Best President in terms of salaries for Physicians?

[Cello]

What makes absolutely no sense to me in this modern era, is the fact that we have a populace which is willing to spend $100,000+ annually to incarcerate prisoners at private prisons. We have the largest prison population on Earth and it continues to grow, and we are spending billions to lock away criminals with little or no net reduction in crime. As Bernie Sanders correctly stated, it is cheaper to send criminals to college than to send them to jail.

Frankly, it is almost certainly more productive and cost effective to send youth to college for free rather than lock them up when they get into trouble. Harris Rosen spent millions of dollars to send kids in an impoverished Florida community which is ~90% black to college for free and saw the crime rate plummet by over 60%, and the graduation rate rise from 25% to 100%. Furthermore, the students he sends to college have a 75% graduation rate, which is the highest of any ethnicity in the United States. The man has spent over $10 million on the program, and has completely turned this community around. Property values are on the rise, and kids who had little or no future are now looking towards bright careers rather than running a game out on the street corners.

If you want to look at this from a purely practical standpoint, then consider which is the cheaper option. Is it cheaper to punish people for being poor and having little or no opportunity? Or is it cheaper to give them opportunities and make them into productive members of society? Mr. Rosen has demonstrated in the real world that it is possible to give people the tools they need to be successful in this society and we can see from the results of his philanthropy that it is far more effective than simply waiting for people to become criminals so we can lock them away in private for-profit prison systems on the taxpayer's dime. Sure, it works in reality, but does it work in theory? Bernie Sanders wants to end private for-profit prisons. How is that outlandish? How is that anything less than completely sane? This is one big reason I support him.

Let's also talk about the military. You folks who are complaining about the cost to provide access to college for every American student in this country, consider this. You spent $6 trillion to fund two wars which did little to improve our security or our position in the world. We killed as many as 1 million people in those conflicts, and we lost thousands of soldiers. Many of our best young people came back mentally and/or physically destroyed with little hope of being as productive for society as they could have been without the experience of war. Yet our politicians seldom question the money spent on the world's largest credit card which will have to be paid back at some later date. Who is going to pay that money back? Imagine the interest payments on $6 trillion of debt! We are responsible for that! I hate to break the news to you all, but whether you like it or not, you will be paying for those wars one way or another, and it will only be more difficult the longer we fail to reign in our budgetary problems.

People want to blame Democrats for our budgetary woes, but they refuse to acknowledge that it was GOP presidents who dramatically increased the national debt and deficit. Democratic presidents have presided over reduced deficits, and only two presidents in the last 50 years have managed to do that, Clinton and Obama, both Democrats. War is not free, and contrary to popular opinion, it does not boost the economy to any meaningful degree. It may be good for businesses which stand to profit from war, but it's almost always bad for the treasury, and what's bad for the treasury is bad for taxpayers. Ronald Reagan raised taxes eight times during his presidency. How many times has Obama raised your taxes? George Bush famously stated, "read my lips: no new taxes" during his election campaign, and them promptly set about increasing taxes soon after he was elected. His war in Iraq was waged under the pretense that Iraq had violated the sovereignty of Kuwait, yet Saddam had offered to negotiated with the Bush administration and to leave Kuwait before we invaded.

We are willing to spend $6 trillion to fund 2 wars across the globe, but we can't find $60 billion to fund free college education for every student in the United States? We can spend $2 million on a single missile, then lob hundreds of them at our 'enemies' without question or a moment's hesitation, but we are unable to provide healthcare for our most vulnerable citizens without brawls breaking out and party factionalization? What does that say about our priorities? With the money we spent on those two wars which did little except line the pockets of military contractors, we could have sent every kid in America to college for 100 years. Furthermore, we currently spend nearly $600 billion our military, which is more than the next 12 countries combined. But don't you dare speak against the military industrial complex, they are even more powerful than the health/pharma lobby. Do we really need 12 aircraft carriers in our fleet? Especially given the relatively cheap SSM anti-ship missiles currently employed by China and Russia which we may have no deterrent against. How have we managed to sink $1.5 trillion into a jet which may be only marginally better than updated versions of the planes we already have?

It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and our air force has to have a bake-sale to buy a bomber. -Robert Fulghum

To quote our nation's last 5-star general, and one of our last truly conservative politicians:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[medic86]

I'm curious: how many aircraft carriers do you think we need?

 

[Cello]

I'm curious: how many aircraft carriers do you think we need?

It's a matter of priorities. My priorities are more with the welfare of my fellow citizens than with the empirical aspirations of a government which seeks to maintain global hegemony. Building and equipping modern carriers is an enormously expensive undertaking.

Beyond that, this is a matter of technology and A2/AD. How many battleships did we need to win the Pacific?

 

[Law2Doc]

I'm curious: how many aircraft carriers do you think we need?

At least a few more than everyone else. Your competition dictates how many you need. That's Cold War 101.

Of course as we shift more and more to a drone based air force, the carriers of the future may not need to be as elaborate.

 

[Cello]

At least a few more than everyone else. Your competition dictates how many you need. That's Cold War 101.

Of course as we shift more and more to a drone based air force, the carriers of the future may not need to be as elaborate.

At least a few more than everyone else combined? Anyway, the Swiss have 0 carriers, and they survived the Cold War just fine despite their close proximity to both belligerents.

 

[Suit]

Drumpf

 

[medic86]

At least a few more than everyone else combined? Anyway, the Swiss have 0 carriers, and they survived the Cold War just fine despite their close proximity to both belligerents.

We're not the Swiss.

 

[Cello]

We're not the Swiss.

Because we've chosen not to be like the Swiss. Again, priorities.

 

[medic86]

Because we've chosen not to be like the Swiss. Again, priorities.

For good reason.

I'm not sure if I'd like it if all of Eurasia spoke German or Russian.

 

[Cello]

For good reason.

I'm not sure if I'd like it if all of Eurasia spoke German or Russian.

The Soviet Union collapsed 25 years ago and World War II ended 70 years ago. Our military expenditures have only increased as we've found new boogeymen to justify lavish military contracts with little or no criticism from either party. It turns out that providing healthcare for your own citizens is controversial; dropping expensive guided munitions on the citizens of other countries, not so much.

 

[Law2Doc]

At least a few more than everyone else combined? Anyway, the Swiss have 0 carriers, and they survived the Cold War just fine despite their close proximity to both belligerents.

The Swiss are not a super power and throughout history have depended on other countries to respect their borders. You could just as easily have pointed to Poland, which has a negligible military presence and has been the war torn battlefield in multiple wars.

I don't know how much of a military we need in the present day. But comparing our military position to the Swiss is like comparing our intercity gang problem to that of, say, Greenland. Please.

