Ben L

GodolHadorah

It’s curious to me if Resident Trumo is really so bad why do people have to purposely lie about what he says?

I watched the actual Press Conference, the whole thing.

The President was asked a question, he then explained the question and what it was referring to. He then said he has no idea, he has not looked into it and he presumed the Democratic party had done it’s homework.
He repeated he has no idea if the Newsweek editorial is true or not.

The attempts to distort and attack him over this is just more evidence that yes the Mainstream Media is fake NEW.

a) The American Healthcare system is currently design by Democrat policies that passed without any Republican votes whatsoever. So yes of course it’s a failure it tries to combine socialism with capitalism and succeeds at neither.

b) Then vast majority of Brits may not complain about the NHS. Then again the vast majority of Brits are fine with limiting Healthcare to elderly while the Torah is decidedly not fine with it. They are also fine with encouraging certain children not to be born, again the Torah is not really fine with that. In other words much of the rationing that takes place is aimed at populations we value while they do not.

c) In addition if you get a rare condition of disease your treatment options are vastly more limited in Britian then the USA. As someone who suffered from a rare neurological condition, I had firsthand experience with this. As my doctors basically said straight out in Socialist countries my treatments would not have been available.
So yes for vast majority the NHS works, then again the vast majority do not really get terribly sick do they?

d) Yes you were referring to a group of tiny countries compared to the USA. As I noted it is simply intellectually dishonest to compare single state countries to 50 state countries.

e Yes those countries afford a safety net. So does the USA the programs I mentioned combine to form They were designed and implemented to ensure children do not starve. people get medical care, the elderly are taken care of.

Is your contention that those programs have failed?

First off to state that Capitalism has failed is absurd.

Capitalism has created one of the strongest economies in the history of the world.

The average standard of living in the USA is so much higher then the rest of the world it’s a joke.
You can look up the statistics if you do not believe it.

To state that European that socialism has worked in European in countries is also blatantly absurd,
a) Countries have collapsed or are nearing collapse because of it i.e Greece, the Yellow Jacket protests in France b) The US picks up much of that tab for certain thing in Europe such as defense & drug innovation which allows them in turn to spend more on social services (a fact President Trump is trying to change) .c) THere are tiny countries with abundant natural resources that go alot further then the natural resources of a country with 320 million people.

To state the NHS works is basically ignoring reality.
Check up what happens in England if your 70 year old grandfather needs dialysis. Check up the degree of rationing that takes place.

And actually the wealthiest amonst us are the ones who stand the most to benefit from the impostion os Socialism.
A socialist system requires minimum wages and price controls that create a high barrier of entry into the market place.

In other words it becomes really hard and expensive to start a business.
The only one who can are those with extreme wealth which is why in Socialist economies the rich tend to stay rich and the poor stay poor.

So of course the rich like Buffet and Gates are pro-socialist policies you just ensured they have no competition!

TO say either political party really cares about anything other then power seems to me to be a stretch and there is a pretty specific MIshna in Pirkei Avos about exactly what the leaders of a country wish.

That said.
To say that President Trump signed a Tax Cut for the rich and not the poor is simply false.

When I say false, I mean objectively false.

If one wishes to state that more discounts went to what is termed rich, that would be true.

However at the same time we should realize that the overwhelming majority of taxes are payed by the wealthy.

In fact the poor already do not pay Income taxes in fact tax deadline is a money making time for a large part of America.

How are you supposed to discount the taxes of those who do not pay taxes.?

I also wonder how the passage of a bill that led to what is objectively one of strongest job markets in years the actual beginning of a raise in salaries across the spectrum and hundreds of thousands of unemployed individuals finally finding work able to be called anti-poor?

And in terms of “narrow agendas”.

Voting for the current President is not because of a “narrow agenda” it is because Democrat party is a real and present danger to this country as a whole and Jewry in particular.

They advocate policies that are dangerous in the extreme. They hesitate to condemn anti-semitism and equate the Jewish people in Israel defending themselves with those that send their children to blow up other kids.

They wish to teach tolerance but of others while forcing those who have a store to act in violation of their heartfelt religious beliefs.

They advocate forcing one to provide medication against their belief but allowing the murder of the unborn for no reason at all.

I could go on but suffice it to say.
The upcoming election is shaping up to be a choice between a immoral individual or a immoral and dangerous party.

I choose the individual any day of the week.

I think the question here is what is more important.

If the wish is to simply score a political point or avoid confronting an issue which may have an answer people do not like .
Then yes
Ban the guns!

However if the issue is that we really wish to figure out why there are more and more mass shootings as time progresses then we would examine what changed from a time that there were less shootings.

If we examine it that way then it really cannot be that “gun control” is the solution since it is way harder to purchase a gun now then it was before the shooting of Brady and the current gun control law started to be implemented.

