What republicans need to do is focus on how blacks (and Hispanics, and for that matter poor whites) will do BETTER under their proposals. Jack Kemp did this, but I'm not aware of many other republicans who have. i don't see what is wrong with some Ross Perot PowerPoints saying, "Here is your life under democrat proposals. Now, here is your life under republican proposals. You are $X better off under republicans." Not everybody will be better off under republican proposals. But a lot of reliable democrat voters will be. And if republicans can make significant inroads there, they will prevent us from falling under the collectivist/redistributionist democrats.

"XYZ is getting ready to build a new factory. Here is your life if they build it in Germany because of cheaper taxes, and you keep working at Walmart for $10/hour. Here is your life if they built it here because of cheaper taxes, and here is your life if they hire you for $20/hour." That isn't difficult to present, and it isn't difficult to explain.

Bismarck health care, a guaranteed basic income, paid for with lower and flatter and broader taxes, including a consumption tax. The poor are better taken care of, and the "rich" get a better ROI for investing here rather than there. Why doesn't that happen?

Democrats are more interested in making the rich poorer than in making the poor richer. Republicans have ways to make the poor richer, but they don't go there. Why not?

(12-20-2017 04:45 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 05:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 04:59 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 04:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:00 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  You have to be a flaming, bitter racist in the first place to make EVEY SINGLE POLITICAL ISSUE about race.

The left is as empty intellectually as they have ever been in this country. All they have left is the race and gender cards, and those aren't working anymore for the majority of the county.

Every single issue isn't about race. Bot a lot of them are.

Think about it. Would we have the problems we have now if we didn't have the history that we have?

Very few countries have to deal with the kinds of problems we deal with simply because they didn't have a couple of centuries of slavery.

A "history" teacher claiming few countries have had 2 centuries of slavery in their history.

You never miss an opportunity to embarrass yourself with something that inaccurate and stupid.

Sorry, but your sick, twisted, backwards, racist, trolling world view does not have any credibility.

Perhaps you should read this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html

Perhaps you should watch this and learn just how stupid and inaccurate your comment was. Americas slavery history is small potatoes compared to the rest of the world.

This. Not only that, but all those Jim Crow laws and segregation policies that were put in place in the South after the Civil War? Those were enacted by -- say it with me, now -- THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!

(12-20-2017 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What republicans need to do is focus on how blacks (and Hispanics, and for that matter poor whites) will do BETTER under their proposals. Jack Kemp did this, but I'm not aware of many other republicans who have. i don't see what is wrong with some Ross Perot PowerPoints saying, "Here is your life under democrat proposals. Now, here is your life under republican proposals. You are $X better off under republicans." Not everybody will be better off under republican proposals. But a lot of reliable democrat voters will be. And if republicans can make significant inroads there, they will prevent us from falling under the collectivist/redistributionist democrats.

"XYZ is getting ready to build a new factory. Here is your life if they build it in Germany because of cheaper taxes, and you keep working at Walmart for $10/hour. Here is your life if they built it here because of cheaper taxes, and here is your life if they hire you for $20/hour." That isn't difficult to present, and it isn't difficult to explain.

Bismarck health care, a guaranteed basic income, paid for with lower and flatter and broader taxes, including a consumption tax. The poor are better taken care of, and the "rich" get a better ROI for investing here rather than there. Why doesn't that happen?

Democrats are more interested in making the rich poorer than in making the poor richer. Republicans have ways to make the poor richer, but they don't go there. Why not?

Isn't that exactly what happened under Obamacare?

When it was first being passed, countless republicans were against it. After it was implemented and many of them actually benefited from it, those same people began protesting republican politicians who wanted to repeal it.

That didn't stop the republicans from trying however.

(12-20-2017 02:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What republicans need to do is focus on how blacks (and Hispanics, and for that matter poor whites) will do BETTER under their proposals. Jack Kemp did this, but I'm not aware of many other republicans who have. i don't see what is wrong with some Ross Perot PowerPoints saying, "Here is your life under democrat proposals. Now, here is your life under republican proposals. You are $X better off under republicans." Not everybody will be better off under republican proposals. But a lot of reliable democrat voters will be. And if republicans can make significant inroads there, they will prevent us from falling under the collectivist/redistributionist democrats.

"XYZ is getting ready to build a new factory. Here is your life if they build it in Germany because of cheaper taxes, and you keep working at Walmart for $10/hour. Here is your life if they built it here because of cheaper taxes, and here is your life if they hire you for $20/hour." That isn't difficult to present, and it isn't difficult to explain.