 

[Cello]

The Swiss are not a super power and throughout history have depended on other countries to respect their borders. You could just as easily have pointed to Poland, which has a negligible military presence and has been the war torn battlefield in multiple wars.

I don't know how much of a military we need in the present day. But comparing our military position to the Swiss is like comparing our intercity gang problem to that of, say, Greenland. Please.

Yes, we should just poopoo the Jeffersonian ideal as a pipe dream because our self-appointed role as world's global police force was 'foisted' upon us. Anyway, what exactly is so great about being a superpower? "Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others."

The US military was tiny leading into World War II. In fact, we were ranked ~15th in terms of size, even behind Portugal. Infantrymen trained with sticks because there were not sufficient rifles to be had and our cavalry still relied heavily upon horses. Beyond even that, we suffered a tremendous loss to our Pacific fleet before we had even made a formal declaration of war. All of that still did not stop us from creating one of the most powerful militaries in history and fighting a global two-front conflict. It was not the strength of our military leading into WWII that won the day; it was the power of our economy and the industriousness of our people to create a military in response to Germany and Japan which did. Again, I refer you to the quote from Eisenhower who, for all intents and purposes, is one of the major factors which prevented Europe from falling into the hands of either the Germans or the Russians. Every ship we maintain to the tune of billions of dollars is a theft from the citizens of this nation and a drain upon our labor and productivity. We do need a military, but we don't need to spend more than the next 12 nations combined. We don't need to maintain more carriers than every other nation on Earth combined.

Again, it is a matter of priorities. Apparently, some of you are comfortable racking up $6 trillion in debt on credit in the name of a war on terror. I would much rather put the money towards bettering our citizens, and increasing our productivity, happiness, and welfare. Perhaps we could have avoided that massive $6 trillion expenditure had we done as I suggest rather than continuing to pursue a global imperial agenda. How many more trillions will we expend in the name of empire? Did it save the British empire to spend more than it could afford? How about the French, or the Spanish? Money alone can not sustain empires indefinitely.

By the way, you have certainly proven my point. When it comes to challenging the military industrial complex, no one wishes to admit that it may be an expense we simply can not afford and most certainly should not pay so much for. From my entire post, this is the only subject which has been debated.

 

[iDOliveinMD]

People want to blame Democrats for our budgetary woes, but they refuse to acknowledge that it was GOP presidents who dramatically increased the national debt and deficit. Democratic presidents have presided over reduced deficits, and only two presidents in the last 50 years have managed to do that, Clinton and Obama, both Democrats.

The deficit may have decreased but the national debt has still almost doubled since Obama's presidency began. The last quoted GDP growth projection was only at 1%. Labor force participation is the lowest it has been in decades. Our great"job growth" is a misnomer as the number of part-time jobs has increased as employers avoid having to pay Obama Care. Therefore unemployment is still high.

How many times has Obama raised your taxes? George Bush famously stated, "read my lips: no new taxes" during his election campaign, and them promptly set about increasing taxes soon after he was elected. His war in Iraq was waged under the pretense that Iraq had violated the sovereignty of Kuwait, yet Saddam had offered to negotiated with the Bush administration and to leave Kuwait before we invaded.

Almost all general election rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. I don't believe Bush was by any means a great president but if you want to look for pre-election promises presidents haven't kept you would have a never ending list.

We are willing to spend $6 trillion to fund 2 wars across the globe, but we can't find $60 billion to fund free college education for every student in the United States?

Although I don't disagree with you on a few of the issues you mentioned regarding war as I embrace some aspects of libertarian ideology, I personally have no interest in funding every students' college education. Make different vocational schools free and perhaps provide incentives for individuals entering fields that are needed in the US but college education is by no means a right.

Maybe you went to a prestigious university but in my experiences (tutoring, working mediocre jobs, mentoring etc.) I have found a great deal of individuals go into college with no plan or love of learning. I have no interest in paying for Joe Somebody to go to college and major in Art History so he can explore his sexuality and party on the weekends. That is hyperbole and a generalization I know, but it is closer to the truth than some people realize. The fact remains that not everyone is meant for college and students need financially responsible and educated mentors more than they need more entitlements. It disgusts me how some of my coworkers believe they are entitled to go on vacation when they have 50k+ in loans. You are too poor to vacation in Australia, you are too poor to have that Starbucks coffee everyday, and you are too poor to have that fun of a social life. We need a stronger economy with more 35-55k jobs available not more college graduates in useless fields.

 

[Cello]

The deficit may have decreased but the national debt has still almost doubled since Obama's presidency began. The last quoted GDP growth projection was only at 1%. Labor force participation is the lowest it has been in decades. Our great"job growth" is a misnomer as the number of part-time jobs has increased as employers avoid having to pay Obama Care. Therefore unemployment is still high.

Obama was handed a record deficit which he has successfully reduced by $1 trillion. That is no small feat, and whatever anyone thinks about the man, he certainly deserves credit for that. The national deficit began to skyrocket just before Obama was inaugurated and he has been instrumental in successfully reversing the trend. As far as labor participation goes, I worry about further automation, the increasing capability of AI, and what that means for all of us in the future marketplace.

Almost all general election rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. I don't believe Bush was by any means a great president but if you want to look for pre-election promises presidents haven't kept you would have a never ending list.
Although I don't disagree with you on a few of the issues you mentioned regarding war as I embrace some aspects of libertarian ideology, I personally have no interest in funding every students' college education. Make different vocational schools free and perhaps provide incentives for individuals entering fields that are needed in the US but college education is by no means a right.

That's fine, and certainly true. Perhaps then voters should stop insisting that it is only the Democrats who have a penchant for raising taxes.

Maybe you went to a prestigious university but in my experiences (tutoring, working mediocre jobs, mentoring etc.) I have found a great deal of individuals go into college with no plan or love of learning. I have no interest in paying for Joe Somebody to go to college and major in Art History so he can explore his sexuality and party on the weekends. That is hyperbole and a generalization I know, but it is closer to the truth than some people realize. The fact remains that not everyone is meant for college and students need financially responsible and educated mentors more than they need more entitlements. It disgusts me how some of my coworkers believe they are entitled to go on vacation when they have 50k+ in loans. You are too poor to vacation in Australia, you are too poor to have that Starbucks coffee everyday, and you are too poor to have that fun of a social life. We need a stronger economy with more 35-55k jobs available not more college graduates in useless fields.

I did not go to a prestigious institution, and I would not have valued it if I had. I came to appreciate higher education later in life, and I certainly agree with you on many of the above points.