So again the question must be asked why now do people think that being “angry” is an excuse to start shooting up the place?

Ubiquitin

I was not arguing that point of whether or not “bombs” should be legal.

I was pointing out the simple fact that statistics tell very little more then what those that commissioned them wish.

Yes. The USA officially has the highest rate of mass shooting in the world.

That statistic does not take into account that those that are using guns in the USA are using bombs in the Mideast or tucks in France.

The question is not whether or not guns are more available in the USA then Mexico from a legal perspective.

The question is whether you are safer in the USA or Mexico.
And I am not arguing the point whether drugs should be legal or not (Though it is really hard for me to understand how the current Democrat position seems to be regulate Vapeing ’cause of something or the other but make marijuana legal)

What I am pointing out is that making something “illegal” does not translate into making it disappear or be unavailable to those that wish to attain it.

I really think that this whole gun control thing is a distraction that causes us to avoid confronting the bigger issue.

55 years ago virtually none of the current gun laws were on the books , guns were much more readily available.
In fat kids used cap guns and such freely.

Yet the current mass shootings that are sadly becoming more and more common were also virtually non-existent.

So the problem is not the lack of gun control laws.
Rather it’s what changed so fundamentally in the culture that makes these things common.

But I suspect that is conversation that will never be had because that the Dems must look at themselves since they control the systems for teaching and influencing the culture in America i.e the entertainment industry and public school system.

Furthermore it is their policies that advocate further changing the make up of the nuclear family of that era that successfully raised a generation that at least valued life enough not to shoot up a school or workplace because they were “angry”.

Part of Hatzneh Leshes is not drawing overt attention to oneself.
While I may disagree strongly with the use of :”blackface” as a measuring stick for racism I do not think that there is even the slightest disagreement that wearing blackface in the current climate is ithe opposite of the principle of hatzneh leches.
In addition we are in golus, v’hameivin yuvin.

Neville

I keep repeating that point because you fail to answer it.

A Tax to lets say fund the military is not “redistribution” since a robust defense is needed by everyone and serves everyone about equally.

On 911 the janitors and stockbrokers were equally targeted and equally in need of defense.

The stewardesses on the planes that went down were targeted the same as those in first calls.

The same for an interstate highway system of roads and bridges.

However most forms of welfare are in fact redistribution.

It is taxing wealthy people in order to take their money from them and redistribute it to poor people.

There is no argument that if one would eliminate the “re-distributive” policies from the Federal budget there is more then enough money already being taxed to enable funding the parts of the Federal government that serve everybody.

It is simply the re-distributive parts that are up for debate.

So if you are for raising taxes on the wealthy to give to the poor, aside from the colossal waste that takes place (the most inefficient local Tzeddakah is far more efficient at this sort of the thing and make far better use of the money provided then the Federal government) then you are for redistribution.

it does not help to say “I am against”.

Call it what you wish.

It’s semantics.

You are pro-redistribution.

Neville,
First I think you have a distorted view of Keynsian Economics.
Keynsian economics is pro-stimulus but anti tax cuts.
Keynsian Ecnomics believes that the government must pro-activley stimulate the economy by spending money.
Incidentally Keynes was proving wrong twice once by FDR & the New Deal.
For a decade FDR more or less spent as much money as possible, yet the country remained mired in recession leading Henry Morgenthau (his Treasury Secretary) to admit it did not work.
Next was Obama who spent over a trillion dollars on a stimulus package that was supposed to wok and grow the economy.
Sadly it let to the slowest growth in 50 years and no wage growth at all.
Trump took office passed tax cuts, the economy started growing and wages picked up in ways that most economists on the left had said was impossible.
So now they say it was started under Obama, It just ended up happening under Trump after he passed a law that they said would “devastate” the country.
Somehow record law unemployment and rising wages is terrible. If it means wealthy people can actually keep more of their own money.

In addition to the questionable morality of this ,it actually raises Anti-Semitism.
Take many towns and cities with large Jewish populations.
Taxes are levied to pay for Public Schools.
However the Public Schools are ran in such a way that it is impossible for me to send my child there.
However the taxes levied are so high that there is simply not enough money left over for us to fund schools for our children.
As such we are left to fight for any scrap we can get.
i.e we pay taxes then fight to get money to bus our children to school.
Yet non-jewish residents are left complaining about how much money Jews are taking back.
All we want is to the ability to raise our orthodox jewish children in orthodox jewish schools.
Confiscatory tax rates make that impossible to do without fighting for some (not even half ) of the money we work so hard to earn in order to be able to do that back!

To CT Lawyer
I fail to see how I am misrepresenting your views.
You have stated explicit support for candidates running on a platform of raising taxes.
I.e taking more of other peoples money.
You have stated this is a main reason that you support them.
In other words you have expressed support for the idea that one should be generous with other peoples money.