Bismarck health care, a guaranteed basic income, paid for with lower and flatter and broader taxes, including a consumption tax. The poor are better taken care of, and the "rich" get a better ROI for investing here rather than there. Why doesn't that happen?
Democrats are more interested in making the rich poorer than in making the poor richer. Republicans have ways to make the poor richer, but they don't go there. Why not?

Isn't that exactly what happened under Obamacare?

No.

(12-20-2017 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What republicans need to do is focus on how blacks (and Hispanics, and for that matter poor whites) will do BETTER under their proposals. Jack Kemp did this, but I'm not aware of many other republicans who have. i don't see what is wrong with some Ross Perot PowerPoints saying, "Here is your life under democrat proposals. Now, here is your life under republican proposals. You are $X better off under republicans." Not everybody will be better off under republican proposals. But a lot of reliable democrat voters will be. And if republicans can make significant inroads there, they will prevent us from falling under the collectivist/redistributionist democrats.

"XYZ is getting ready to build a new factory. Here is your life if they build it in Germany because of cheaper taxes, and you keep working at Walmart for $10/hour. Here is your life if they built it here because of cheaper taxes, and here is your life if they hire you for $20/hour." That isn't difficult to present, and it isn't difficult to explain.

Bismarck health care, a guaranteed basic income, paid for with lower and flatter and broader taxes, including a consumption tax. The poor are better taken care of, and the "rich" get a better ROI for investing here rather than there. Why doesn't that happen?

Democrats are more interested in making the rich poorer than in making the poor richer. Republicans have ways to make the poor richer, but they don't go there. Why not?

Probably because its hard to sell. Remember the McDonald's fiasco? The reality is that McDonald's paid a consulting firm to investigate who their workers were and they designed their presentation to 'speak' to them.... and then it goes public and people who AREN'T in that group (both 'above' and 'below') criticized it for demeaning people or being unrealistic, when it was entirely realistic to the intended audience.

The hard TRUTH is that someone whose skills and experience only warrant a minimum wage job (regardless of what that wage is) in general shouldn't be trying to live on their own with their own car.... yet McDonald's showed how they actually could. They were criticized for such low expectations of costs. Had they gone the other way and assumed a room-mate, they would have been criticized for that as well.

My son (who makes WELL more than min wage) shares a 4br house in NYC with 3 people he had never met before moving in... and has a metro card... shared internet etc... and he shares his cell phone with me (I pay it)

I spoke with some of the people who did work for me in Houston from other countries and you had 4 men living together in a cheap 2br.... they shared a 'family' cell phone plan and utilities... and ate simply at home... so they could send $1000+/month 'home' while earning often LESS than min wage. If we suggested a plan where an American lived like that and put $1,000/month away in savings, we'd be laughed at.... yet people IN THIS COUNTRY do it every day.

I get the point you're making.... It's just impossible to make such a generalization in this country and not have plenty of ways for someone intent solely on discrediting you to find an audience and a means to do so, often without even lying.

Do you go after the largest areas of America where $10/hr is a good wage and $500/mo gets you an apartment, or do you go after the largest NUMBERS in America where $10/hr can't get you out of bed and $500/mo wouldn't pay to park your car?

(12-20-2017 02:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Isn't that exactly what happened under Obamacare?

When it was first being passed, countless republicans were against it. After it was implemented and many of them actually benefited from it, those same people began protesting republican politicians who wanted to repeal it.

That didn't stop the republicans from trying however.

I don't remember that at all. Not remotely. If it had, Republicans running on 'repeal' wouldn't have won the most recent election.

To the extent that it might have been true, I'd also say that many democrats who supported it and then realized that they were 'losers' because they thought it was going to be a wealth tax, not a health tax did the same in the opposite direction. By the results, more than what you describe.

(12-20-2017 02:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What republicans need to do is focus on how blacks (and Hispanics, and for that matter poor whites) will do BETTER under their proposals. Jack Kemp did this, but I'm not aware of many other republicans who have. i don't see what is wrong with some Ross Perot PowerPoints saying, "Here is your life under democrat proposals. Now, here is your life under republican proposals. You are $X better off under republicans." Not everybody will be better off under republican proposals. But a lot of reliable democrat voters will be. And if republicans can make significant inroads there, they will prevent us from falling under the collectivist/redistributionist democrats.

"XYZ is getting ready to build a new factory. Here is your life if they build it in Germany because of cheaper taxes, and you keep working at Walmart for $10/hour. Here is your life if they built it here because of cheaper taxes, and here is your life if they hire you for $20/hour." That isn't difficult to present, and it isn't difficult to explain.

