-tax status of employee health care contributions (which would go over like a lead balloon), or give everyone the ability to deduct all health care expenses from their earnings (which would cause people all sorts of head-aches due to paperwork).

And yeah, Obamacare passed with 0 Republican votes.

Key words, "close the coverage gap."  Your first option would do nothing to change the coverage gap in any direction.  The second option in particular is horrible to even consider.  It would be a healthcare system that would be greatly expensive, yet only cover the wealthy.  You can't buy medicine with tax rebates, and poor people would have few enough taxes to deduct from in the first place.

Obamacare was the privatized answer to America's healthcare woes.  When they axe it, they're going to find nothing actually helpful to replace it with because it already is the conservative option.  The liberal option is socialized medicine like everyone else.  But no, they had to run their narrative that Obamacare was insanely left-leaning, now any sane replacement measure they could introduce is going to read as similar to this other thing they hated.  Which like... fair, they're probably OK with that.  I don't think they actually care about the people who are left out of coverage without Obamacare.

I will concede that it was not bipartisan at all tho :/  I'm going to bed now.

[Reelya]

If Trump actually massively expands Medicaid coverage after axing Obamacare, that would be the best option. Basically get rid of Medicare by merging it all into a single program. Trump did say he wants to negotiate on generic drug pricing, so that in itself is a good sign. That's one thing where Trump might not fuck up, since it's about scoring a major financial deal.

[Zangi]

People hate Obamacare, they are pretty cool with the Affordable Care Act.

[wierd]

That's a non-sequitur. They are the same thing.

The individual mandate part that forces healthcare for people that really cannot afford it (there *IS* this unfortunate demographic between horribly impoverished people, who get strongly subsidized, and comfortably middle class who can afford it without any subsidies at all, that cannot get subsidies because they technically 'make too much', but cannot afford to actually use the healthcare they are forced to buy, and live on the border of poverty-- who really would be better off not buying the insurance at all, and paying out of pocket as-needed, but instead get fined in a very regressive fine system every month they go without coverage.) and the way it restricts simple programs for people who would never use certain services (I am a guy. Who is asexual. I will *NEVER* need women's health coverage. I dont care what miraculous new medical tech hits the market, I will not be needing pap smears, mamograms, OBGYN, or abortion services EVER. YET, the ACA mandates that my plan cover them, so I subsidize services I will never, ever use.) are what I find onerous. If you are going to subsidize healthcare, actually take the time to determine what those people need, price it in a way people can actually use, and make legislation that does not treat people like interchangeable cogs.

[scriver]

That's a non-sequitur. They are the same thing.

Yes, I believe that was the joke.

[Reelya]

The book publisher Penguin is printing more copies of George Orwell's dystopian classic "1984" in response to a sudden surge of demand.

On Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning the book was #1 on Amazon's computer-generated list of best-selling books. The list reflects hourly book sales.

The 68-year-old novel appeared on the list on Monday, hovered around the #6 spot for much of the day, rose to #2 by Tuesday afternoon and then hit #1.

Lower down on Amazon's best sellers list are two other classic novels with similar themes: "It Can't Happen Here," by Sinclair Lewis, and "Brave New World," by Aldous Huxley.

It is hard to say for sure how much of the interest is related to Donald Trump's inauguration and the rise of "alternative facts," a term coined by Trump senior advisor Kellyanne Conway on Sunday. 

[wierd]

Oceana has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia, anything else is not goodfact citizen!

[Sergarr]

Sean Spicer: "Sometimes we can disagree with the facts.”

man you're in trouble over there

Trump's goons are revving up the tyranny engine full-throttle

you should've destroyed the Tea Party when you had the chance

you didn't, and now they will destroy you

[Gentlefish]

So this is a thing that is happening. Who would have guessed that the NPS would have been the first to speak out against the censoring of government public relations?