To impeach, or not to impeach

[Kinser79]

Most roads, cops, and firemen should be handled on the local or state level.  I'd go further and say the same is true of schools and universities.  

The Postal Service is an enumerated responsibility of the Federal government.  I'd say that regulation of interstate commerce (IE big oil) and interstate infrastructure would be the responsibility of the Federal government as well.

As for the private healthcare system being broken it seems to me that it is broken more due to governmental intervention, and more governmental intervention is unlikely to solve the problem.  That being said, I would support a Medicare for All but with that comes some costs namely much higher taxes (I think tariffs would help a great deal here...but that has more to do with my economic views than my political ones).  Needless to say, the solution to healthcare is to make the US system all one thing or all the other.  Either it must be totally private or totally public--any hybrid system or incrementalist system will only result in a poorly functioning patchwork.  

All of these things though I would say are not necessarily socialism--ie the means of production being in the hands of the state.  Not even Norway or Denmark or Sweden are socialist.  Yes they have vast welfare states and highly regulated markets  but the means of production are in the hands of private persons.

What do the Democrats have to offer?  Just take a look at the cities that they have run for decades.  Look at what California is turning into.  Quite frankly I can think of nothing worse than the whole of the US looking like San Francisco or Portland or hell even Chicago.

[David Horn]

(10-14-2019, 01:52 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Most roads, cops, and firemen should be handled on the local or state level.  I'd go further and say the same is true of schools and universities.  

I have no real problem with this. Federal involvement in local infrastructure and first responder activities is minimal now, and it seems to work. Schools, on the other hand, educated and train the next generation in the never ending relay race of civic life. There needs to be a lot better consistency of results, and Mississippi isn't about to emulate Massachusetts, or Minnesota for that matter, without some prompting and funding.

Kinser79 Wrote:The Postal Service is an enumerated responsibility of the Federal government.  I'd say that regulation of interstate commerce (IE big oil) and interstate infrastructure would be the responsibility of the Federal government as well.

Okay, though somewhat short of the mark.

Kinser79 Wrote:As for the private healthcare system being broken it seems to me that it is broken more due to governmental intervention, and more governmental intervention is unlikely to solve the problem.  That being said, I would support a Medicare for All but with that comes some costs namely much higher taxes (I think tariffs would help a great deal here...but that has more to do with my economic views than my political ones).  Needless to say, the solution to healthcare is to make the US system all one thing or all the other.  Either it must be totally private or totally public--any hybrid system or incrementalist system will only result in a poorly functioning patchwork.  

Actually, Medicare is already a hybrid for most people using the system (it is for me, and I'm not atypical). Does it have to be? Probably not, but it does allow some flexibility for people to have more coverage or less, without pushing anyone off decent health insurance. I have a supplement plan that covers pretty much everything that Medicare doesn't, except for dental, vision and vanity care, like non-reconstructive plastic surgery. Drug coverage is the one part of the hybrid that is totally screwed-up, and that needs fixing pronto!

Kinser79 Wrote:All of these things though I would say are not necessarily socialism--ie the means of production being in the hands of the state.  Not even Norway or Denmark or Sweden are socialist.  Yes they have vast welfare states and highly regulated markets  but the means of production are in the hands of private persons.

True, for the most part. Some interaction between public and private occurs too, like utilities and defense spending.

Kinser79 Wrote:What do the Democrats have to offer?  Just take a look at the cities that they have run for decades.  Look at what California is turning into.  Quite frankly I can think of nothing worse than the whole of the US looking like San Francisco or Portland or hell even Chicago.

San Francisco is in the state it is, because too many people want to live there who have money. It's hard to live in a city where entry-level housing costs 7 figures, so the teachers and bartenders live elsewhere. It's screwed-up, but I'm at a loss to see a fix, unless you cut the pay of all those mid-to-high-6-figure software developers by a lot. Good luck with that.

[pbrower2a]

(10-14-2019, 01:52 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Most roads, cops, and firemen should be handled on the local or state level.  I'd go further and say the same is true of schools and universities.

That is how it is done in practice. Even with the Interstate Highway system (states typically bought the real estate for the roads, but the Federal share was 90% of road-building), maintenance is a state responsibility. Federal roads include the obvious ones on Indian reservations, public land including National Forests and parks, and military bases. Reconstruction of Interstate and near-Interstate highways gets nearly the same 90-10 treatment. But note below.