Personally, I believe that we should offer free vocational training or college. But, people should be pushed into some kind of employment pipeline. As you say, not everyone is meant for college, and colleges should not be forced to cater to those individuals who do not want to be there. People should have the opportunity to become carpenters, plumbers, construction workers, mechanics, firefighters, EMTs, etc. without being forced to go to college. The opportunity to go to college should simply be there for anyone who will make good use of it.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yes, we should just poopoo the Jeffersonian ideal as a pipe dream because our self-appointed role as world's global police force was 'foisted' upon us. Anyway, what exactly is so great about being a superpower? "Strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others."

The US military was tiny leading into World War II. In fact, we were ranked ~15th in terms of size, even behind Portugal. Infantrymen trained with sticks because there were not sufficient rifles to be had and our cavalry still relied heavily upon horses. Beyond even that, we suffered a tremendous loss to our Pacific fleet before we had even made a formal declaration of war. All of that still did not stop us from creating one of the most powerful militaries in history and fighting a global two-front conflict. It was not the strength of our military leading into WWII that won the day; it was the power of our economy and the industriousness of our people to create a military in response to Germany and Japan which did. Again, I refer you to the quote from Eisenhower who, for all intents and purposes, is one of the major factors which prevented Europe from falling into the hands of either the Germans or the Russians. Every ship we maintain to the tune of billions of dollars is a theft from the citizens of this nation and a drain upon our labor and productivity. We do need a military, but we don't need to spend more than the next 12 nations combined. We don't need to maintain more carriers than every other nation on Earth combined.

Again, it is a matter of priorities. Apparently, some of you are comfortable racking up $6 trillion in debt on credit in the name of a war on terror. I would much rather put the money towards bettering our citizens, and increasing our productivity, happiness, and welfare. Perhaps we could have avoided that massive $6 trillion expenditure had we done as I suggest rather than continuing to pursue a global imperial agenda. How many more trillions will we expend in the name of empire? Did it save the British empire to spend more than it could afford? How about the French, or the Spanish? Money alone can not sustain empires indefinitely.

By the way, you have certainly proven my point. When it comes to challenging the military industrial complex, no one wishes to admit that it may be an expense we simply can not afford and most certainly should not pay so much for. From my entire post, this is the only subject which has been debated.

Meh, it's well and nice to dismiss the last seventy years of our world history as a mistake but smarter leaders than you (of both parties) have doubled down on this superpower position and it did lead to the end of Hitler, the USSR, and countless other world tyrants.

Yes it's expensive but who else was going to do it -- the Swiss? Frankly yours is at best the argument of a person with no moral compass, at worst one of cowardice -- let the rest of the world deal with the problems, I will stay neutral and just hope things work out, minding my chocolate, banks and ski slopes.

That may have worked fine in the 19th century but the world is a lot smaller now and keeping your head in the sand leaves other things exposed. In world politics nobody cares what the Swiss think and yet their economy tanks with the rest of ours, their borders are only as secure as their neighbors choose. It's a pretty pathetic mindset -- in world diplomacy matters they are lucky to sit at the kids table. We don't want this, even if it costs a lot to keep our seat.

 

[deleted731525]

The deficit may have decreased but the national debt has still almost doubled since Obama's presidency began. The last quoted GDP growth projection was only at 1%. Labor force participation is the lowest it has been in decades. Our great"job growth" is a misnomer as the number of part-time jobs has increased as employers avoid having to pay Obama Care. Therefore unemployment is still high.

Almost all general election rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. I don't believe Bush was by any means a great president but if you want to look for pre-election promises presidents haven't kept you would have a never ending list.
Although I don't disagree with you on a few of the issues you mentioned regarding war as I embrace some aspects of libertarian ideology, I personally have no interest in funding every students' college education. Make different vocational schools free and perhaps provide incentives for individuals entering fields that are needed in the US but college education is by no means a right.

Maybe you went to a prestigious university but in my experiences (tutoring, working mediocre jobs, mentoring etc.) I have found a great deal of individuals go into college with no plan or love of learning. I have no interest in paying for Joe Somebody to go to college and major in Art History so he can explore his sexuality and party on the weekends. That is hyperbole and a generalization I know, but it is closer to the truth than some people realize. The fact remains that not everyone is meant for college and students need financially responsible and educated mentors more than they need more entitlements. It disgusts me how some of my coworkers believe they are entitled to go on vacation when they have 50k+ in loans. You are too poor to vacation in Australia, you are too poor to have that Starbucks coffee everyday, and you are too poor to have that fun of a social life. We need a stronger economy with more 35-55k jobs available not more college graduates in useless fields.

Wut?

 

[Cello]

Meh, it's well and nice to dismiss the last seventy years of our world history as a mistake but smarter leaders than you (of both parties) have doubled down on this superpower position and it did lead to the end of Hitler, the USSR, and countless other world tyrants

Yes, Eisenhower was a complete dolt. So was Jefferson for that matter. Don't even get me started on Linus Pauling -- what a stupid, weak, pacifist scumbag he was!

Yes it's expensive but who else was going to do it -- the Swiss? Frankly yours is at best the argument of a person with no moral compass, at worst one of cowardice -- let the rest of the world deal with the problems, I will stay neutral and just hope things work out, minding my chocolate, banks and ski slopes.

Interesting. Not wishing to kill millions of innocent humans on foreign lands, only to then sweep them under the rug as mere 'collateral casualties' in a struggle between 'good' and 'evil' somehow lands me on the wrong side.

You would have us continue to spend our country into the ground? Exactly where do you think this military spending money comes from? We lack funding for critical infrastructure, our public schools are failing, and we can't offer basic healthcare to 40 million of our citizens except to care for them through the ED, but you still have no qualms with outspending the next 12 nations combined?

That may have worked fine in the 19th century but the world is a lot smaller now and keeping your head in the sand leaves other things exposed. In world politics nobody cares what the Swiss think and yet their economy tanks with the rest of ours, their borders are only as secure as their neighbors choose. It's a pretty pathetic mindset -- in world diplomacy matters they are lucky to sit at the kids table. We don't want this, even if it costs a lot to keep our seat.

From my admittedly few Swiss friends, I've known of none who felt they were missing out on anything that we have to offer here. If you think that our borders are secure now, or that they could be secure with the promise of some great wall / fence, then you are mistaken.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

From my admittedly few Swiss friends, I've known of none who felt they were missing out on anything that we have to offer here. If you think that our borders are secure now, or that they could be secure with the promise of some great wall / fence, then you are mistaken.

He was talking about invasion, not immigration. We could absolutely stop a military-style invasion (though one of the purposes of our expensive Navy is to prevent that from even being an issue), and honestly could stop immigration if we really wanted to.

 

[Cello]

He was talking about invasion, not immigration. We could absolutely stop a military-style invasion (though one of the purposes of our expensive Navy is to prevent that from even being an issue), and honestly could stop immigration if we really wanted to.

