I’m not following this. Specifically, your story about the possible consequence of an increase in the cost of labor doesn’t seem to need an increase in the cost of labor to happen; if it can happen under that circumstance, it could happen anyway, right now.
You’re effectively saying that all that’s holding down lettuce prices now is competition that large producers are getting from smaller producers. But the smaller producers are just barely getting by, and would gladly up their prices, which would benefit all concerned. Or the large producers (who you suggest don’t meaningfully compete with each other) could lower prices NOW, squeeze the small producers out of business, and then raise the price of lettuce anyway.
That is probably what I meant. You caught me out being lazy on my research. I was not yet born yet for either, and my history is weak in the era between WW2 and when I was born. So feel free to ignore me.
I will say that republicans of that era (up through Bush 1) bear no great resemblance to today’s breed, so it is rather pointless of me to point to anything they accomplished or failed to as an embodiment of current Republican policy.
There’s no reason both can’t or shouldn’t be argued simultaneously. If a person can *only *be motivated to provide healthcare to our poorest citizens because it’s cheaper–and not because access to good healthcare should be regarded as a universal right regardless of ability to pay–then that person is a detestable subhuman worm who deserves to be shunned and shamed.
This has been explained multiple times in that thread where you embarrassed yourself over and over talking about immigration law. He’s acting on the basis of a power explicitly granted in federal law – there is nothing “selective” about him exercising the power that Congress explicitly gave him.
He’s also deported people at a more rapid pace than GWB (despite the fact that illegal immigration has slowed to a crawl due to the state of the economy).
If you are actually motivated by secure borders, who to vote for is a no-brainer (and hell, Romney’s said he’d keep this policy anyway). If you can’t understand that, damn, you are fucking dumb.
Yeah, I guess I am. And, I think most Americans are (maybe not on this board, but overall).
[/QUOTE]
No, and let me explain something to you that has been quite well publicized and is common knowledge to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about politics:
Around a third of voters identify as “independents” when surveyed. But of those, the great majority almost always vote for one party or the other; only a minority are actually on the fence. These “true independents” are on average far less informed about political issues than other voters; “Demapublicans” and “Republicrats” are a small group of people who vote inconsistently because they are just too uninformed (and, probably, too stupid) to understand the issues.
For some reason this concept of being an “independent” is celebrated in our political culture but it’s nothing to brag about. And it’s certainly not an accurate description of most voters – thank goodness. Because our politics would be even stupider than they are if it were true.
Okay, well, on the off chance that you’re not too stupid to understand simple facts and that this isn’t just an excuse for ideologically-motivated opposition to UHC:
WE ALREADY PAY AS MUCH AS COUNTRIES WITH UHC. The same amount of the federal budget, per capita, is spent on health care in the U.S. as in, say, France, where they have an excellent universal healthcare system. The only difference is here in the U.S., not only are people not guaranteed decent healthcare, but we (or our employers, which means it’s still coming out of our salaries) also pay just as much again per capita. Not having single-payer healthcare creates huge inefficiencies.
Because we’d be throwing less money down the whirlpool of inefficiency known as the U.S. healthcare system, we’d have even more money to waste on whatever military boondoggle you want. Continue work on the F-35. Spend more on nuclear missile defense. Whatever.
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
I’ve talked to many people, American and Eurpoean, about the European healthcare systems and the vast majority of them state that the European systems as providing FREE healthcare. Well, “free” healthcare certainly “sounds” better than something you have to pay for but the reality is that it’s not free.
They are taxed to cover their healthcare. The money comes out of their paychecks and some government agency then decides how best to dole out those tax euros. I’m assuming that because the taxpayers never actually get their hands on their heathcare euros, they forget that they are the ones paying for it.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: You’re taxed just as much to prop up our nonfunctional healthcare system, the difference being that you aren’t even entitled to receive any care as a result.
[QUOTE=Terraplane]
based on what you said in your post it seems like it should matter to you.
[/QUOTE]
Hint: You will never win over a “principled non-voter” by appealing to their principles because those principles are pure rationalization. She’s hit on an excuse that makes her feel better than admitting that she’s honestly too lazy to bother figuring out what’s going on and voting accordingly. You’re not going to talk her out of that by picking at her rationalization. I mean, after all, the effect of her “choice” here is to ensure that no political organization ever has a reason to consider her viewpoints. So obviously there’s not a valid case to be made that she’s acting on principle here.
Those numbers are not in line with what typical research shows, to put it mildly.
Ha, even the article you cited couldn’t defend against this, and hence the author cited no evidence to counter it, just their own “experience”.
If you think the Democratic and Republican parties are “radically opposite” each other, I have no idea where to even start. Because damn are you ever uninformed.
I was commenting on a poster who sought it fit to make the caveat that it is not completely free, that someone has to pay for it. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
You’re obviously not in California. I’m sorry for the tangent but this is an argument I hear a lot and it doesn’t hold much water if you live in an area with a large population of…international lettuce pickers.
Many of the elementary schools in my area are majority ESL students (spanish), which is where the attention goes in those classrooms. And you can forget about getting a job in fast food or many other service jobs if you don’t speak fluent spanish. There are virtually no minimum wage jobs available to teenage citizens in my area, much less for unemployed adults who are willing to take any job just to pay the rent. These are jobs that US citizens want and need but cannot get because they have been filled by people who will take a lower wage to avoid too many questions about their paperwork.
The idea that illegal aliens are only taking jobs that Americans don’t want anyway is patronizing hogwash that helps people feel more liberal and open minded.
Yes! You guys are right! Gary Johnson is the answer!
Please, all you conservatives and libertarians who’ve considered voting for Romney, check out Gary Johnson! He’s the one you really want! Go for it!
Go, Gary, go! Gary da man!
Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson
Johnson Johnson
Gary Gary