Bismarck health care, a guaranteed basic income, paid for with lower and flatter and broader taxes, including a consumption tax. The poor are better taken care of, and the "rich" get a better ROI for investing here rather than there. Why doesn't that happen?

Democrats are more interested in making the rich poorer than in making the poor richer. Republicans have ways to make the poor richer, but they don't go there. Why not?

Probably because its hard to sell. Remember the McDonald's fiasco? The reality is that McDonald's paid a consulting firm to investigate who their workers were and they designed their presentation to 'speak' to them.... and then it goes public and people who AREN'T in that group (both 'above' and 'below') criticized it for demeaning people or being unrealistic, when it was entirely realistic to the intended audience.

The hard TRUTH is that someone whose skills and experience only warrant a minimum wage job (regardless of what that wage is) in general shouldn't be trying to live on their own with their own car.... yet McDonald's showed how they actually could. They were criticized for such low expectations of costs. Had they gone the other way and assumed a room-mate, they would have been criticized for that as well.

My son (who makes WELL more than min wage) shares a 4br house in NYC with 3 people he had never met before moving in... and has a metro card... shared internet etc... and he shares his cell phone with me (I pay it)

I spoke with some of the people who did work for me in Houston from other countries and you had 4 men living together in a cheap 2br.... they shared a 'family' cell phone plan and utilities... and ate simply at home... so they could send $1000+/month 'home' while earning often LESS than min wage. If we suggested a plan where an American lived like that and put $1,000/month away in savings, we'd be laughed at.... yet people IN THIS COUNTRY do it every day.

I get the point you're making.... It's just impossible to make such a generalization in this country and not have plenty of ways for someone intent solely on discrediting you to find an audience and a means to do so, often without even lying.

Do you go after the largest areas of America where $10/hr is a good wage and $500/mo gets you an apartment, or do you go after the largest NUMBERS in America where $10/hr can't get you out of bed and $500/mo wouldn't pay to park your car?

(12-20-2017 02:00 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Isn't that exactly what happened under Obamacare?

When it was first being passed, countless republicans were against it. After it was implemented and many of them actually benefited from it, those same people began protesting republican politicians who wanted to repeal it.

That didn't stop the republicans from trying however.

I don't remember that at all. Not remotely. If it had, Republicans running on 'repeal' wouldn't have won the most recent election.

To the extent that it might have been true, I'd also say that many democrats who supported it and then realized that they were 'losers' because they thought it was going to be a wealth tax, not a health tax did the same in the opposite direction. By the results, more than what you describe.

When I say republicans, I mean the people not the politicians. I saw many town hall meetings when Republicans started talking about repeal where conservative people told stories about how their lives were at stake if republicans repealed Obamacare. Many of them said they were republican or that they voted for that republican politician. I suppose they could have been lying but I don't see why they would.

Let's face it, there was enough of them that Republicans actually didn't repeal it like they promised they would.

I truly believe it was because enough republican voters told them not to .

But that's just my issue. Republicans couldn't repeal it because they couldn't point to anything and say, "Here's how you'll be better off." If they had proposed Bismarck, they could say:

1) Now everybody is covered, and that means every single person, not everybody but 10 million.

2) If you think the "free" coverage is crap, then you can upgrade to good coverage for less than you are paying now.

3) The quality will be there. The best systems in the world use this approach, not single-provider, and definitely not single-payer. If need be, there is ample hard data to support this, starting with that much-bandied-about WHO study where the US ranked 37th.

4) And for you folks who want to balance the budget, France does this for less government spending per capita than we spend here.

And you could do the same for universal basic income versus our current welfare hodgepodge.

Would every single poor person be better off under this? No, probably not. But a lot of them would be. In particular, those who are trying to improve their lot would almost all be better off.

Under the negative income tax or prebate/prefund, that person working at McDonald's and earning today's minimum wage would be able to own a car and rent his/her own place. And as they stuck with it and moved up he ladder, they wouldn't lose anything.

(12-20-2017 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But that's just my issue. Republicans couldn't repeal it because they couldn't point to anything and say, "Here's how you'll be better off." If they had proposed Bismarck, they could say:

1) Now everybody is covered, and that means every single person, not everybody but 10 million.

2) If you think the "free" coverage is crap, then you can upgrade to good coverage for less than you are paying now.

3) The quality will be there. The best systems in the world use this approach, not single-provider, and definitely not single-payer. If need be, there is ample hard data to support this, starting with that much-bandied-about WHO study where the US ranked 37th.