Are we worried about a massive conventional attack from Mexico or Canada? Does Canada spend anywhere near the $582 billion that we do to prevent us from invading their country? Does Canada maintain 12 aircraft carriers to ensure its continued global hegemony? Is Canada any worse off than we are for not doing those things?

 

[Law2Doc]

... Does Canada spend anywhere near the $582 billion that we do to prevent us from invading their country? Does Canada maintain 12 aircraft carriers to ensure its continued global hegemony? Is Canada any worse off than we are for not doing those things?

Again, Canada is not a world power. You seem anxious to be seated at the kiddies table. America is not about that. We want a say in the world.

 

[Cello]

Again, Canada is not a world power. You seem anxious to be seated at the kiddies table. America is not about that. We want a say in the world.

And you seem anxious to dodge my earlier responses. What benefit comes to the average US citizen that the Swiss and the Canadians do not have by being seated at the "kiddies" table?

 

[ZX10R]

Cello, if you don't want to be part of a superpower feel free to move to a different country that isn't. Americans have a deep seated instinct on maintaining its global "hegmony." I'll take the large military so other countries don't have to build militaries to protect themselves. We use our large DOD to supplement other countries need for a military. Swiss and Canada know that if anything ever happened to them we'd be fighting their fight.

 

[tristatenontrad]

What makes absolutely no sense to me in this modern era, is the fact that we have a populace which is willing to spend $100,000+ annually to incarcerate prisoners at private prisons. We have the largest prison population on Earth and it continues to grow, and we are spending billions to lock away criminals with little or no net reduction in crime. As Bernie Sanders correctly stated, it is cheaper to send criminals to college than to send them to jail.

Frankly, it is almost certainly more productive and cost effective to send youth to college for free rather than lock them up when they get into trouble. Harris Rosen spent millions of dollars to send kids in an impoverished Florida community which is ~90% black to college for free and saw the crime rate plummet by over 60%, and the graduation rate rise from 25% to 100%. Furthermore, the students he sends to college have a 75% graduation rate, which is the highest of any ethnicity in the United States. The man has spent over $10 million on the program, and has completely turned this community around. Property values are on the rise, and kids who had little or no future are now looking towards bright careers rather than running a game out on the street corners.

If you want to look at this from a purely practical standpoint, then consider which is the cheaper option. Is it cheaper to punish people for being poor and having little or no opportunity? Or is it cheaper to give them opportunities and make them into productive members of society? Mr. Rosen has demonstrated in the real world that it is possible to give people the tools they need to be successful in this society and we can see from the results of his philanthropy that it is far more effective than simply waiting for people to become criminals so we can lock them away in private for-profit prison systems on the taxpayer's dime. Sure, it works in reality, but does it work in theory? Bernie Sanders wants to end private for-profit prisons. How is that outlandish? How is that anything less than completely sane? This is one big reason I support him.

Let's also talk about the military. You folks who are complaining about the cost to provide access to college for every American student in this country, consider this. You spent $6 trillion to fund two wars which did little to improve our security or our position in the world. We killed as many as 1 million people in those conflicts, and we lost thousands of soldiers. Many of our best young people came back mentally and/or physically destroyed with little hope of being as productive for society as they could have been without the experience of war. Yet our politicians seldom question the money spent on the world's largest credit card which will have to be paid back at some later date. Who is going to pay that money back? Imagine the interest payments on $6 trillion of debt! We are responsible for that! I hate to break the news to you all, but whether you like it or not, you will be paying for those wars one way or another, and it will only be more difficult the longer we fail to reign in our budgetary problems.

People want to blame Democrats for our budgetary woes, but they refuse to acknowledge that it was GOP presidents who dramatically increased the national debt and deficit. Democratic presidents have presided over reduced deficits, and only two presidents in the last 50 years have managed to do that, Clinton and Obama, both Democrats. War is not free, and contrary to popular opinion, it does not boost the economy to any meaningful degree. It may be good for businesses which stand to profit from war, but it's almost always bad for the treasury, and what's bad for the treasury is bad for taxpayers. Ronald Reagan raised taxes eight times during his presidency. How many times has Obama raised your taxes? George Bush famously stated, "read my lips: no new taxes" during his election campaign, and them promptly set about increasing taxes soon after he was elected. His war in Iraq was waged under the pretense that Iraq had violated the sovereignty of Kuwait, yet Saddam had offered to negotiated with the Bush administration and to leave Kuwait before we invaded.

We are willing to spend $6 trillion to fund 2 wars across the globe, but we can't find $60 billion to fund free college education for every student in the United States? We can spend $2 million on a single missile, then lob hundreds of them at our 'enemies' without question or a moment's hesitation, but we are unable to provide healthcare for our most vulnerable citizens without brawls breaking out and party factionalization? What does that say about our priorities? With the money we spent on those two wars which did little except line the pockets of military contractors, we could have sent every kid in America to college for 100 years. Furthermore, we currently spend nearly $600 billion our military, which is more than the next 12 countries combined. But don't you dare speak against the military industrial complex, they are even more powerful than the health/pharma lobby. Do we really need 12 aircraft carriers in our fleet? Especially given the relatively cheap SSM anti-ship missiles currently employed by China and Russia which we may have no deterrent against. How have we managed to sink $1.5 trillion into a jet which may be only marginally better than updated versions of the planes we already have?

It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and our air force has to have a bake-sale to buy a bomber. -Robert Fulghum

To quote our nation's last 5-star general, and one of our last truly conservative politicians:

I agree with your analysis of the role and influence of the military industrial complex. Not to get all conspiracy theory on ya but I'm pretty sure that the last president that wasnt on board with their agenda was murdered on live tv for all to see. Actively opposing the interests of the military industrial complex/big oil/ wall Street/ intelligence community / everyone else in that nexus of power who has a vested interest in the war business (I.e. all the folks who actually run the country) would be pretty balsy and i doubt they would let it get very far unless they stood to benefit in some way. Anyways back to the regularly scheduled programing...

 

[WedgeDawg]

How many battleships did we need to win the Pacific?

Technically none because it was carrier warfare that defined (and won) the pacific war and many of the island bombardments by battleships were ineffective at dislodging defenders.

(I know that's not the point I just wanted my hours of reading about WWII on Wikipedia to have some sort of tangible meaning. I'll leave now)

 

[Cello]

Technically none because it was carrier warfare that defined (and won) the pacific war and many of the island bombardments by battleships were ineffective at dislodging defenders.

