Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Sorry twit you don't know anything but shooting off your mouth.
Hi -- New here.
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
Sorry twit you don't know anything but shooting off your mouth.
Sock is incapable of providing the corroboration that was requested and that evidential standards require. Neither are you.
So you say. Sock can't back up "her" "belief system" with factual data, apparently.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
I do have one question. Many want to expand Medicare to all. To do so would cost a ton of money. Just how would we pay for it without cutting other essential spending. If you say cutting foreign aid I might agree with you.
Repeating the same claims doesn't establish their veracity, sock.
Now, claim I "surrendered" again. It's all you're capable of, apparently. No wonder you weren't picked up on another project.
I think the 'Debate' ... is occurring before our eyes. And Grumpy and Legina just don't like her politics so it has devolved into a "Let's beat the shit out of this bitch!".
(Unfortunately for Grump and Legina, they are the ones with the black eyes and missing front teeth)
I think the 'Debate' ... is occurring before our eyes. And Grumpy and Legina just don't like her politics so it has devolved into a "Let's beat the shit out of this bitch!". (Unfortunately for Grump and Legina, they are the ones with the black eyes and missing front teeth)
So you say. What an imaginative little toad you can be. Big Jack, the knight in whining armor, riding to defend a damsel in distress?
The problem with your scenario is a simple as your "reasoning."
I don't believe the sock is a "she." Nor do I believe that women merit special treatment, although I suspect that was the motive behind the sock's "biography."
I think she is clearly giving her opinion about a range of topics. YOU just don't like her perception of the world. It's wonderful to see her put you in a headlock and ... punch you in the face, punch you in the face, punch you in the face.
Infant mortality is calculated as a ratio of infants that die within a certain period of being born and infants that are born. An aborted fetus doesn't count in either the numerator or the denominator, so abortions shouldn't impact infant mortality rates, except to the extent that aborted fetuses would, if not aborted, have disproportionately been unhealthy or neglected infants (and thus die at higher rates). I suppose it's possible that terminating unwanted pregnancies is, in fact, reducing the share of people who die as infants (or children), but I'd need to see statistical support for that.
Now that I think of it, there's another theoretical way that terminating unwanted pregnancies could mean a higher share of infants/children surviving: basically, poverty is a risk factor for infant/childhood death, and women who have unwanted births are probably at higher risk of falling into poverty. So, for example, an infant that would have survived if its mother had terminated an unwanted pregnancy might, instead, die if she carries that unwanted pregnancy to term, creating an additional burden on her energies and financial resources that might otherwise have spared the baby's life.
If that speculation is right, that would be a specific example of a Democrat-supported policy (defending a woman's choice when it comes to abortion) that would help to produce the results I cited (lower infant mortality rates).
Opinions aren't facts, Jack.
Can "she" - or you, her knight in whining armor - reference a specific DEMOCRAT policy to each one of the following alleged results, and show verifiable evidence of a causal relationship?
- Lower murder rates
- Lower infant mortality
- High life expectancy
- More college degrees
- Higher median income
- Higher productivity
- Higher GSP per capita
- Lower overall crime
- Lower incarceration rate
- Lower obesity rates
Nice try ... you're losing to a new Poster, so you now try to wiggle your way out with distractions.
Facts aren't distractions, Jackson.
Can "she" - or you, "her" knight in whining armor - reference a specific DEMOCRAT policy to each one of the following alleged results, and show verifiable evidence of a causal relationship?
- Lower murder rates
- Lower infant mortality
- High life expectancy
- More college degrees
- Higher median income
- Higher productivity
- Higher GSP per capita
- Lower overall crime
- Lower incarceration rate
- Lower obesity rates
hot babe chick:
"Infant mortality is calculated as a ratio of infants that die within a certain period of being born and infants that are born. An aborted fetus doesn't count in either the numerator or the denominator, so abortions shouldn't impact infant mortality rates, except to the extent that aborted fetuses would, if not aborted, have disproportionately been unhealthy or neglected infants (and thus die at higher rates). I suppose it's possible that terminating unwanted pregnancies is, in fact, reducing the share of people who die as infants (or children), but I'd need to see statistical support for that.
