Economy is roaring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the only source of revenue. Just the start.

How much did you and your employer pay for your family in premiums last year?

And there is a balance somewhere between "taxed to death" and ZERO.

So, because the employer pays, it costs nothing? So little logic in this thread.

The employer passes on those costs to employees and the consumer. If the employer did not have those costs, it would go to something else.

The American public already pays for healthcare. I would rather pay the government than line the pockets of an insurance executive with tens of millions of dollars. Those are the only people who would really be hurt by Medicare for all.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the only source of revenue. Just the start.

How much did you and your employer pay for your family in premiums last year?

And there is a balance somewhere between "taxed to death" and ZERO.

So, because the employer pays, it costs nothing? So little logic in this thread.

The employer passes on those costs to employees and the consumer. If the employer did not have those costs, it would go to something else.

The American public already pays for healthcare. I would rather pay the government than line the pockets of an insurance executive with tens of millions of dollars. Those are the only people who would really be hurt by Medicare for all.

And the doctors chose their profession because they want to help people.

Health care is not appropriate for insurance in a capitalist economy. Simply the wrong model.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the only source of revenue. Just the start.

How much did you and your employer pay for your family in premiums last year?

And there is a balance somewhere between "taxed to death" and ZERO.

So, because the employer pays, it costs nothing? So little logic in this thread.

The employer passes on those costs to employees and the consumer. If the employer did not have those costs, it would go to something else.

The American public already pays for healthcare. I would rather pay the government than line the pockets of an insurance executive with tens of millions of dollars. Those are the only people who would really be hurt by Medicare for all.

Exactly.

You mean...Exactly that's the argument to nationalize the whole economy, Cuba-style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the only source of revenue. Just the start.

How much did you and your employer pay for your family in premiums last year?

And there is a balance somewhere between "taxed to death" and ZERO.

So, because the employer pays, it costs nothing? So little logic in this thread.

The employer passes on those costs to employees and the consumer. If the employer did not have those costs, it would go to something else.

The American public already pays for healthcare. I would rather pay the government than line the pockets of an insurance executive with tens of millions of dollars. Those are the only people who would really be hurt by Medicare for all.

Exactly.

And the doctors chose their profession because they want to help people.

Health care is not appropriate for insurance in a capitalist economy. Simply the wrong model.

Plenty of working models in capitalist economies - take your pick:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

[Anonymous]

Trade agreement signing ceremony:

Trump is a hoot as he gives a speech recognizing various people ..... including himself

What a contrast between Trump giving a speech and just about any of the Democratic candidates for the nomination who are as boring as they come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the only source of revenue. Just the start.

How much did you and your employer pay for your family in premiums last year?

And there is a balance somewhere between "taxed to death" and ZERO.

So, because the employer pays, it costs nothing? So little logic in this thread.

The employer passes on those costs to employees and the consumer. If the employer did not have those costs, it would go to something else.

The American public already pays for healthcare. I would rather pay the government than line the pockets of an insurance executive with tens of millions of dollars. Those are the only people who would really be hurt by Medicare for all.

Exactly.

And the doctors chose their profession because they want to help people.

Health care is not appropriate for insurance in a capitalist economy. Simply the wrong model.

Plenty of working models in capitalist economies - take your pick:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

You don't just pick a model and, voila, you get it done like magic.

They take a long time to develop and to implement and to refine, and of course they always must build on the specific conditions in country X.

If it were so easy as some seem to believe, Mexico would simply say, hey, let's pick the Silicon Valley model and apply it tomorrow.

Brilliant!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trade agreement signing ceremony:

Trump is a hoot as he gives a speech recognizing various people ..... including himself

What a contrast between Trump giving a speech and just about any of the Democratic candidates for the nomination who are as boring as they come.

I'll take boring over criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the only source of revenue. Just the start.

How much did you and your employer pay for your family in premiums last year?

And there is a balance somewhere between "taxed to death" and ZERO.