(I know that's not the point I just wanted my hours of reading about WWII on Wikipedia to have some sort of tangible meaning. I'll leave now)

You're right, and that is precisely the point I was making. Carriers very well may be the modern battleship. It is exceedingly difficult (if not impossible with modern technology) to stop an anti-ship ballistic missile capable of reaching speeds of Mach 10+ as China's DF-21 can. It is also possible to neutralize a carrier battle group's advanced aerial defenses with a saturation attack. AEGIS with AN/SPY-3 can only defend against so many incoming threats.

 

[medic86]

You're right, and that is precisely the point I was making. Carriers very well may be the modern battleship. It is exceedingly difficult (if not impossible with modern technology) to stop an anti-ship ballistic missile capable of reaching speeds of Mach 10+ as China's DF-21 can. It is also possible to neutralize a carrier battle group's advanced aerial defenses with a saturation attack. AEGIS with AN/SPY-3 can only defend against so many incoming threats.

Just because there's an effective weapon out there doesn't mean you scuttle your fleet of 12 carriers and reduce your force projection to zero.

 

[Rich C.]

Who is the best president in terms of healthcare professionals will benefit the most from? I dont' care about other social/economic policies they might have; I'm focusing about which president is best for us?



Bernie Sanders wants Free, Universal healthcare so is that good for us? Or will that lower our salaries or keep them the same?


Trump wants to get ride of Obamacare ASAP. Is Obamacare in favor of healthcare professionals or is that worse of us? I'm not to familiar with Rubios/Cruz/Carson's policies so I won't say anything, but if you know, then feel free to contribute!

Focusing on health-related policies from presidents ITT

test.

 

[Cello]

Cello, if you don't want to be part of a superpower feel free to move to a different country that isn't. Americans have a deep seated instinct on maintaining its global "hegmony." I'll take the large military so other countries don't have to build militaries to protect themselves. We use our large DOD to supplement other countries need for a military. Swiss and Canada know that if anything ever happened to them we'd be fighting their fight.

If my country happens to be a superpower without engaging in an endless and global military campaign then that's fine by me. What I don't want is a nation which is in a perpetual state of war, and considering that we have spent more than 215 years at war, and only 21 at peace, we may want to reconsider our values.

I hope that you are not one of the masses clamoring against "free" stuff and demanding a smaller government. I am fine when people disagree with me. What I don't particularly care for is inconsistency or hypocrisy. People who are okay with spending tax dollars on their favorite programs (like the military) should understand when people with different values want tax dollars spent on their favorite programs (like healthcare or education). People who want little or no government spending ought to be consistent across the board or quit complaining about the government.

Just because there's an effective weapon out there doesn't mean you scuttle your fleet of 12 carriers and reduce your force projection to zero.

Where did I say that we ought to scuttle the entire fleet or that we reduce our force projection to zero? Are you implying that we either spend $582 billion on defense, or nothing at all? There is no middle-ground?

 

[skifast25]

@RB_Dez Trump!!!!

 

[psychMDhopefully]

If you went to a medical school interview or residency interview, and they asked why you wanted to be a doctor or x specialty, and you gave the reason 'to make as much money as possible', how do you think it would turn out?

Why are premeds allowed here?

 

[Goro]

Agree 100% with my learned colleague. One thing we learned from history, the hard way, is that we're a World Power, like it or not. In two world wars we tried the neutrality shtick and it bit us on the ass. Plus, we can't hide behind two oceans anymore like used to.

Do we need to be the world's policeman? Of course not, but when the natives are killing each other, someone has to be the adult in the room. The Europeans sure won't to be. Just tell that to the 8000 Bosnians slaughtered in Srebrenica in 1995 or the one million Rwandans, when we sadly sat on our hands.

Meh, it's well and nice to dismiss the last seventy years of our world history as a mistake but smarter leaders than you (of both parties) have doubled down on this superpower position and it did lead to the end of Hitler, the USSR, and countless other world tyrants.

Yes it's expensive but who else was going to do it -- the Swiss? Frankly yours is at best the argument of a person with no moral compass, at worst one of cowardice -- let the rest of the world deal with the problems, I will stay neutral and just hope things work out, minding my chocolate, banks and ski slopes.

That may have worked fine in the 19th century but the world is a lot smaller now and keeping your head in the sand leaves other things exposed. In world politics nobody cares what the Swiss think and yet their economy tanks with the rest of ours, their borders are only as secure as their neighbors choose. It's a pretty pathetic mindset -- in world diplomacy matters they are lucky to sit at the kids table. We don't want this, even if it costs a lot to keep our seat.

Again, Canada is not a world power. You seem anxious to be seated at the kiddies table. America is not about that. We want a say in the world.

 

[FiveOClock]

I hope that you are not one of the masses clamoring against "free" stuff and demanding a smaller government. I am fine when people disagree with me. What I don't particularly care for is inconsistency or hypocrisy. People who are okay with spending tax dollars on their favorite programs (like the military) should understand when people with different values want tax dollars spent on their favorite programs (like healthcare or education). People who want little or no government spending ought to be consistent across the board or quit complaining about the government.

You can't compare defense spending to any other government programs. There's a reason why it is in its own little category. Defense spending benefits all Americans equally (i.e. everyone receives protection) whereas social welfare programs specifically benefit one group at the expense of another. Some critics are tempted to argue that defense spending is functionally an entitlement for Republican states (since nearly no left-wing individuals volunteer to join the professional army); however, this viewpoint is inane, seeing as they are being paid to be in the reserve in exchange fro the risk of life and limb. Social security and food stamps are a one street that requires absolutely nothing in return.

 

[Cello]

Agree 100% with my learned colleague. One thing we learned from history, the hard way, is that we're a World Power, like it or not. In two world wars we tried the neutrality shtick and it bit us on the ass. Plus, we can't hide behind two oceans anymore like used to.

From a strictly historical perspective, right or wrong, you can't expect to uphold an oil embargo against Japan indefinitely without some kind of military response. I submit to you that such actions are also far from neutral.

Do we need to be the world's policeman? Of course not, but when the natives are killing each other, someone has to be the adult in the room. The Europeans sure won't to be. Just tell that to the 8000 Bosnians slaughtered in Srebrenica in 1995 or the one million Rwandans, when we sadly sat on our hands.

Were we the adults in the room with our own natives? How many millions were systematically slaughtered thanks to American expansion and aggression?

 

[Cello]

You can't compare defense spending to any other government programs. There's a reason why it is in its own little category. Defense spending benefits all Americans equally (i.e. everyone receives protection) whereas social welfare programs specifically benefit one group at the expense of another. Some critics are tempted to argue that defense spending is functionally an entitlement for Republican states (since nearly no left-wing individuals volunteer to join the professional army); however, this viewpoint is inane, seeing as they are being paid to be in the reserve in exchange fro the risk of life and limb. Social security and food stamps are a one street that requires absolutely nothing in return.