Now that I think of it, there's another theoretical way that terminating unwanted pregnancies could mean a higher share of infants/children surviving: basically, poverty is a risk factor for infant/childhood death, and women who have unwanted births are probably at higher risk of falling into poverty. So, for example, an infant that would have survived if its mother had terminated an unwanted pregnancy might, instead, die if she carries that unwanted pregnancy to term, creating an additional burden on her energies and financial resources that might otherwise have spared the baby's life.
If that speculation is right, that would be a specific example of a Democrat-supported policy (defending a woman's choice when it comes to abortion) that would help to produce the results I cited (lower infant mortality rates)."
You know what's puzzling, ... why she even bothers to engage with you. All you're doing is fucking with her because you have NOTHING better to do all day. I hope she is being amused at having you dance around like some Court Jester.
Sock admits to being unemployed, Jack. It looks as though you're the one who wants to fuck with "her," based on an avatar that probably bears no resemblance to sock.
Maybe you can PM "her" and arrange a hook-up. "She" says "she" swings both ways, so if you do too, it should work out for both of you.
People with time on their hands, come to Chat Rooms to bounce their thoughts around with other people. Hear what others have to say. Some how, some way, hot babe chick has attracted you two idiots.
Hopefully, she is using you as simple amusements while she is re-balancing her Portfolio, dumping her 10 Cent Holdings, or re-thinking her choice of investing in the Turkish Lira.
I think we could do it without cutting other essential spending by raising taxes. Keep in mind that, by the standards of wealthy nations generally, we have radically low taxes in this country. Even before Trump's upper-class tax cut went through, we were paying an effective total rate of only around 26% of GDP, where the average for the OECD is 34%, and it's more like 37%, average, for the non-US wealthy OECD countries.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally
We can easily fund Medicare for all just by bringing effective tax rates up part-way towards wealthy-nation norms. For example, taking us from 26% to GDP to 34% (leaving us below the new OECD average and well below most wealthy nations), that would bring in about another $1.6 trillion per year.
Now, of course, that would mean more money out of people's pockets for taxes. But the flip side would be less money out of their pockets for health insurance/healthcare. Keep in mind that Medicare-for-all-style systems tend to be cheaper. For example, Canada has Medicare for all and spends half what we do, per capita, on healthcare:
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends
I don't think we can bring our spending down to Canadian levels, but if we bring them even half-way down to that (while hopefully improving our public health stats part-way to Canadian levels in the process), that's a big savings, and most people are going to come out ahead: the extra tax money they get hit for will be less than the healthcare savings they get.
Of course, some will come out on the other side. Even though, on average, people will come out ahead, and far more people will be on the plus side than the minus, some higher earners would pay more under the new system, net (thus the strong opposition from advocates for the aristocracy), and so would some who already effectively have something as good as "Medicare for All" (unless it's structured so they get a commensurate tax credit).
Last edited:
Yes, there's definitely a lot of room for cuts there. One way to think of it is in historical terms. Think back to the Reagan era. In the mid-1980s, what did the US spend on defense, expressed as a multiple of the spending of the next-highest-spending country's defense budget (i.e., the USSR)? What did we spend, back then, expressed as a multiple of the spending of the most formidable alliance arrayed against us (i.e., the Warsaw Pact). I think that if you dig into those numbers you'll see that the answer is that back then even Ueber Hawks like Reagan were proposing military spending levels that were only a bit more than the next-highest-spending nation, and actually quite a bit less than the spending of hostile nations as a group.
If, today, we went back to a Reagan-like multiple, we'd be spending maybe $250 billion on our military. That would be about 2/3 more than the next-closest country (using 2017 data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies), and also more than Russia and China combined (and definitely more than any Warsaw-Pact-style mutual defense organization other than our own NATO). If we cut back to that kind of Reagan-era multiple, we'd save hundreds of billions of dollars every year.