alexey

Members
  • Content count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About alexey

  • Rank
    The Camp Fodder
  • Birthday 11/09/1978

Contact Methods

  • Location
    Washington, DC
  1. Conservatism

    As far as I know, liberals generally believe that government should be as small as it can be - as long as it can get the job done. Taxes should be as low as they can be - as long as the government is properly funded. Trade should be as free as it can be - as long as it achieves our goals. National defense needs to be as strong as possible - as long as we are wise in spending our resources. Genuine disagreements probably include: Color blind society - liberals generally believe that differences should be recognized and celebrated. Literal translation of the Constitution - times have changed. Also, some passages can be interpreted literally, .e.g. "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years" Meaning of other passages HAS to be interpreted e.g. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" This should be a matter of fact rather than a matter of belief. Do we have evidence that the economy will indeed grow faster under such a system? As far as I understand, evidence actually points in an opposite direction. Hostile to the rich, begrudge success, punish success etc. - i haven't heard that from liberals, only from conservatives talking about liberals. 2 families, one makes $100 and the other makes $1000. Food, shelter, etc. cost $60. After paying for necessities, poor family will have $40 and rich family will have $940. Say you have a flat tax rate of 30%. Poor family would pay $30 in taxes leaving them $10 to spend, thus having their disposable income taxed at a 75% rate. Flat tax punishes the poor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Diminishing_marginal_utility Putting CO2 into the atmosphere carries some costs. These costs are currently not factored into the price of fossil fuels. Liberals want a free market solution to a clear and well defined problem.
  2. Those agencies were so good at protecting the people that the people forgot why they were created in the first place. the thing is, we are getting better at changing the environment and changes that we are making are more subtle. It used to be, dump tons of some bad stuff into the river, the river catches fire, oops let's do something. Now things are not as obvious.
  3. Cutting Endocrine disruptors funding from 300 to 10 mil - wtf? That is very important stuff!! BPA is an example. I suspect foul play. Somebody must have some friends in the chemicals business. Cough cough koch.
  4. Sure, as observed from the outside. From the inside, their priorities may look like this: 1) reducing the size and power of the government bureaucracy. 2) as a result of 1), reducing the spending and tax burden, letting people keep more of their hard earned money, freedom from government telling people what to do. 3) safety and security of Americans. Just presenting a different spin on it - not agreeing with these and not saying these make sense or anything like that.
  5. Look at that warm, relatable, kind looking woman, how could he refuse to meet with her?
  6. Right. So money paid out by my insurance, how is that classified in the "out of pocket vs other people" graph? I do not know how to compare cost control of companies vs customers. They control costs in very different ways.
  7. I wonder how much of this is due to an aging population getting on Medicare. also, when I pay into my insurance, and then my insurance pays for my services - is that classified as "other people's money"?
  8. Agreed. As an optimist, I'd like to think that there is some space for success using an approach that's more aggressive than Obama's extra careful non-interventionism. As long as the commander in chief allows Mathis and co to do the work, of course... it's scary to think where we might end up if he starts overruling them in defense matters.
  9. Hey look at the bright side - Pentagon gives the plans and options for Trump to pick from. We have competent people there.
  10. "from implementing some of his policies" is the key here. Some people may say that the difference lies in GOP focusing on opposing Obama first and his policies as a result of that, not the other way around.
  11. Pelosi on working with Trump: http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/305234-dems-signal-willingness-to-work-with-trump-on-infrastructure It's better than saying "we will oppose him no matter what". They are not saying that their job is to make Trump fail.
  12. Schumer on working with Trump: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/chuck-schumer-donald-trump-231672
  13. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/11/10/read-elizabeth-warrens-speech-about-working-with-president-elect-donald-trump/amp?client=safari Elizabeth Warren pledging to work with Trump on things she cares about.
  14. As a matter of fact that ovation is still standing.
  15. I think it's important for trump to be liked and respected. That might incline him to try and deliver on some promises that he made. im concerned about a trade war with China though. Low and middle income Americans depend on cheap household goods. A trade war with China could raise prices on those, effectively creating a regressive tax.