Sfdebris.net

CmdrKing wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:13 pmThe question "how are we going to pay for it" is rhetorical bad faith. If you're asking that, it's because you just don't want to acknowledge the problem under discussion.

The secret is that the government, despite keeping track of numbers, does not actually have a budget it must adhere to. So in terms of legislation, deciding on a course of action, then finding means by which to make it work feasibly, including budget, later is the correct way to conduct things.

Bad faith is argueing, that you could just print the money to finance a different public insurance system. Inflation is a thing, you know.

Well I think the US is more in the habit of borrowing money via the fed and US bonds. Two different sides of the same coin as far as monetary issues, though inflation is much more controllable with open market operations.

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:04 am To play Devil's Advocate, Vox was heavily on Sanders' side in the 2016 primaries, to the point like most MSM, they didn't report on his scandals. As far as I know. So maybe you shouldn't trust them?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Ah, bad faith in action. Thanks for volunteering.

So for example you would claim this:

Madner Kami wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:41 pm Bad faith is argueing, that you could just print the money to finance a different public insurance system. Inflation is a thing, you know.

Whilst quoting an argument that says

So in terms of legislation, deciding on a course of action, then finding means by which to make it work feasibly, including budget, later is the correct way to conduct things.

The entire scope of my statement is "no, we need single payer, so we draft legislation for that then as part of that process we allocate funds and raise new revenue as needed". The conservative response is to lie "if you just print money you're gonna cause inflation", as a means to prevent discussion of how to draft the legislation.

And we know it's bad faith and not merely ignorance because these discussions are muted and less public once "priorities" like inefficient military spending or corporate welfare are raised.

So if centrists have some solution to the problem besides "millions of people a year deserve to choose between inescapable debt and death due to our nation's shitty insurance system", by all means let them lay out proposals. But this cannot continue and pretending it can to spite the only ones proposing anything (which is very much what "Why not take a stand against [Sanders] and his voters?" is, spite) is going to get people killed.

Yeah I was gonna say, you make a decisive declaration at the end about us needing single payer. Government finds money pretty easily.

It is a pretty normative statement in that there are untold ramifications to doing this sort of thing, but I don't see funding as really an issue, and inflation isn't so much an inevitably dire circumstance.

So you link the Vox media fact-checker? LOL.

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:13 pm So you link the Vox media fact-checker? LOL.

Yes I did.

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:04 am To play Devil's Advocate,

Hell is Full. The Devil has enough advocates. When you advocate for him, you speak with his forked tongue.

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:30 pm

No, he's right. If you don't support single payer, you are saying "I'm okay with the more expensive-to-treat people and low-income diabetics dying. They are weak. "