Public education, the USPS, the FCC, FDA, social security, all of those social programs benefit all American citizens equally. Other programs are still beneficial even if citizens extract no direct value from them. For example, safety nets like welfare or unemployment allow people to switch careers (a risk), a benefit they may not take advantage of without the promise of security that such government programs provide. The police are not used by everyone equally, but they are equally available to everyone (in theory). The same may be said for the fire department, or even FEMA.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

From a strictly historical perspective, right or wrong, you can't expect to uphold an oil embargo against Japan indefinitely without some kind of military response. I submit to you that such actions are also far from neutral.



Were we the adults in the room with our own natives? How many millions were systematically slaughtered thanks to American expansion and aggression?

So because we have a dark chapter in our own history means we can't ever interfere to prevent that sort of thing from happening again elsewhere in the world?

 

[Cello]

So because we have a dark chapter in our own history means we can't ever interfere to prevent that sort of thing from happening again elsewhere in the world?

It is a chapter which has not yet been closed thanks to programs like the Indian Adoption Program which sought to tear native children from their families and adopt them to US families with little or no formal process as a means of forced integration. Then there are the tribes who are still forced from their reservation lands to this very day in order to make way for the oil industry in the Dakotas, Louisiana, and in the west.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be involved in global affairs. Operating off of everyone's front step is immensely expensive, and yet it's an expense that conservatives have little issue with. The military is big government, and yet again it is a program which conservatives have no problem funding despite being the party of 'less government'.

This is tangential to your post VA Hopeful Dr, but if conservatives have an interest in maintaining a large military, then by all means I can respect that. But then, don't turn around and pretend to be the party of small government and less spending when the military is the very antithesis of both. It is the hypocrisy which draws my criticism.

Saying that we can't afford universal healthcare, or that we can't reimburse physicians beyond 20% and we can't treat our wounded vets because it's cost prohibitive is ridiculous. We can afford those things, it is simply a matter of priorities. As Bernie Sanders said, "if you can't afford to take care of your veterans, then don't go to war. These people are bearing the brunt of what war is about. We have a moral obligation to support them."

For anyone to pretend that they are for less government and less taxes while they simultaneously favor funding $600 billion to operate the military and a further $6 trillion to engage in 2 simultaneous invasions is simply hypocrisy which I can not get behind.

 

[FiveOClock]

Public education, the USPS, the FCC, FDA, social security, all of those social programs benefit all American citizens equally. Other programs are still beneficial even if citizens extract no direct value from them. For example, safety nets like welfare or unemployment allow people to switch careers (a risk), a benefit they may not take advantage of without the promise of security that such government programs provide. The police are not used by everyone equally, but they are equally available to everyone (in theory). The same may be said for the fire department, or even FEMA.

No every program you mentioned disproportionately benefits certain groups other others based on geographic and socioeconomic status. As for safety nets, I think you explicitly affirmed my point. People who are not interested in switching careers are made to fund other peoples career switches. Does that sound equitable to you? What if I never want to switch careers? How many other peoples career escapades should I be bound to fund?

Also police and fire are municipal services. They have nothing at all to do with the federal government.

 

[Stagg737]

With the number of enemies the U.S. has made in the past, significantly decreasing the military power of the U.S. is basically both a wish to be annihilated and an invitation to the other superpowers (Russia and China) that they could do whatever they wanted (within reason) without major repercussions from us.

 

[Cello]

No every program you mentioned disproportionately benefits certain groups other others based on geographic and socioeconomic status. As for safety nets, I think you explicitly affirmed my point. People who are not interested in switching careers are made to fund other peoples career switches. Does that sound equitable to you? What if I never want to switch careers? How many other peoples career escapades should I be bound to fund?

Also police and fire are municipal services. They have nothing at all to do with the federal government.

Police and fire benefit from federal funding just as public schools do. Anyway, their being municipal agencies does not change the fact that they are social programs paid for by society to benefit its citizens. Being a product of the state or the federal government is a moot point frankly.

You don't think that people who want to drop bombs to kill people in foreign countries aren't disproportionately "benefiting" those people who do every time they pay their taxes?

As far as people who never want to switch careers, again it's the same as the military. I don't want the military until I need it. I also don't want unemployment until I need it. You never know when a foreign power may decide to invade. Likewise, you never know when new management may take over or you may be laid off by a corporate merger. You pay for programs that you have equal access to, not that you take equal advantage of. Not every acrobat plans to use the safety net, but it is there for every one of them whether they fall or not, hence our use of the term 'safety net' to describe social welfare programs. Do acrobats take more risks with a safety net? You bet they do!

With the number of enemies the U.S. has made in the past, significantly decreasing the military power of the U.S. is basically both a wish to be annihilated and an invitation to the other superpowers (Russia and China) that they could do whatever they wanted (within reason) without major repercussions from us.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your post seems to be saying, "our historic policies have led us to this predicament, so we must continue those same policies to avoid worsening said predicament."

 

[FiveOClock]

Police and fire benefit from federal funding just as public schools do. Anyway, their being municipal agencies does not change the fact that they are social programs paid for by society to benefit its citizens. Being a product of the state or the federal government is a moot point frankly.

You don't think that people who want to drop bombs to kill people in foreign countries aren't disproportionately "benefiting" those people who do every time they pay their taxes?

As far as people who never want to switch careers, again it's the same as the military. I don't want the military until I need it. I also don't want unemployment until I need it. You never know when a foreign power may decide to invade. Likewise, you never know when new management may take over or you may be laid off by a corporate merger. You pay for programs that you have equal access to, not that you take equal advantage of. Not every acrobat plans to use the safety net, but it is there for every one of them whether they fall or not, hence our use of the term 'safety net' to describe social welfare programs. Do acrobats take more risks with a safety net? You bet they do!
"

No, the distinction between federal, state, and local is key. It's called federalism. It used to exist, and it meant that I would not have to pay exorbitant taxes to support problems in other localities that were not national problems (i.e. wars).

The "safety net" has really done a great job facilitating all of this economic growth. I mean, wow, stunning. And in Europe too. Shooooo. We better make it 10x bigger, so we can be 10x more successful right? Wrong. People are responsible for creating their own "safety net." Instead of buying steaks, tattoos, and new tires for your car, you should be saving your cash for a day when you might well get fired. Social safety nets DESTROY all incentives for people of lower economic means to save anything, making them eventually dependent upon government assistance. This is great for types like you though because it enslaves our poorer citizens and forces to them vote for freebies by making them welfare-dependent.

 

[Cello]

No, the distinction between federal, state, and local is key. It's called federalism. It used to exist, and it meant that I would not have to pay exorbitant taxes to support problems in other localities that were not national problems (i.e. wars).