TO Neville
If I I work and earn money then how and by what right does it belong to you?

And from a purely observational standpoint.
I wonder lets see if you gave a thousand dollars to Tomchei Shabbos and 1000 dollars to the government both with the express purpose of helping the less fortunate.
Who would put the 1000 dollars to more efficient use?

Can we get a couple of things clear?
Fact 1: Combat service even in Tzhal is completley voluntary if a draftee does not wish to serve in a combat position they do not.
As such it is ludicrous to state that someone was forced to serve in combat zones because of chareidim .

Fact 2: THe Medinat Yisrael was founded upon several compromises with the chareidim one of which was that yeshiva bochrim would not be forced to serve in the army. If the chilonim had not agreed the chareidim were willing to publicly disavow the founding of the Medina similarly to Neturei Karta of the time. The chilonim agreed thinking that the yeshiva world would eventually disintegrate. The opposite has happened =, the chiloni youth actively try to get out of the army, in fact many of them try to get out of the country while the Yeshivas have boomed.

Fact 3: There are more then enough fervently dati leumi who believe that the founding of the Medina is aschalta dgeula they do not just serve in the Army they relish the opportunity for they feel it is a Mitzvah that brings Moshiach. That chinuch is completely the opposite of chareidim who believe the state should never have been founded and in fact is ossur because of the shalosh shevuos.

Obama’s lie is not glossed over and he acknowledged it and did apologize exactly 5 years ago- “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News in an exclusive interview.

Obama passed HealthCare “reform” by lying not about more then a single component.
Rather he lied about the entirety of the Bill.

Lie 1: He claimed pre-existing conditions were not covered.
That is patently false, as I wrote above. Even before the ACA as long as one could prove continuous coverage the provider could not deny them coverage.

That in fact is what happened to me.

I had switched health plans shortly before I got sick and my provider had me prove that i had continuos coverage. When I did they actually paid out over a million dollars for my care.

Lie 2: Republicans were unjustly promoting fear and lying about the bill.
They were not.
Virtually all claims from it’s opponents were proven correct.

Lie 3: The ACA will cut the costs of health care by 2400 dollars
That was proven laughable, the real costs ballooned for everybody to the point that Middle Class Americans who make to much to qualify for government programs simply cannot afford insurance at all.

Lie 4: If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
Again laughably false and the one untruth that Obama copped to once.

So Obama lied and demonized to pass a partisan bill that actually had bi-partisan opposition in the House of Representatives and made life significantly worse for millions of Americans and yet it is President Trump who the media says is a liar?

Hi
That is not the apology I would expect.
Rather I would expect an apology that goes something like this.
I apologize to the Republican conference and the many conservative pundits.
It was wrong of me to constantly demonize them and accuse them of fear mongering.
In fact they were simply telling the truth about the inevitable consequences of this bill.
It was not the “politics of fear”.
Rather the politics of reality

THe Dems now keep claiming falsly that only the ACA ensures coverage for pre-existing conditions.
That is also blatantly false.

I know because I was diagnosed and hospitalized before passage of the bill.

If one can prove to have had continuous coverage it was illegal for Insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

That was true before the bill passed.

What the bill does allow is that someone could not have had coverage can go to the Doctor be diagnosed with a horrible illness walk outside call a health insurance provider and get coverage.

The same coverage as a healthy person.
There is not even a penalty involved.

It’s curious how people think it’s the Dems that are taking care of pre-existing conditions.
In fact it’s the opposite the Dems are really dangerous for the medical care of the entire USA.

You see I have a pre-existing condition. A really serious one that at first required a 3 week hospitilaztion and yearly follow ups and tests.

I was also misdiagnosed at first in a local hospital and it almost cost me my life.
After I was rushed to a major Manhattan hospital a team of really good Doctors figured out what my rare condition was and treated it. Boruch Hashem.

However the one of the main Doctors called in to my case was recruited out of Israel.

He came here because in the socialized Israeli Healthcare system he could make nothing while in the USA he could.
That is how many of the top Doctors wind up here.

My case is anecdotal but it reflects a reality that has been documented.

There is a Doctor shortage, a chief reason for it is because to become a top doctor is hard and requires over a decade of study.

It’s also expensive, one of my Doctors graduated Columbia over 1 million dollars in debt!

He told me very frankly he works hard making life or death decisions every day . His love of medicine is enough to compensate for the fact he is making less then Wall Street tycoons, but only because he is still making a nice amount of money doing what he does.

If he started making what Doctors in socialized medicine were making he is out.

That is the reality of socialized medicine it is cheap. It is equal.

It’s like Communism.
Communism ensured everyone was equal .
They were all equally poor.