4) And for you folks who want to balance the budget, France does this for less government spending per capita than we spend here.

And you could do the same for universal basic income versus our current welfare hodgepodge.

Would every single poor person be better off under this? No, probably not. But a lot of them would be. In particular, those who are trying to improve their lot would almost all be better off.

Under the negative income tax or prebate/prefund, that person working at McDonald's and earning today's minimum wage would be able to own a car and rent his/her own place. And as they stuck with it and moved up he ladder, they wouldn't lose anything.

I'm with you on the Bismark thing.

I just never understood how Republicans and their supports could constantly ask for replace and repeal without a viable replacement.

I've disagreed with Owl on this one.... not in concept which I agree with, but in practice.


Republicans won on the platform of repeal.... so I don't know how you can say voters revolted against them. They didn't run on a single solution, mostly because Trump wants single payer but many others don't.... but I don't see that many at all want the ACA, otherwise they would have voted more Democrats in and kept it.

The issue has been (and this is where my rub with Owl comes) is that Bismark isn't sellable, neither is VAT which is how these other countries afford what they afford. Not that it isn't right, but that people don't get it. Further, KFF studies show that we actually DON'T spend a lot more when it comes to the umbrella of wellness.... we spend vastly more on healthcare and vastly less on 'wellness' than Europe... but collectively, we're about middle of the pack... MOSTLY imo because of the way we run ERs and eschew primary care while giving heart bypasses to people Europeans would have treated with pills and diet. Things like that diet are part of their healthcare, but not ours. We give people the freedom to be gluttons (in many forms) and then we treat the symptoms and enable gluttony. Europe taxes gluttony by taxing spending which discourages it.

Without the sort of control Democrats had, you don't have the 'power' to make such sweeping changes that are required... otherwise it would have been done before.

I'm afraid that many people aren't smart enough to 'get it', and their votes count just as much as those who do... and they are far easier to get motivated to vote (by either party)

(12-20-2017 06:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I've disagreed with Owl on this one.... not in concept which I agree with, but in practice.
Republicans won on the platform of repeal.... so I don't know how you can say voters revolted against them. They didn't run on a single solution, mostly because Trump wants single payer but many others don't.... but I don't see that many at all want the ACA, otherwise they would have voted more Democrats in and kept it.
The issue has been (and this is where my rub with Owl comes) is that Bismark isn't sellable, neither is VAT which is how these other countries afford what they afford. Not that it isn't right, but that people don't get it. Further, KFF studies show that we actually DON'T spend a lot more when it comes to the umbrella of wellness.... we spend vastly more on healthcare and vastly less on 'wellness' than Europe... but collectively, we're about middle of the pack... MOSTLY imo because of the way we run ERs and eschew primary care while giving heart bypasses to people Europeans would have treated with pills and diet. Things like that diet are part of their healthcare, but not ours. We give people the freedom to be gluttons (in many forms) and then we treat the symptoms and enable gluttony. Europe taxes gluttony by taxing spending which discourages it.
Without the sort of control Democrats had, you don't have the 'power' to make such sweeping changes that are required... otherwise it would have been done before.
I'm afraid that many people aren't smart enough to 'get it', and their votes count just as much as those who do... and they are far easier to get motivated to vote (by either party)

I will agree that it may be hard to sell. It is particularly hard to sell when you don't try to sell it.

What republicans should have done 7 years ago is say, "We are going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better. While we control the house, we will be holding hearings to determine exactly what that will be. We will look at systems all over the world, find the one that works best, and figure out how to adopt it here." Then hold the hearings very publicly, and I am pretty sure Bismarck would win out. Then they have some momentum for it.

I think you can reduce it to the denominator of the people who don't "get it" and they can be made to understand. I don't think republicans care about doing that. They say, "We're not going to get the poor and black vote anyway, so let's focus on holding the base." That's how they get candidates like Roy Moore.

You don't win with the base. You win by turning the middle in your direction. If you lose one of the base, that's minus one vote. He isn't going to go vote for Hillary. But if you can turn one of the middle, that's two votes. You get one, and Hillary loses one. So winning the middle is the key to winning, not holding the base. Particularly when the base is totally unwilling to compromise, making it impossible to govern if you do win.

One more thought about selling. How hard is it to sell that Europe has more comprehensive welfare programs? How hard is it to sell that Europe has significantly lower corporate tax rates (or did until today) and for the most part lower or comparable top tax rates and much flatter and less "progressive" tax structures? How hard is it to sell that Europe is taking jobs and investment away from us?

So what is it that they are doing that we aren't?