Ctrl+f “public option”, shows up 8 separate times.
And I want Singapore, not your mediocre crap.
Markets work when you don’t saddle the industry with bad incentives. If we couldn’t get a public option to work at the State level, it’s a crapshoot to ask it of the Feds.
Yeah, crap deflection is you admitting you’re wrong.
So you spent 20 years being angry about this, but you never took the time to figure out how it came together?
Instead you generalize, and make vague accusations?
Understand Cwolf, there is plenty of **** on Lockheed, one of their scandals brought down the first President of the Bilderberg group for God’s sakes.
They couldn’t keep that a secret anymore than that they were building stealth aircraft in the middle of New Mexico. And you expect me to believe they could hide pushing to fabricate a war?
Swing and a ******* miss.
Nope. While funding is debatable, power is not.
Before 9/11, CIA and its director were the de facto heads of the American intelligence community. Not only were they all but untouchable, they could dictate terms to any of the other agencies if they made a point of it.
After 9/11, because it was found out factionalism between them and the FBI was part to why the hijackers weren’t caught, that position was taken from them and given to the brand new office of the Director of National Intelligence. Who they, CIA, now had to answer to, and surrender any intel they gathered.
Iraq didn’t change that. Nothing has changed that. The DoNT is the one who gets to dictate terms to the CIA and tell all the agencies the CIA used to be in charge of, what to do.
That’s not what a public option has ever meant. He’s just literally going to knock out state restrictions as Republicans have been wanting for decades, so you can buy into national Cigma or BCBS when you live in Idaho.
It isn’t Medicare. It’s just national access to private insurance plans.
It also has this fun little bit added
So it’s less a “public option” and more a “poison pill to kill Medicare”. This is pretty much the opposite of universal healthcare.
It’s exactly how this is always done. I never said arms merchants publically requested a war with a specific country. The generals in the military push for a war so they get bigger budgets. They get bigger budgets and spend more on weapons contracts. The general then retires as an “advisor” to the same defense contractors the wars drove increased revenue to.
I don’t know why I need to lay out a very simple, well known path to you.
Every other country has managed this without much issue. We basically get two options on healthcare which is either “give everyone healthcare” or “let sick people die”. We’ve clearly decided option two is out so “pay any amount of money to keep sick people alive - to for profit businesses” is a pretty terrible idea.
Look at the way nursing homes in the US are run versus any other country in the world and then look at the respective budgets. Nursing homes here have a per-capita spend almost 2x what you’d find in most other countries and a tremendously lower quality of care.
Take a look at the rate of people temporarily staying in homes as well. In other countries, you often find older people who stay in homes for a few months while recovering from things like broken bones, surgeries, strokes, etc - and then exiting to live on their own. Look at weight gain upon admission. In Europe the median 75 year old admitted to a home losses about 1kg after the first year. In the the U.S. they GAIN 5kg in the first year. The homes literally inflict obesity on their patients in an effort to keep them from recovering and moving out. The home doesn’t make any money on a healthy person.
We don’t have healthcare so much as a medical illness industry in the country. These are the people running healthcare
Our government is so corrupt primarily because it serves as an arm of corporate enforcement. An actual public service would be vastly superior to running an illness industry.
This means his public option, isn’t private health care. There’d be need no need to make this dichotomy if it was.
But I’m not here to “validate” his plan to you. He said public option, he distinguished this from Medicare and existing private plans, whether that’s not “good enough” for you is something I couldn’t care less about.
Remember, I think both of your ideas suck. You can’t make it work at the State level, so you’re boned.
You talk about intentions, I talk about results.
Generals have become advocates of weapon programs, then once they get out attach themselves to the companies they advocated for, that part does happen. Like with that blimp low-flying radar platform.
What has never happened, was Generals advocating a war to funnel money somewhere. And even if they had, it wouldn’t matter. They don’t write policy, and wouldn’t get the chance to until out of the military for several years.
Rather, this was an idea lead by civilians, most of whom had either never served or had only short stints in the military. Those like Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney. Powell had been a General, but then again, he was the first to admit the intelligence was wrong. He also did not go work for a defense contractor afterwards.
If you Cwolf want to know what then-serving Generals were doing, what they were occupied with, you’d look up stories like this:
Which is that of competing ideologies and the consequences from soldiers realizing that the wars they were trained to fight weren’t happening.
The Revolution in Military Affairs, COIN, the Beacon Strategy, MOOTWA, etc. plenty to get swept up in. Seems to me Cwolf, you’re not aware ideas or ideology plays a role here.
Evidence that this “Quid pro quo war” thing has happened even once?
Yeah, I’m going to need that.
Because right now, it sounds like you saw a story in the vein of General Cartwright’s, and then you mentally invented the rest.