Quote:The Postal Service is an enumerated responsibility of the Federal government.  I'd say that regulation of interstate commerce (IE big oil) and interstate infrastructure would be the responsibility of the Federal government as well.

The Interstate Highway System includes many highways that one best describes as primarily serving one state, as is so with Interstate 96 in Michigan, which is Interstate only to the extent that it leads to a bridge between Detroit and Windsor. It does connect Grand Rapids and Lansing to Detroit, so it does have the traffic. On the other hand, Interstate 70 in Utah is undeniably interstate infrastructure as it goes past no urban areas in Utah and really connects Denver with Las Vegas and southern California. 

The federal government has wire fraud, bank fraud, and mail fraud statutes that make many scams and schemes that would not be crimes in states into federal offenses. Depositing the proceeds as a check or money order in one's bank account makes the scam a violation of federal bank, mail, or wire fraud statutes... and I would suspect that many of the people in federal prisons are there for bank fraud, mail fraud, or wire fraud. If one statute does not cover the act, then another one will. 

Quote:As for the private healthcare system being broken it seems to me that it is broken more due to governmental intervention, and more governmental intervention is unlikely to solve the problem.  That being said, I would support a Medicare for All but with that comes some costs namely much higher taxes (I think tariffs would help a great deal here...but that has more to do with my economic views than my political ones).  Needless to say, the solution to healthcare is to make the US system all one thing or all the other.  Either it must be totally private or totally public--any hybrid system or incrementalist system will only result in a poorly functioning patchwork.  

We have the worst possible system for medical payments in the world -- blank checks for providers, with medical providers having little cause to control costs and patients having little cause to avoid imposing undue costs upon the system. I am on Medicaid due to a handicap, and I got chest and back pains while physically exhausted, usually a sign of a heart attack. Because the treatment for a suspected heart attack is unpleasant, I at least had an incentive to find a conservative measure to deal with the pain, and I got it: physical therapy from which I learned some exercises that undid some of the pain and could ensure that if I ever go to the E/R for a coronary that I really am having a coronary.  (My grandfather had a nasty heart attack at the same age as my simulated heart attack, and as you can probably infer for a numbers person person like me, I was scared). Big Pharma is practically an unregulated monopoly, so you can see where that goes. Insurance companies are often for-profit bureaucracies, and they operate on a cost-plus basis that encourages patients to abuse the system unless they are uninsured. We get higher costs per person than any other country in the world and mediocre results at best. 

Much as I dislike Fidel Castro and his political legacy I have some good things to say about the Cuban system. It puts the emphasis on general practitioners who can do prevention (specialists deal with crises often the results of such bad habits as alcoholism, obesity, and smoking -- and those habits rarely make people the sorts of patients likely to survive treatment) -- and a secret police that aside from harassing political dissidents can also monitor people on whether they are following doctors' and dentists' orders. The Cuban system works as well as it can with limited resources. Note also that there is no for-profit bureaucracy operating on a cost-plus system, and Cubans paradoxically get medication at something closer to free-market pricing. This said, if you are overeating as a norm, smoking, drinking to excess, not brushing your teeth, and not getting appropriate exercise, maybe you deserve the equivalent of a Comite de la Defensa de la Revolucion hounding you. 

All of these things though I would say are not necessarily socialism--ie the means of production being in the hands of the state.  Not even Norway or Denmark or Sweden are socialist.  Yes they have vast welfare states and highly regulated markets  but the means of production are in the hands of private persons.

Quote:What do the Democrats have to offer?  Just take a look at the cities that they have run for decades.  Look at what California is turning into.  Quite frankly I can think of nothing worse than the whole of the US looking like San Francisco or Portland or hell even Chicago.

I could also tell you about parts of Appalachia where the GOP prevails... OK, Democrats made a mess of West Virginia, but I have yet to hear of Republicans making things better there. When West Virginia was run by the Democrats, the Democratic party relied upon the predictable votes of coal miners who did not need much formal education, traveled little, and relied upon a union contract for medical coverage -- and if one is a coal miner one needs really-good medical coverage over one's lifetime. The Government didn;t have to spend much money on education, roads, or public health... and now, without the cash cow of coal mines to support limited government West Virginia must spend real money as it did not before just so that the kids of coal miners can get jobs as the biggest employer in West Virginia (Wal*Mart), perhaps in the nearest town with 7000 people. The mines were spent, and people now must get high-school diplomas to work at Wal*Mart and commute to work. The Missouri Ozarks in places are much the same, except that the mines were lead mines now played out. The GOP is probably even worse at serving poor whites than the Democratic Party is in serving poor blacks and Hispanics. 