So, because the employer pays, it costs nothing? So little logic in this thread.

The employer passes on those costs to employees and the consumer. If the employer did not have those costs, it would go to something else.

The American public already pays for healthcare. I would rather pay the government than line the pockets of an insurance executive with tens of millions of dollars. Those are the only people who would really be hurt by Medicare for all.

Exactly.

And the doctors chose their profession because they want to help people.

Health care is not appropriate for insurance in a capitalist economy. Simply the wrong model.

Plenty of working models in capitalist economies - take your pick:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

You don't just pick a model and, voila, you get it done like magic.

They take a long time to develop and to implement and to refine, and of course they always must build on the specific conditions in country X.

If it were so easy as some seem to believe, Mexico would simply say, hey, let's pick the Silicon Valley model and apply it tomorrow.

Brilliant!

I was saying "take your pick" for examples of universal care models that works in capitalist economies. Not "take your pick" for what we should implement in the US tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trade agreement signing ceremony:

Trump is a hoot as he gives a speech recognizing various people ..... including himself

What a contrast between Trump giving a speech and just about any of the Democratic candidates for the nomination who are as boring as they come.

Forget about the "surface" (his speech); why not applaud him for the substance - a trade agreement with China? This was an amazing accomplishment, and very little is being said about it here - or in the liberal media. I was late getting home and missed the speech, but I did turn on right after. FOX was discussing the positive economic impact (with estimates that it could account for 1/2% of GDP), but when I flipped to CNN, well....you'd never know that anything happened. They were back to impeachment, impeachment, impeachment. What a colossal waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trade agreement signing ceremony:

Trump is a hoot as he gives a speech recognizing various people ..... including himself

What a contrast between Trump giving a speech and just about any of the Democratic candidates for the nomination who are as boring as they come.

I'll take boring over criminal.

I'll take policies that are good for America over economy-destroying Democratic socialist policies. Any interest in the China trade deal that Trump just negotiated? What about the US-Canada-Mexico agreement? What about the inroads he's made in containing illegal immigration? Or the 3.5% 50-year low in unemployment? Or rising wages for the lower class for the first time in forever? Or the roaring stock market, helping the half of all Americans who either directly or indirectly hold stock? How about the tax help he just gave to war widows? (Bet you didn't even hear about that?) Or arranging it so vets could go to private doctors without waiting for 9 months? Or how he removed the gag order left in place by Obama and now prescriptions are cheaper?

I'll take all that over a boring candidate peddling massive and unaffordable giveaway programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trade agreement signing ceremony:

Trump is a hoot as he gives a speech recognizing various people ..... including himself

What a contrast between Trump giving a speech and just about any of the Democratic candidates for the nomination who are as boring as they come.

I'll take boring over criminal.

I'll take policies that are good for America over economy-destroying Democratic socialist policies. Any interest in the China trade deal that Trump just negotiated? What about the US-Canada-Mexico agreement? What about the inroads he's made in containing illegal immigration? Or the 3.5% 50-year low in unemployment? Or rising wages for the lower class for the first time in forever? Or the roaring stock market, helping the half of all Americans who either directly or indirectly hold stock? How about the tax help he just gave to war widows? (Bet you didn't even hear about that?) Or arranging it so vets could go to private doctors without waiting for 9 months? Or how he removed the gag order left in place by Obama and now prescriptions are cheaper?

I'll take all that over a boring candidate peddling massive and unaffordable giveaway programs.

OK. And I'll take boring-but-thought-out-strategies over criminal-try-to-scam-us-all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trade agreement signing ceremony:

Trump is a hoot as he gives a speech recognizing various people ..... including himself

What a contrast between Trump giving a speech and just about any of the Democratic candidates for the nomination who are as boring as they come.

I'll take boring over criminal.