Prove me wrong. Show me anything that points to this having happened.
Or deflect again. Because it was so~ convincing last time and didn’t sound like a cop out answer at all.
This is exactly right. I think CWolf may have written hastily. He’s basically in agreement with – well, with whatever strain of conservative it is that believes that for the last few decades we’ve had an unnecessary military posture, and unnecessary military interventions – whatever the original justification for our military buildup was, facing an agressive and expanding Communist empire 70 years ago.
I suspect that a majority of Americans now believe this, or would believe it if they could see the issue debated. Iraq and Afghanistan were dear schools, as Mr Franklin’s aphormism has it. But we did learn.
Generally, people on the Left have had this view much longer than people on the Right. But in their case, it’s often been accompanied by, mixed in with, a general vague anti-capitalism on the part of the most articulate of them, like Noam Chomsky, backed up by a naive kum-bay-yah view of the world in which everyone but us was nice and sweet and kind.
So we didn’t pay much attention to them, even when they quoted, as they always did, President Eisenhower’s famous warning about the “military-industrial complex”.
Now, as American politics begins to be chaotic, we have the opportunity to advance an agenda that could get huge support: for a strong, frightening, well-supported military … but one which defends America, and doesn’t try to bring peace, prosperity and stability to Africa, or liberal democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. (And, I would argue, that stays as far away from Middle East entanglements as possible, with the exception of extending the nuclear shield over Israel and supplying it with whatever it wants in the way of lethal hardware.) Note that this does not preclude alliances with stable democracies, but ones that take into account both military realities, and the legitimate concerns of our current adversaries.
We need to look to Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard and Jim Webb … who must represent hundreds of thousands if not millions of less visible Democrats who are not going to be happy with the Biden foreign policy. And … I hesitate to say this for fear of triggering strong reactions … to Democrats like Bernie Sanders as well.
Right now, there seems to be a serious move to split the Republican Party and set up a ‘Patriot Party’, which would at the moment simply be a personality cult around Trump, devoid of a genuine political platform. Evidently, there are still rounds left in the magazine for own-foot-target-practice.
But this movement does recognize, as Trump’s popularity itself does, that many people in the Republican Party base are not happy with the traditional Chamber-of-Commerce party.
Now … if there were a Benevolent Providence … and if It decided to finally smile on its spoiled
child, America … we could imagine a grass roots upsurge in both parties … a realization of how much they had in common … some agree-to-disagree compromises … … …
… whoa! that was some powerful stuff … “Dutch skunk” my dealer called it and he was right …
1 Laughing my posterior off. Compare quality of such health care with the U.S. Why, for example, do Canadian doctors come to the U.S. for cancer treatment? Not to mention the waste, misuse, and abuse that goes with any government system. 2 Number three: Get back to a robust private charity environment. It won’t happen, because government has amassed too much power; but it beats the crap out of “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” 3 If it weren’t for a lack of a cash on the barrelhead environment, healthcare wouldn’t be so bloody expensive (can you say “competition (for the available (and accountable) dollars)?”).
Oh, and I’ll remind you that government lets healthy people die when they get too much power over them. It’s happening more slowly in the west because of our liberty-based forms of government, but the erosion continues. The purges are coming sooner or later.
There are two types of coercive-state welfare measure:
(1) Forced income transfer. A has some of his income taken away by the state to give, directly or indirectly, to B.
We’ve had that for over a century – Thomas Jefferson, blessed be his name, wanted to fund public education that way, but it took many decades before that started to happen, and over a hundred years from his time until it was true all over America. If you have no children, but own property, you will pay for the education of other people’s children. Good Libertarians will of course oppose this.
It can be justified on the basis that we all, child-having or childless, benefit from universal literacy, which is supposedly what we get with public education. (Not really, of course, but that’s the theory.) This is also how we justify making pacifists pay taxes for B52s.
I’m fine with it, but maybe others aren’t.
(2) Forcing people to act sensibly with their own money. Lots of welfare state measures – old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, workmen’s compensation, healthcare in general – could be handled privately. You could take out private insurance against these things.
But the reality is, lots of people, especially young people, don’t act sensibly. When you’re twenty-two years old you know you are immortal and will be healthy forever. Who wants to deprive themselves of a chunk of their salary at that age, when it could go towards a new car or a Spring Break in Florida?
So, the state forces them to act sensibly. It forcibly takes some of their wages or salary, and puts it in a fund for the future. In the pure case, this is not income transfer from one individual to another, but from one individual at one point of time to that same individual in the future, should he need it.
Singapore is fond of this approach.
Of course, this approach – enforced sensible behavior – can be combined with the first approach, enforced income transfer.