We all know about the urban blight that was heroin in the 1960's and 1970's... but the worst places for opiate addiction and death are now in largely-white rural areas. Three years ago I went on a trip to Great Smoky Mountains National Park and saw lots of signs in Kentucky advertising treatment for opiate dependency... in this case, opiate dependency may be a consequence of bad medical practice. Opiates are cheap prescriptions, but monitoring their use is tricky. The best control against addiction is that the patient dislikes their effects and tolerates them only for making life as normal as possible.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-14-2019, 01:02 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(10-13-2019, 10:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-12-2019, 10:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's amazing how you guys are still red baiting (even though metaphorically you guys are the reds now). You are still fighting against communism. Isn't that something of a dead horse now? What we've got in much of Asia now is state capitalism.

What do you expect, you guys are still promoting socialism/socialist ideology. You don't look/act like a dead horse.

Uh, I like some "socialist" stuff like roads, post office, cops, firemen, rules to keep Big Oil from violating my property rights (my body), and our private healthcare system is broken. I'll take Medicare now, which really should begin at age 0 instead of 65. Oh, yeah, I want my Social Security, cause I don't know how old I'll to be.

So, what do the Republicans have on offer?

Well, I don't associate road maintenance/constructions, law enforcement, the US postal service, firemen, military and so on with socialism. I don't even view Medicare and Social Security as socialist programs. However, I do view Medicare for all starting at birth or single payer as a socialist program. Me, I like the freedom to choose my healthcare provider and the freedom to choose another healthcare provider. I'm a private sector guy myself and I don't like the idea of being reliant on a bureaucratic system for all my healthcare needs.

[pbrower2a]

(10-14-2019, 06:21 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-14-2019, 01:02 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(10-13-2019, 10:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-12-2019, 10:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's amazing how you guys are still red baiting (even though metaphorically you guys are the reds now). You are still fighting against communism. Isn't that something of a dead horse now? What we've got in much of Asia now is state capitalism.

What do you expect, you guys are still promoting socialism/socialist ideology. You don't look/act like a dead horse.

Uh, I like some "socialist" stuff like roads, post office, cops, firemen, rules to keep Big Oil from violating my property rights (my body), and our private healthcare system is broken. I'll take Medicare now, which really should begin at age 0 instead of 65. Oh, yeah, I want my Social Security, cause I don't know how old I'll to be.

So, what do the Republicans have on offer?

Well, I don't associate road maintenance/constructions, law enforcement, the US postal service, firemen, military and so on with socialism. I don't even view Medicare and Social Security as socialist programs. However, I do view Medicare for all starting at birth or single payer as a socialist program. Me, I like the freedom to choose my healthcare provider and the freedom to choose another healthcare provider. I'm a private sector guy myself and I don't like the idea of being reliant on a bureaucratic system for all my healthcare needs.

You do not have the freedom to choose when the government already has determined that the pharmaceutical industry gets to charge the highest prices in the world on prescription medicines.

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-14-2019, 01:52 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Most roads, cops, and firemen should be handled on the local or state level.  I'd go further and say the same is true of schools and universities.  

The Postal Service is an enumerated responsibility of the Federal government.  I'd say that regulation of interstate commerce (IE big oil) and interstate infrastructure would be the responsibility of the Federal government as well.

As for the private healthcare system being broken it seems to me that it is broken more due to governmental intervention, and more governmental intervention is unlikely to solve the problem.  That being said, I would support a Medicare for All but with that comes some costs namely much higher taxes (I think tariffs would help a great deal here...but that has more to do with my economic views than my political ones).  Needless to say, the solution to healthcare is to make the US system all one thing or all the other.  Either it must be totally private or totally public--any hybrid system or incrementalist system will only result in a poorly functioning patchwork.  

All of these things though I would say are not necessarily socialism--ie the means of production being in the hands of the state.  Not even Norway or Denmark or Sweden are socialist.  Yes they have vast welfare states and highly regulated markets  but the means of production are in the hands of private persons.

What do the Democrats have to offer?  Just take a look at the cities that they have run for decades.  Look at what California is turning into.  Quite frankly I can think of nothing worse than the whole of the US looking like San Francisco or Portland or hell even Chicago.

1. Certainly agree with local government handling cops,firemen, prisons, and most roads. I'd of course like to nuke private prisons since their lobbying tends to provide and incentive to jail folks for almost nothing.

