Trumps: White Angry Middleclass

[Lainey]

Social Security. Medicare. The interstate highway system.

Center for Disease Control. Federal park service. Federal Aviation Administration. National Science Institute. National Weather Service. NASA. U.S. Patent office.

[Williamsmith]

AMTRAK, U S Postal Service, Securities and Echange Commission, FDIC, Environmental Protection Agency, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Federal Communications Commission. Transportation Safety Administration (Otherwise known as Bureau of Long Lines, Smoke and Mirrors.) Your turn.

[Zoe Girl]

I was wrong! Saw the clip again.... was talking about DNC. Sorry... caught it wrong.

Whew, I thought I had heard more negative towards Trump from him but he seems to be more ignoring Trump and focusing on Clinton

[LDAHL]

Are we defining "socialism" here as any government activity? The "If you drive on roads, you're a socialist" argument gets made a lot, to the point of achieving cliche status. Or the popular "If you complain about government overreach while collecting Social Security, you're a hypocrite". The implication is that even the slightest brush with government invalidates any argument against government intervention. Personally, I think that's a rather silly reduction ad absurdum argument only suitable for use against Randian anarcho-capitalist strawmen.

You'd be just as foolish arguing that having $5 in your pocket that you can spend freely marks you as a laissez faire capitalist with no right to criticize Goldman Sachs.

There is a spectrum of the level of government intervention you can consider tolerable. Wanting potholes filled is not the same thing as wishing you lived in Caracas. Putting a few bucks in a Roth doesn't make you a robber baron.

[Ultralight]

Are we defining "socialism" here as any government activity? The "If you drive on roads, you're a socialist" argument gets made a lot, to the point of achieving cliche status. Or the popular "If you complain about government overreach while collecting Social Security, you're a hypocrite". The implication is that even the slightest brush with government invalidates any argument against government intervention. Personally, I think that's a rather silly reduction ad absurdum argument only suitable for use against Randian anarcho-capitalist strawmen.

You'd be just as foolish arguing that having $5 in your pocket that you can spend freely marks you as a laissez faire capitalist with no right to criticize Goldman Sachs.

There is a spectrum of the level of government intervention you can consider tolerable. Wanting potholes filled is not the same thing as wishing you lived in Caracas. Putting a few bucks in a Roth doesn't make you a robber baron.

If you drive on roads then you are socialist about roads!

[Williamsmith]

Clinton wants to pretend Bernie is history. Trouble is every time she looks in the rear view mirror, there he is. So now that she can't get rid of him, she is going to be satisfied appearing as though she is the presumptive nominee and decline a debate with Bernie before the California Primary. This will give her time to shake hands with Californians and move on to the job at hand.....a Democratic convention that highlights just how dirty Clinton politics really are.

Do you think Bernie could make 21 million in speeches after the election campaign?

[Ultralight]

Clinton wants to pretend Bernie is history. Trouble is every time she looks in the rear view mirror, there he is. So now that she can't get rid of him, she is going to be satisfied appearing as though she is the presumptive nominee and decline a debate with Bernie before the California Primary. This will give her time to shake hands with Californians and move on to the job at hand.....a Democratic convention that highlights just how dirty Clinton politics really are.

Do you think Bernie could make 21 million in speeches after the election campaign?

She ain't getting my vote.

[catherine]

Are we defining "socialism" here as any government activity? The "If you drive on roads, you're a socialist" argument gets made a lot, to the point of achieving cliche status. Or the popular "If you complain about government overreach while collecting Social Security, you're a hypocrite". The implication is that even the slightest brush with government invalidates any argument against government intervention. Personally, I think that's a rather silly reduction ad absurdum argument only suitable for use against Randian anarcho-capitalist strawmen.

You'd be just as foolish arguing that having $5 in your pocket that you can spend freely marks you as a laissez faire capitalist with no right to criticize Goldman Sachs.

There is a spectrum of the level of government intervention you can consider tolerable. Wanting potholes filled is not the same thing as wishing you lived in Caracas. Putting a few bucks in a Roth doesn't make you a robber baron.

I get that you are for the least government intervention as possible and let business do what they will. Just curious, what type of regulation do you support when it comes to business? Any at all??

Let's talk about a more complex issue: let's take one of our favorite topics: healthcare. TIME Magazine had an article that I was interested in reading because it's about my livelihood: marketing drugs. I hate to bite the hand that feeds me, but the article talked about the price gouging of pharmaceuticals. The main problem is that, according to one of the experts quoted:

...the rules of supply and demand do not apply. 'People say, Let pharmaceutical manufacturers charge whatever the market will bear'... but it doesn't work that way.. It's a flawed market.

There are a lot of reasons for that which I won't go into but how can you justify pharmaceutical companies getting away with increasing the prices of their medications by double digits EVERY YEAR? Just because they can? It's a horrendous abuse of the system. I know that they need to conduct R&D and they have to recoup their investment before patent expiry--I know that well, but should or should not there be limits to profits?

It makes me feel dirty being in this business.

[Williamsmith]

I get that you are for the least government intervention as possible and let business do what they will. Just curious, what type of regulation do you support when it comes to business? Any at all??

Let's talk about a more complex issue: let's take one of our favorite topics: healthcare. TIME Magazine had an article that I was interested in reading because it's about my livelihood: marketing drugs. I hate to bite the hand that feeds me, but the article talked about the price gouging of pharmaceuticals. The main problem is that, according to one of the experts quoted:



There are a lot of reasons for that which I won't go into but how can you justify pharmaceutical companies getting away with increasing the prices of their medications by double digits EVERY YEAR? Just because they can? It's a horrendous abuse of the system. I know that they need to conduct R&D and they have to recoup their investment before patent expiry--I know that well, but should or should not there be limits to profits?

It makes me feel dirty being in this business.

The only reason pharmaceutical companies are getting away with the price increases is BECAUSE of the effects of government intervention in medical care over the past fifty years. Government has create the trough at which they feed. Don't you think things would be getting just a little bit better by now if government control actually worked? A return to true freedom to seek medical care on the open market is what we need. The only way to provide medical care as a "right" is by force...by oppressive beuraucracies, rationing and deprivation. We have been going in the wrong direction. We need a compass to get out of the woods, not more wandering around.

[Zoe Girl]

Yes, there is so much gray area in what you think is the best government spending. I work for a school district and have some funding from federal grants. I 100% support the after school funding I get, all over I see that it is being used well and has an impact (it better for the amount of checks and balances and data we do), however I do not vote for every bond and mill levy for the school district. It is being managed badly, and I am getting involved in that activism because I don't blame anyone for questioning how the money is being used. We need to fix some things honestly,