I prefer the latter, but am, in principle, okay with both. The devil, and the angel, as usual, is in the details. And of course when the state gets its hands on a source of money, no matter how good and sensible the original intentions are … keep your hand on your wallet! Except you can’t, because the state has the money that was in there.
One other point: in Econ101, unless it’s taught by a socialist, you learn a bunch of interesting things about how markets work, given some assumptions: that people will try to maximize their income, that it is costless to move in and out of markets, that everyone has universal access to information, etc. You win your Nobel Prizes by questioning these assumptions.
One thing that has to be noted is that the vague, but real, conception of ‘culture’ – in particular, ‘national culture’, is a serious factor in economic behavior. Or maybe we should say ‘political economic’ behavior. Example: what might work pretty well as a policy in Iceland or Sweden or Norway, might not have quite the same effect in Nigeria or Kenya or Uganda. You could enact the exact same laws, but they would be carried out differently.
Of course they play a role. The idea of “How to maximize my bank account and personal power”. That’s the only ideology that plays a role at literally any level of the federal government.
You seem to be telling me these people are delusional and stupid which I do not believe. They are incompetent - but they are incompetent at these nation building tasks because they don’t care how they end up. Their focus is not on culture or anything beyond power building. Do you really want to convince me they thought that removing Ghadaffi - a leader who had lead his nation to be the 2nd most prosperous and wealthy in all of Africa could be replaced by random groups of rival warlords and things would get better? No one is that stupid. Literal children could anticipate what would happen.
Lockheed Martin’s revenue in 1998: 26 billion
Lockheed Martin’s revenue in 2000: 25 billion (4% decrease)
Lockheed Martin’s revenue in 2001: 21 billion (13% decrease)
Lockheed Martin’s revenue in 2004: 35 billion (40% increase over 2001)
I’m sure the Afghan War and the Iraq War were just complete coincidences and they benefited not one whit from them. It was probably good sound marketing and getting distribution at Bed Bath and Beyond, huh?
Or do you mean that generals who command the wars, then go on to sit on boards as well paid “advisors” to the defense contractors?
Nope, it’s called realpolitik, Strauss and Fukuyama are strains of thought from it. Strauss tutored two of the main people you see listed in PNAC. Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Money is a motive on the stage of geopolitics, but so is power, so is spheres of influence. And so are ideas about them.
Read “Your Government Failed You” by the former intelligence czar under both Clinton and Bush, then get back to me. Hell, read anything on the Vietnam War under McNamara and his “Whiz kids”. Then go read Dilbert, and realize that these are the same.
It’s a mixture of incompetence, and simply bad ideas that become stylish among the managerial sorts. Like RMA. Or “the Beacon” strategy of PNAC. They’re just like shouting “synergy” or “6 sigma”. Platitudes and over-indulged assumptions.
The claim that they’re hyper competent would shock anyone whose worked within a mile of DoD.
Your own position belies otherwise. If you’re interested in money, then you’d want a Libya at least stable enough to regularly export its oil. Yet capacity has dramatically fallen there, and regular export is hard to guarantee.
Iraq was no different, and the Oil-for-Food program was an equal failure.
Wow, so that’s not evidence of what I asked for, and I already qualified this. You’ll need to give me the evidence I asked for at some point.
And it’s still not what I asked for. They, CREW, do not suggest what you’ve said even once.
I’m not asking if the acquisition side of Defense is screwed up or riled with conflict of interest, Uh, no duh. Everything from Pentagon Wars, to the zombie-esce development of the V-22 points that out.
You went further than that, you Cwolf, claimed this resulted in them pushing for war. So;
Where and which Generals pushed for the war to happen?
Where did then-serving Generals twist the narrative or evidence to imply Iraq had weapons?
Where is even one instance of either?
Again, since the Joint Chiefs own intelligence directorate was on the record saying “NO” to the White House narrative, and they stand atop of everyone in the military, this already looks doubtful.
So where is it Cwolf? Where is anything that shows or says this happened, and you didn’t just assume it? Give me one source that makes this connection.
I think CWolf may want to re-think some of his ideas about what drives American foreign policy, but … notice that he and Alaska Slim (and me, and a lot of other conservatives, and a lot of other people on the other side of the barricades as well) are actually in substantial agreement about what we must do, which is to get people into power who have rejected the basic assumptions of the bipartisan Washington foreign policy establishment.
Leftists will argue that this was purely the US government responding to the wishes of the United Fruit company, which is homologous to CWolf’s argument about recent American foreign policy: it’s driven by short-term interests.
Whereas conservatives want to argue that it was motivated mainly by a broader, overall consideration: the defense of the Free World against communist expansion, with the possibility that errors of judgement could occur in any specific situation.
However, both can be true at the same time. The event can be ‘over-determined’, to steal a concept that was once popular among a certain school of Marxists forty years ago.