2. Medicare for all would also offload medical care from the employment costs. It would also allow folks to change jobs if so desired since healthcare isn't part of that equation.

3. OK, well the Republicans need to get off this Dat's socialist for things in Norway, Sweden, etc.  I've heard our Republicans in Oklahoma call these countries socialist.

4. Wrt. your examples of local governments. Hey, can't disagree. Those are examples of some sort of spoils system along with cronyism. They forgot that tax donkeys can move away along with the destructive effect of taxes being too high. It doesn't help to have sanctuaries for illegal aliens either. In fact, Illinois's taxes are so messed up, it's in a death spiral at present. They should do what Oklahoma did and do something about pensions.  Obviously, California has problems with the lights staying on.... sort of like Venezuela . As for the cities you mentioned, yeah, I don't want to live in shitholes either. Typhus isn't my idea of a good time.

5. On the other side their are indeed the Red variety of shitholes as well. Alabama is a shithole because their justice system is all fucked up.  Folks die in their jails at too high a rate.  Our next door neighbor Kansas became a shithole from too much cost cutting.  There are costs that can be cut that I'd like.  I'd love to delete all tax breaks.
If some government wants to encourage something, don't use a tax break, use an appropriation so it's all out in the open and a fixed cost can be assigned.  Oklahoma has some shithole tendencies due to private prisons. We need criminal justice reform bit time. The folks who designed out medical marijuana referendum made it impossible for the fucking religious right from mucking things up with their elected buddies.

[Kinser79]

(10-14-2019, 11:18 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-14-2019, 01:52 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Most roads, cops, and firemen should be handled on the local or state level.  I'd go further and say the same is true of schools and universities.  

I have no real problem with this.  Federal involvement in local infrastructure and first responder activities is minimal now, and it seems to work.  Schools, on the other hand, educated and train the next generation in the never ending relay race of civic life.  There needs to be a lot better consistency of results, and Mississippi isn't about to emulate Massachusetts, or Minnesota for that matter, without some prompting and funding.

Mississippi doesn't emulate Massachusetts or Minnesota with said prompting or funding they get now.  We've tried throwing federal money at the problem for forty years and strangely the only thing that's happened is the education budget has become more bloated.  Well I say strangely but really I'd say that is to be expected.  

Unsurprisingly, largely black Mississippi is on par with largely black northern cities when it comes to educational outcomes.  Perhaps a combination of the students and the culture the students come from is the problem and not who is in charge of the schoolhouse.

Quote:

Kinser79 Wrote:The Postal Service is an enumerated responsibility of the Federal government.  I'd say that regulation of interstate commerce (IE big oil) and interstate infrastructure would be the responsibility of the Federal government as well.

Okay, though somewhat short of the mark.

No the Constitution says what it says.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 empowers Congress to establish post offices and post roads.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 empowers Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."  I am going to assume that multinational corporations such as say Exxon (to pick on them) also conduct business across state as well as international boundaries.  As such it falls to Congress to regulate them via laws.

Quote:

Kinser79 Wrote:As for the private healthcare system being broken it seems to me that it is broken more due to governmental intervention, and more governmental intervention is unlikely to solve the problem.  That being said, I would support a Medicare for All but with that comes some costs namely much higher taxes (I think tariffs would help a great deal here...but that has more to do with my economic views than my political ones).  Needless to say, the solution to healthcare is to make the US system all one thing or all the other.  Either it must be totally private or totally public--any hybrid system or incrementalist system will only result in a poorly functioning patchwork.  

Actually, Medicare is already a hybrid for most people using the system (it is for me, and I'm not atypical).  Does it have to be?  Probably not, but it does allow some flexibility for people to have more coverage or less, without pushing anyone off decent health insurance.  I have a supplement plan that covers pretty much everything that Medicare doesn't, except for dental, vision and vanity care, like non-reconstructive plastic surgery.  Drug coverage is the one part of the hybrid that is totally screwed-up, and that needs fixing pronto!

Medicare is a bankrupting mess that is getting worse with time because a particular generation isn't dying fast enough.  Myself having had to deal with employer based systems, federal systems and private systems on this matter far prefer individual private solutions.  That being said that is probably not doable without a huge subsidy to the insurance industry and I quite frankly would prefer the government to simply take the whole thing over than to give any industry a subsidy.  Subsidies corrupt both the state and business.