The battle between Jeffersonian Republicanism and Hamiltonian Federalism is about as old as the nation itself. To suggest that "federalism" was ever a point of arrival is simply a fallacy. States have long struggled to define their powers and the limits of the federal government, we even fought a civil war over it. Besides, you simply avoided the fact that the federal government does indeed fund municipal police departments and fire departments.

You're also not going to defend your previous assertion that the military is somehow different from other government programs?

The "safety net" has really done a great job facilitating all of this economic growth. I mean, wow, stunning. And in Europe too. Shooooo.

Social Security has been very successful. In fact, it is so successful that the treasury issues bonds (which are basically just worthless IOUs) and dips into the SS trust fund to fund things like, oh I don't know... the military. Social Security was around for our nation's most prosperous era, and what can be called arguably the most prosperous era in all of human history.

As far as Europe goes, they seem to be doing just fine, so I am not sure what your point here is. When European markets do well Americans like to credit capitalism and the free market, and when European markets do poorly Americans like to blame socialism. You can't have it both ways. Besides, some of the nations which embrace socialism the most are doing the best in terms of health, happiness, and income.

We better make it 10x bigger, so we can be 10x more successful right?

That would be poor logic, and yet it's the same logic we have applied to military spending...

Wrong.

Maybe?

People are responsible for creating their own "safety net." Instead of buying steaks, tattoos, and new tires for your car, you should be saving your cash for a day when you might well get fired.

"Hey you! Guy making $7.50 an hour at Walmart! Don't you dare put new tires on your sole means of getting to your job! Put that money into savings right now, because I won't be there to help you when you are a broke old man. If you have a low income then it's your fault and you should be punished for your poor life choices! It isn't my fault that your employer gives me low prices by paying you a poverty wage! Free market b*tch!"

Social safety nets DESTROY all incentives for people of lower economic means to save anything, making them eventually dependent upon government assistance.

Because the moment that welfare legislation passed everyone immediately quit their jobs and stopped working. I know that I'd rather be on welfare than going to dental school. More entitlements please!

This is great for types like you though because it enslaves our poorer citizens and forces to them vote for freebies by making them welfare-dependent.

You've caught me. I was hoping that no one would notice that I am trying to create a welfare-dependent state only so that I can explain to people on message boards that their fellow citizens don't deserve to be poor and shouldn't necessarily be punished for life choices that their peers don't approve of.

 

[tristatenontrad]

There will.alw

No, the distinction between federal, state, and local is key. It's called federalism. It used to exist, and it meant that I would not have to pay exorbitant taxes to support problems in other localities that were not national problems (i.e. wars).

The "safety net" has really done a great job facilitating all of this economic growth. I mean, wow, stunning. And in Europe too. Shooooo. We better make it 10x bigger, so we can be 10x more successful right? Wrong. People are responsible for creating their own "safety net." Instead of buying steaks, tattoos, and new tires for your car, you should be saving your cash for a day when you might well get fired. Social safety nets DESTROY all incentives for people of lower economic means to save anything, making them eventually dependent upon government assistance. This is great for types like you though because it enslaves our poorer citizens and forces to them vote for freebies by making them welfare-dependent.

There will always be people who abuse the system, that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. How we as a society treat those on the fringes who through no fault of their own can't take care of themselves (I.e. developmentally disabled, debilitating mental illness, homeless etc) says a lot about the moral character of our society. Sure it's easy to look away and pretend it's not there but unfortunately eliminating or drastically reducing social safety nets would punish those who do truly have a need. If you're ok with leaving the most vulnerable of us to fend for themselves just because fox news points it's camera at the local welfare queen with 7 kids then I wld either assume you haven't been exposed to the populations in question or are of questionable moral character.

 

[tristatenontrad]

And for the record I do think the public sector is enormously bloated and incredibly inefficient and wasteful in administering said services. I just dont have a better alternative. I understandably lost my faith in the private sector in 2008 and I wld hate to see them gamble away people's livelihoods (again) then ask the big wasteful government to bail them out.

 

[Stagg737]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your post seems to be saying, "our historic policies have led us to this predicament, so we must continue those same policies to avoid worsening said predicament."

To a certain extent, yes. Most things in life, especially power, require balance and sudden changes in that balance causes massive instability. That includes the U.S.' military involvement abroad. Just look at the middle east. When the U.S. pulled out of the middle east after desert storm without helping establish a stable government, it devastated the area and helped found groups which used weapons we gave them to attack us. Before that it was Vietnam, which has recovered but is still one of the most censored and least economically free countries in the world. Before that it was Korea. Considering the current state of North Korea and the fact that they are still very aggressive towards South Korea, it should be obvious to anyone with even a minutiae of awareness to current events in that area that it's a good thing the U.S. has maintained a military presence there for support.

I should clarify, I'm pretty libertarian and I don't like the idea or the reality that we have a military presence abroad. However, the logical side of me also understands how screwed both the U.S. and many people in those countries would be if we didn't have a military presence there. Not to mention the indirect effect to the global economy it would have if the U.S. suddenly took a back seat and let countries like China and Russia with their outstanding human rights and environmental records take the lead...

 

[FiveOClock]

The battle between Jeffersonian Republicanism and Hamiltonian Federalism is about as old as the nation itself. To suggest that "federalism" was ever a point of arrival is simply a fallacy. States have long struggled to define their powers and the limits of the federal government, we even fought a civil war over it. Besides, you simply avoided the fact that the federal government does indeed fund municipal police departments and fire departments.

You're also not going to defend your previous assertion that the military is somehow different from other government programs?



Social Security has been very successful. In fact, it is so successful that the treasury issues bonds (which are basically just worthless IOUs) and dips into the SS trust fund to fund things like, oh I don't know... the military. Social Security was around for our nation's most prosperous era, and what can be called arguably the most prosperous era in all of human history.

As far as Europe goes, they seem to be doing just fine, so I am not sure what your point here is. When European markets do well Americans like to credit capitalism and the free market, and when European markets do poorly Americans like to blame socialism. You can't have it both ways. Besides, some of the nations which embrace socialism the most are doing the best in terms of health, happiness, and income.

See now, if you're going to be this absurd then we can't even have a conversation. People who claim that SS is a successful program fail their mental status exam IMO. When is the last time you heard anyone talk about how great SS was? Right never. Because it is an insolvent pyramid scheme that will be broke by 2030 and 100% out of cash. That is not speculation, that is fact. And that analysis is from a liberal think tank affording excessively rosy forecasts for economic growth. On the subject of economic growth, you seem to be under the impression that less than 2% growth per year with near 0.0% interest rates is a good thing. Can't tell if trolling or not... I hope you are insightful enough to realize that the "growth" America is experiencing now is in fact a stagnation at best. It only appears to be growing (anemically) because the government has made capital essentially free. This has incentized companies to buy back stocks, pump up stock prices, and invest in less risky ventures. Which of course will inevitable yield...well some pumped up stocks (temporarily), some blatantly falsified job numbers (lowest labor participate in the history of the US post WWII), and decreasing tax revenues.