And … it doesn’t make any flaming difference! If we can agree that it is in the real interests of the American people to have a massive shift in our foreign policy, we can disagree about the details of how the previous, faulty, foreign policy has been driven.
Left and Right have serious differences. Most conservatives have always rejected the Left’s critique of American foreign policy, and have reflexively supported their government in everything it has done abroad. (Pat Buchanan was a famous exception, starting thirty years ago.)
We saw the Left as being anti-patriotic, as having a blame-American-first attitude, aseven harboring sympathy for dictators who mouthed the right, or rather ‘left’, platitudes.
But, whatever the rights and wrongs, crimes or just errors, of American foreign policy in decades past … things have changed.
The conservative base, whose children tend to be the ones who have to walk down those dark alleys in Kandahar and Baghdad, have begun to understand that we cannot be the world’s policeman and teacher of morality. Their practical attitude towards our foreign policy has begun to converge with that of the ‘anti-war Left’, as distasteful as that might be to both sides.
There is a great opportunity here, for those who are bold enough to grasp it.
I’m looking for people who have shown by their actual personal histories, that they are patriots, and who have had direct experience of the folly of trying to bring liberal democracy on the point of a bayonet to tribes who hate us even more than they hate each other — people like Dan Crenshaw and Tulsi Gabbard.
We can argue about what caused the disease, but if we agree on the cure, let’s work together to implement it.
Different interests. Libya collapsing was great for the free flow of migrants. Plenty of other regions can provide oil.
You can’t be obtuse enough to not understand this. The generals don’t sell this to the public - that’s the MSM’s role.
The war happened - and happened with the backdrop of overwhelming amounts of uncontested propaganda. Who do you think initiated this? Do you think CNN and Fox News united to push a war because Coca-Cola asked them to? You act like people do things for no reason rather than personal interest.
Anytime something evil happens - someone is gaining power/money. Your opinion that we’re ruled not by rational corrupt oligarchs, but irrational idealistic incompetents is not only baffling - it runs contrary to your insistence that we live in a meritocracy. How exactly are all of our leaders noble and incompetent, when the most capable people are highly competent sociopaths?
Libya has a population of <7 million. Their migrants are a rounding error next to the refugees from Eastern Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, who’d been flowing for nearly a decade by that point.
Let alone Syrians who began fleeing that same year.
Libya was able to hold onto its vast territory thanks to its Oil wealth. Oil is what made them important, oil is the only thing that would matter to monied interests.
Yes, we got involved, and we screwed it up. Wasn’t the first time, won’t be the last.
Fox doing it is no mystery anymore than them condemning Kosovo and Libya.
CNN and others, they offer freely what happened:
They got obsessed with scrutinizing the wrong things, and in the afterglow of 9/11, were resigned to wars happening.
The idea they would have kowtowed to Raytheon’s marching orders, and no one within the media industry having said mum about it since, is not passing muster here.
Oh no they have reasons, but your analysis asserts people are 1 dimensional and only think about money.
My analysis interjects; Prestige? Followers? Relevance? The “My idea will change the world” cliche?
These things which clearly have draw in the world of public administration or foreign policy?
Where is your accounting for all of these other things? I don’t see that from you.
Because cliques of policy wonks convinced they have the secret sauce to running the world, have never, ever, captured any portion of our Government, and created a policy disas-- oh wait.
Equally, within the defense world you had precedent, Robert McNamara. His views on running wars could be placed on top of Donald Rumsfeld pretty damn well.
But here’s the real kicker; I’m saying a group (PNAC) who openly put out papers broadcasting their intent since the early 90’s, advocating that Saddam was a destabilizing influence that needed to be dealt with, whose members would later line the halls of the Bush Administration, had a filtered point of view that misread the evidence that got us into the war.
Meanwhile, you assert it was actually the military provoking or cajoling or tricking the civilian authority into the war. While offering no documentation, no names of who was involved, and no testimony from anyone stating Generals were doing this.
… 20 years later… and with still no evidence…
… Yeah Cwolf? I’m not here to justify your feelings. We agree the war was not justified, so you should take no umbridge in my saying “you’re missing something.”
I wouldn’t describe ideologues as noble. Though I’m sure crusaders’ think of themselves that way.
Pretty sure you’re talking about psychopathy, and that this is a talking point, not reality.
Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, one of the most multidisciplinary you can ever meet, and he’s no psychopath. If you thought the upper brass of the U.S. military offers an environment for such people, you’re very much mistaken.
Psychopaths are parasitic and have to keep moving from place to place before they’re found out. The only way that’s not true is if they learned to be functional, just like with any other mental illness.
You’re thinking of pop psychology that likens traits as being psychopathic. There has been no study linking actual psychopaths to success or competence, or even intelligence.
The most successful people are simply high conscientious, high intelligence.