Quote:

Kinser79 Wrote:All of these things though I would say are not necessarily socialism--ie the means of production being in the hands of the state.  Not even Norway or Denmark or Sweden are socialist.  Yes they have vast welfare states and highly regulated markets  but the means of production are in the hands of private persons.

True, for the most part.  Some interaction between public and private occurs too, like utilities and defense spending.

The fact that the government purchases goods and services from private persons does not socialism make.  Also most utilities are if they are run by the government at all on the state or local level (Florida Power and Light, or the New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission for examples).  There is no true in the most part here.  It is simply true.  Or would you wish to argue that this forest isn't a forest because a lone tree is standing some fifty feet away from the rest of them?

Quote:

Kinser79 Wrote:What do the Democrats have to offer?  Just take a look at the cities that they have run for decades.  Look at what California is turning into.  Quite frankly I can think of nothing worse than the whole of the US looking like San Francisco or Portland or hell even Chicago.

San Francisco is in the state it is, because too many people want to live there who have money.  It's hard to live in a city where entry-level housing costs 7 figures, so the teachers and bartenders live elsewhere.  It's screwed-up, but I'm at a loss to see a fix, unless you cut the pay of all those mid-to-high-6-figure software developers by a lot.  Good luck with that.

Not quite.  Miami is also very popular with very very rich people but it isn't infested with human excrement or drug needles on the streets because its Republican (and Cuban) majority will not tolerate such things in their cities.  San Francisco is in the mess it is in because of the policies chosen by its elected officials.  The same is true of Detroit, Newark, Chicago and all the other Dimocrat shitholes in the Blue states.

In order to fix San Francisco I'd suggest scrapping all the hippy dippy legislation and evicting the drug addicts and vagrants toot sweet, and furthermore eliminating or cutting what programs there are for them.  Half of the problem SF has isn't being close to Silly-Con Valley, it is all the takers looking for free gibs-me-dat.

[Kinser79]

(10-14-2019, 09:17 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1. Certainly agree with local government handling cops,firemen, prisons, and most roads. I'd of course like to nuke private prisons since their lobbying tends to provide and incentive to jail folks for almost nothing.

2. Medicare for all would also offload medical care from the employment costs. It would also allow folks to change jobs if so desired since healthcare isn't part of that equation.

3. OK, well the Republicans need to get off this Dat's socialist for things in Norway, Sweden, etc.  I've heard our Republicans in Oklahoma call these countries socialist.

4. Wrt. your examples of local governments. Hey, can't disagree. Those are examples of some sort of spoils system along with cronyism. They forgot that tax donkeys can move away along with the destructive effect of taxes being too high. It doesn't help to have sanctuaries for illegal aliens either. In fact, Illinois's taxes are so messed up, it's in a death spiral at present. They should do what Oklahoma did and do something about pensions.  Obviously, California has problems with the lights staying on.... sort of like Venezuela . As for the cities you mentioned, yeah, I don't want to live in shitholes either. Typhus isn't my idea of a good time.

5. On the other side their are indeed the Red variety of shitholes as well. Alabama is a shithole because their justice system is all fucked up.  Folks die in their jails at too high a rate.  Our next door neighbor Kansas became a shithole from too much cost cutting.  There are costs that can be cut that I'd like.  I'd love to delete all tax breaks.
If some government wants to encourage something, don't use a tax break, use an appropriation so it's all out in the open and a fixed cost can be assigned.  Oklahoma has some shithole tendencies due to private prisons. We need criminal justice reform bit time. The folks who designed out medical marijuana referendum made it impossible for the fucking religious right from mucking things up with their elected buddies.

As to 1:  I'd favor a constitutional amendment requiring that the detention of prisoners be held either directly by the states or the Federal government.  Anything else leads to attempting to profit on the misery of others and ultimately isn't what a prison system should be used for.  The goal of a prison should be to reform those who can be reformed and remove from society those who cannot.  A profit simply shouldn't be made off of that.

As to 2:  Myself I'd prefer an all private system, particularly a system where in one buys their own damn insurance and doesn't get any handouts from the government to buy it.  Seeing as Taxation is legitimized theft the government really creates no wealth it only can move it around.  That being said, failing that, then the government should take the whole works over like the UK. 

Either way healthcare is a finite resource and you end up either paying in dollars or time.  Just ask a Canadian about their system sometime--we have plenty down here and they mostly hate that they have to wait months and months to even see a doctor.

As to 3:  Have you ever considered that these particular Republicans are morons?  Politics does not usually attract the best and brightest regardless of party.