I'll take policies that are good for America over economy-destroying Democratic socialist policies. Any interest in the China trade deal that Trump just negotiated? What about the US-Canada-Mexico agreement? What about the inroads he's made in containing illegal immigration? Or the 3.5% 50-year low in unemployment? Or rising wages for the lower class for the first time in forever? Or the roaring stock market, helping the half of all Americans who either directly or indirectly hold stock? How about the tax help he just gave to war widows? (Bet you didn't even hear about that?) Or arranging it so vets could go to private doctors without waiting for 9 months? Or how he removed the gag order left in place by Obama and now prescriptions are cheaper?

I'll take all that over a boring candidate peddling massive and unaffordable giveaway programs.

+1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trade agreement signing ceremony:

Trump is a hoot as he gives a speech recognizing various people ..... including himself

What a contrast between Trump giving a speech and just about any of the Democratic candidates for the nomination who are as boring as they come.

Forget about the "surface" (his speech); why not applaud him for the substance - a trade agreement with China? This was an amazing accomplishment, and very little is being said about it here - or in the liberal media. I was late getting home and missed the speech, but I did turn on right after. FOX was discussing the positive economic impact (with estimates that it could account for 1/2% of GDP), but when I flipped to CNN, well....you'd never know that anything happened. They were back to impeachment, impeachment, impeachment. What a colossal waste of time.

CNN hates Trump.

I think lots of people feel this way.

Guess we’ll find out in November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trade agreement signing ceremony:

Trump is a hoot as he gives a speech recognizing various people ..... including himself

What a contrast between Trump giving a speech and just about any of the Democratic candidates for the nomination who are as boring as they come.

I'll take boring over criminal.

I'll take policies that are good for America over economy-destroying Democratic socialist policies. Any interest in the China trade deal that Trump just negotiated? What about the US-Canada-Mexico agreement? What about the inroads he's made in containing illegal immigration? Or the 3.5% 50-year low in unemployment? Or rising wages for the lower class for the first time in forever? Or the roaring stock market, helping the half of all Americans who either directly or indirectly hold stock? How about the tax help he just gave to war widows? (Bet you didn't even hear about that?) Or arranging it so vets could go to private doctors without waiting for 9 months? Or how he removed the gag order left in place by Obama and now prescriptions are cheaper?

I'll take all that over a boring candidate peddling massive and unaffordable giveaway programs.

OK. And I'll take boring-but-thought-out-strategies over criminal-try-to-scam-us-all.

First, the socialist strategies are NOT thought out. It's just: free this, free that! Someone else will pay off your loans! Someone else will pay for your health insurance! Someone else will pay for your daycare! Guaranteed income for everyone too lazy to work!

Interesting though. I listed several excellent results that Trump has brought about, and you skipped right by them with the "criminal" nonsense. (You forget racist and anti-Semite.)

(Trump is SO going to win. That's why the liberals on this forum are getting worse in recent days. They're panicking. And the impeachment hoax is backfiring on you all. BIGLY.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trade agreement signing ceremony:

Trump is a hoot as he gives a speech recognizing various people ..... including himself

What a contrast between Trump giving a speech and just about any of the Democratic candidates for the nomination who are as boring as they come.

Forget about the "surface" (his speech); why not applaud him for the substance - a trade agreement with China? This was an amazing accomplishment, and very little is being said about it here - or in the liberal media. I was late getting home and missed the speech, but I did turn on right after. FOX was discussing the positive economic impact (with estimates that it could account for 1/2% of GDP), but when I flipped to CNN, well....you'd never know that anything happened. They were back to impeachment, impeachment, impeachment. What a colossal waste of time.

CNN hates Trump.

I think lots of people feel this way.

Guess we’ll find out in November.

Based on this forum, it does seem that the hate is deep - and widespread. But I just returned from a cruise (and on a premium line....NOT Carnival), and people were talking politics....politics.....politics. (I've been on lots of cruises and never heard such a focus on it before.) Other than one couple, they were ALL for Trump. And these were not "morons in flyover country" (to use the phrase liberals use here), they were almost all college-educated professionals.