There will.alw


There will always be people who abuse the system, that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. How we as a society treat those on the fringes who through no fault of their own can't take care of themselves (I.e. developmentally disabled, debilitating mental illness, homeless etc) says a lot about the moral character of our society. Sure it's easy to look away and pretend it's not there but unfortunately eliminating or drastically reducing social safety nets would punish those who do truly have a need. If you're ok with leaving the most vulnerable of us to fend for themselves just because fox news points it's camera at the local welfare queen with 7 kids then I wld either assume you haven't been exposed to the populations in question or are of questionable moral character.

Taking care of those who are truly in need is the responsibility of everyone with means. A voluntary, moral responsibility. Local charities do a much better job of truly getting people back on their feet than any government program could. Because these charities and free clinics are run by volunteers who actually give a ****, unlike the government bureaucrat dolling out handouts. It also allows for the easy distinguishing between those truly in need and those who would be taking advantage. Instead of taxing people to hell and then wasting all of their money by paying a bunch of "administrators," give people tax credits for donating to charities and non-profits. Watch how much more effectively the community solves their problems than the government could.

 

[ConfusedChemist]

So back to the Original question from me ( the OP), is this order of best Presidents in terms of greatest salaries for Healthcare Professionals......

1. Trump
2. Any GOP Candidate
3. Hillary
4. A pile of ****

100. Bernie Sanders

?

Just please, please stay out of medicine. For the sake of your poor future patients. Particularly the poor ones.

Also, please come back once you have at least started freshman year of college....

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/should-i-do-pa-or-nurse-practioner.1147791/#post-16659505

 

[username456789]

Just please, please stay out of medicine. For the sake of your poor future patients. Particularly the poor ones.

Also, please come back once you have at least started freshman year of college....

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/should-i-do-pa-or-nurse-practioner.1147791/#post-16659505

You have no more right to a career in medicine than he does. Get off your high horse and don't presume everyone is going into medicine for the same reasons as you.

 

[tristatenontrad]

See now, if you're going to be this absurd then we can't even have a conversation. People who claim that SS is a successful program fail their mental status exam IMO. When is the last time you heard anyone talk about how great SS was? Right never. Because it is an insolvent pyramid scheme that will be broke by 2030 and 100% out of cash. That is not speculation, that is fact. And that analysis is from a liberal think tank affording excessively rosy forecasts for economic growth. On the subject of economic growth, you seem to be under the impression that less than 2% growth per year with near 0.0% interest rates is a good thing. Can't tell if trolling or not... I hope you are insightful enough to realize that the "growth" America is experiencing now is in fact a stagnation at best. It only appears to be growing (anemically) because the government has made capital essentially free. This has incentized companies to buy back stocks, pump up stock prices, and invest in less risky ventures. Which of course will inevitable yield...well some pumped up stocks (temporarily), some blatantly falsified job numbers (lowest labor participate in the history of the US post WWII), and decreasing tax revenues.



Taking care of those who are truly in need is the responsibility of everyone with means. A voluntary, moral responsibility. Local charities do a much better job of truly getting people back on their feet than any government program could. Because these charities and free clinics are run by volunteers who actually give a ****, unlike the government bureaucrat dolling out handouts. It also allows for the easy distinguishing between those truly in need and those who would be taking advantage. Instead of taxing people to hell and then wasting all of their money by paying a bunch of "administrators," give people tax credits for donating to charities and non-profits. Watch how much more effectively the community solves their problems than the government could.

While I agree with you that there is much fat to be trimmed from government I do think you are seriously underestimating the scope of the problem. Local charities and the like are not equipped to even make even a small dent in addressing the issues faced by any major city. Perhaps in small towns such a solution could suffice but the sheer magnitude of legitimate issues (I.e. serious mental illness, developmental disability, homelessness etc.) plaguing densely populated urban centers would overwhelm even the most well funded charities. Have you ever lived in a major city? It is incredibly naive to think voluntarily-funded charities could ever have the kind of resources and infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of any metro area. And while giving tax incentives for folks to donate may encourage donations some of the time what about the rest of the time? In real life your solution would still result in a ton of our most vunlerable being left to fend for themselves all in the name of paying less taxes. As much as I hate the bloated administrative infrastructure and as skeptical as I am of the sincerity of the intentions of the policymakers who are only in it to create more democratic voters I still think it is better than the alternative which would be leaving our most vulnerable Fending for themselves
If you Have an actual alternative That would work in real life Im All Ears.

 

[nRomaleos]

See now, if you're going to be this absurd then we can't even have a conversation. People who claim that SS is a successful program fail their mental status exam IMO. When is the last time you heard anyone talk about how great SS was? Right never. Because it is an insolvent pyramid scheme that will be broke by 2030 and 100% out of cash. That is not speculation, that is fact. And that analysis is from a liberal think tank affording excessively rosy forecasts for economic growth. On the subject of economic growth, you seem to be under the impression that less than 2% growth per year with near 0.0% interest rates is a good thing. Can't tell if trolling or not... I hope you are insightful enough to realize that the "growth" America is experiencing now is in fact a stagnation at best. It only appears to be growing (anemically) because the government has made capital essentially free. This has incentized companies to buy back stocks, pump up stock prices, and invest in less risky ventures. Which of course will inevitable yield...well some pumped up stocks (temporarily), some blatantly falsified job numbers (lowest labor participate in the history of the US post WWII), and decreasing tax revenues.



Taking care of those who are truly in need is the responsibility of everyone with means. A voluntary, moral responsibility. Local charities do a much better job of truly getting people back on their feet than any government program could. Because these charities and free clinics are run by volunteers who actually give a ****, unlike the government bureaucrat dolling out handouts. It also allows for the easy distinguishing between those truly in need and those who would be taking advantage. Instead of taxing people to hell and then wasting all of their money by paying a bunch of "administrators," give people tax credits for donating to charities and non-profits. Watch how much more effectively the community solves their problems than the government could.

and not a shred of proof was seen in this post...

Atleast @Cello brought some interesting facts and thoughts to the table. This post is as close to GOP talking points as it gets.

 

[Captain DO]

I know you are being facetious but don't the doctors need engineers to build the wall? Then again I see potential with the ortho surgeons.

We got through year II in med school man.

Give us an engineering book and a couple days, and we'll figure it out.

We got this, bruh.