As to 5:  With Kansas they went too far into cutting.  That can happen and when it does the results are usually bad.  As for Alabama, it has always been fucked up and it is unlikely to ever get un-fucked up unless they toss the whole works out and start from scratch and I'm not holding my breath for that.

I would say that Oklahoma is a bit behind the times if the Evangelo-Cons are still in charge of the GOP there.  Give it a cycle or two.

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-14-2019, 10:12 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(10-14-2019, 09:17 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1. Certainly agree with local government handling cops,firemen, prisons, and most roads. I'd of course like to nuke private prisons since their lobbying tends to provide and incentive to jail folks for almost nothing.

2. Medicare for all would also offload medical care from the employment costs. It would also allow folks to change jobs if so desired since healthcare isn't part of that equation.

3. OK, well the Republicans need to get off this Dat's socialist for things in Norway, Sweden, etc.  I've heard our Republicans in Oklahoma call these countries socialist.

4. Wrt. your examples of local governments. Hey, can't disagree. Those are examples of some sort of spoils system along with cronyism. They forgot that tax donkeys can move away along with the destructive effect of taxes being too high. It doesn't help to have sanctuaries for illegal aliens either. In fact, Illinois's taxes are so messed up, it's in a death spiral at present. They should do what Oklahoma did and do something about pensions.  Obviously, California has problems with the lights staying on.... sort of like Venezuela . As for the cities you mentioned, yeah, I don't want to live in shitholes either. Typhus isn't my idea of a good time.

5. On the other side their are indeed the Red variety of shitholes as well. Alabama is a shithole because their justice system is all fucked up.  Folks die in their jails at too high a rate.  Our next door neighbor Kansas became a shithole from too much cost cutting.  There are costs that can be cut that I'd like.  I'd love to delete all tax breaks.
If some government wants to encourage something, don't use a tax break, use an appropriation so it's all out in the open and a fixed cost can be assigned.  Oklahoma has some shithole tendencies due to private prisons. We need criminal justice reform bit time. The folks who designed out medical marijuana referendum made it impossible for the fucking religious right from mucking things up with their elected buddies.

As to 1:  I'd favor a constitutional amendment requiring that the detention of prisoners be held either directly by the states or the Federal government.  Anything else leads to attempting to profit on the misery of others and ultimately isn't what a prison system should be used for.  The goal of a prison should be to reform those who can be reformed and remove from society those who cannot.  A profit simply shouldn't be made off of that.

As to 2:  Myself I'd prefer an all private system, particularly a system where in one buys their own damn insurance and doesn't get any handouts from the government to buy it.  Seeing as Taxation is legitimized theft the government really creates no wealth it only can move it around.  That being said, failing that, then the government should take the whole works over like the UK. 

Either way healthcare is a finite resource and you end up either paying in dollars or time.  Just ask a Canadian about their system sometime--we have plenty down here and they mostly hate that they have to wait months and months to even see a doctor.

As to 3:  Have you ever considered that these particular Republicans are morons?  Politics does not usually attract the best and brightest regardless of party.

As to 5:  With Kansas they went too far into cutting.  That can happen and when it does the results are usually bad.  As for Alabama, it has always been fucked up and it is unlikely to ever get un-fucked up unless they toss the whole works out and start from scratch and I'm not holding my breath for that.

I would say that Oklahoma is a bit behind the times if the Evangelo-Cons are still in charge of the GOP there.  Give it a cycle or two.

Basically agree with the above except:

1"...Buy your own insurance".  It's a tradeoff. I prefer paying taxes as opposed to " the risk of having a car wreck or some major health issue crop up and sending my ability to pay to 0".  So I think risk tolerance as well as assorted political stances play a risk in a preferred policy.

2. As for our "Evangelo-Cons", I hope your right.  They don't like all of the "dopers" as per a work buddy. I think they need to get a license and see what it's all about. No Big Pharma needed.  Like you know, Amnesia Haze is the best I've found so far for colitis.

[David Horn]

(10-14-2019, 06:21 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, I don't associate road maintenance/constructions, law enforcement, the US postal service, firemen, military and so on with socialism. I don't even view Medicare and Social Security as socialist programs. However, I do view Medicare for all starting at birth or single payer as a socialist program. Me, I like the freedom to choose my healthcare provider and the freedom to choose another healthcare provider. I'm a private sector guy myself and I don't like the idea of being reliant on a bureaucratic system for all my healthcare needs.

Really? What do you have today? Oh yeah: a private bureaucracy rather than a public version, and one focused on generating profits, first and foremost. Worse, we have to have competition, so the many companies and even greater number of insurance policy alternatives each needs to be accommodated by various provider options and optional providers. All this is intended to get money from you rather than keep you well.

Since switching to Medicare from what was then pretty good employer-provided insurance, my costs are down and the ease of getting treatment, without worrying about in-network v. out-of-network, or authorized procedure v. sorry-for-your-luck, is simplicity itself. Go to a doctor (or hospital or clinic), get treated, hand over my cards, and go home. That's it. Because I chose Part G Medigap, I have an annual deductible of about $180. After that, everything is covered. My costs (and I'm 72, so costs should be higher than someone of working age) are:

• Medicare Part A - no charge.
• Medicare Part B - $135.50 a month.
• Medigap Part G - $112.41 a month.
• Medicare Part D - $25.40 a month.

That's it - $273.31 a month.

That's the power of a single provider with no profit incentive.

[Eric the Green]

(10-14-2019, 06:21 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-14-2019, 01:02 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(10-13-2019, 10:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-12-2019, 10:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's amazing how you guys are still red baiting (even though metaphorically you guys are the reds now). You are still fighting against communism. Isn't that something of a dead horse now? What we've got in much of Asia now is state capitalism.

What do you expect, you guys are still promoting socialism/socialist ideology. You don't look/act like a dead horse.

Uh, I like some "socialist" stuff like roads, post office, cops, firemen, rules to keep Big Oil from violating my property rights (my body), and our private healthcare system is broken. I'll take Medicare now, which really should begin at age 0 instead of 65. Oh, yeah, I want my Social Security, cause I don't know how old I'll to be.

So, what do the Republicans have on offer?

Well, I don't associate road maintenance/constructions, law enforcement, the US postal service, firemen, military and so on with socialism. I don't even view Medicare and Social Security as socialist programs. However, I do view Medicare for all starting at birth or single payer as a socialist program. Me, I like the freedom to choose my healthcare provider and the freedom to choose another healthcare provider. I'm a private sector guy myself and I don't like the idea of being reliant on a bureaucratic system for all my healthcare needs.

And on that basis you call all Democrats "socialists?"

There is a range of opinion among Democrats on Medicare and healthcare. The Republicans want to take all Medicare and social security away and privatize roads, prisons, the postal service, etc.

I don't see any difference between medicare for seniors and medicare for all. What's the difference? If it works for older people, why not for everyone? Private insurance takes people off their insurance for no reason and jacks up rates and deductibles without cause or prior notice. Medicare allows me to choose my doctor.  Most insurance programs, I think, have networks and require you to choose someone in the network. There's no difference between private and public on that account. Just calling one bureaucratic, and the other one private sector, is just labeling. There is no difference between a public and private bureaucracy. Corporations are bureaucracies too, except they are owned by a few billionaires instead of by we the people.

If you don't call "medicare and social security, road maintenance/constructions, law enforcement, the US postal service, firemen" socialist , where do you draw the line? Why do you assume that all blue Democrats (and all Democrats are "blue") are communists, when what we advocate is a mixed system, and so do you?

[Eric the Green]

(10-12-2019, 11:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-12-2019, 09:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-12-2019, 05:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-12-2019, 10:34 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: In recent years, the United States has endured a strong trend toward pure plutocracy in which most people are obliged to suffer for a tiny elite of rich and powerful people seemingly unaccountable to anyone. Seemingly. There was Jeffrey Epstein, and there is Donald Trump. We are in a Crisis Era, and this one seems so far to elevate the narcissist as much as the last one tore the narcissistic tendency down. If the Depression did not shake people of narcissism, then the Second World War did. We need to go to some basics -- do good for people, and you will do well... but do bad things to people and be ruined.

I agree. Now, how much of that plutocracy is liberal as you say and more enthused with funding their own pet projects abroad and more enthused with funding their political choice and more enthused with feeding their own precious ego's and more enthused drinking expensive wine and eating expensive food and seeking to again more attention to/for themselves or flying around the world at the taxpayers expense promoting their ideology and themselves to the children of those who are similar to them or promoting family members or close friends while being treated and served like kings and queens of old. PB, do you think I would cry, get upset or feel bad if an event similar to the French revolution took place in San Fransisco or California and Nancy Pelosi was placed on public trial and voted guilty and beheaded. Nope, I wouldn't be upset because that is what they do, what they teach by doing it and seem to be OK with it.

It is the people you support and vote for who are the plutocratic elite, not the people liberals like me vote for and support.

Your anti-tax, anti-welfare, pro-gun ideology enables the plutocrats to have lower taxes, fewer regulations, less government; and this enables them to pile up riches and build the oligarchy.

Dude, the plutocratic elites are the ones financially backing you guys now. Dude, NIKE or any other flashy brand has more sway over blues than reds. Where the fuck do you think the billions being spent to elect ho de do liberal Democrats is coming from? Hint: it's not falling from the sky or falling off tree branches. It's coming from plutocrats. You have a blue plutocrat representing a Republican district. Do you know how a blue plutocrat runs their business? The blue plutocrat pays their employees minimum wage, skirts the laws by only allowing their people to work part time or slightly below legal full time hours and relies upon federal/state programs to take care of the rest for them. So, you go ahead point fingers at me while I laugh at you for not having an f-n clue as to what is going on here.

I think what I wrote above is a good summary of who enables the plutocrats. It is certainly not some of us who buy nike shoes. People of all persuasions do that. I don't think you are going to be able to divide runners at a 10K or a marathon into blues and reds. Good luck with that though; let me know how you make out with your survey And anyway, I thought you guys were all in favor of self-reliance? If more of us bought those shoes and did their running or other exercize, health care would not be so damned expensive.

Most plutocrats are Republicans. A few like Buffett have some liberal ideas; good for them. But as to which party supports the plutocrats in exchange for campaign contributions, the Republicans get the bulk of that, but so do some Democrats, because that's the system which you Republicans impose upon us in the name of free enterprise. YOUR supreme court has decreed this. This charge that Democrats are elected by plutocrats has been debunked a while back by the Citizens United decision. 5 Republican appointees voted to keep money in politics on the basis of "free speech," while 4 Democratic appointees voted to get money out of politics. Democrats want reform of the system; Republicans want to make the system always beholden to big money. Case closed.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-15-2019, 03:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-14-2019, 06:21 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-14-2019, 01:02 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(10-13-2019, 10:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-12-2019, 10:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's amazing how you guys are still red baiting (even though metaphorically you guys are the reds now). You are still fighting against communism. Isn't that something of a dead horse now? What we've got in much of Asia now is state capitalism.

What do you expect, you guys are still promoting socialism/socialist ideology. You don't look/act like a dead horse.

Uh, I like some "socialist" stuff like roads, post office, cops, firemen, rules to keep Big Oil from violating my property rights (my body), and our private healthcare system is broken. I'll take Medicare now, which really should begin at age 0 instead of 65. Oh, yeah, I want my Social Security, cause I don't know how old I'll to be.

So, what do the Republicans have on offer?

Well, I don't associate road maintenance/constructions, law enforcement, the US postal service, firemen, military and so on with socialism. I don't even view Medicare and Social Security as socialist programs. However, I do view Medicare for all starting at birth or single payer as a socialist program. Me, I like the freedom to choose my healthcare provider and the freedom to choose another healthcare provider. I'm a private sector guy myself and I don't like the idea of being reliant on a bureaucratic system for all my healthcare needs.

And on that basis you call all Democrats "socialists?"

There is a range of opinion among Democrats on Medicare and healthcare. The Republicans want to take all Medicare and social security away and privatize roads, prisons, the postal service, etc.

I don't see any difference between medicare for seniors and medicare for all. What's the difference? If it works for older people, why not for everyone? Private insurance takes people off their insurance for no reason and jacks up rates and deductibles without cause or prior notice. Medicare allows me to choose my doctor.  Most insurance programs, I think, have networks and require you to choose someone in the network. There's no difference between private and public on that account. Just calling one bureaucratic, and the other one private sector, is just labeling. There is no difference between a public and private bureaucracy. Corporations are bureaucracies too, except they are owned by a few billionaires instead of by we the people.

If you don't call "medicare and social security, road maintenance/constructions, law enforcement, the US postal service, firemen" socialist , where do you draw the line? Why do you assume that all blue Democrats (and all Democrats are "blue") are communists, when what we advocate is a mixed system, and so do you?

Dude, I don't call all Democrats socialists or view them all as socialists. I know that there is a difference between the Democratic voters. I know the  party is split about even ( roughly half in favor of more socialism and the other half in favor of more capitalism). I've already clearly stated that in other posts. Where do I draw the line? I'd draw the line some where between you and Bob or Bob and Roadbuilder. Dude, America isn't dumb. If you want a mixed system as you say, you should stop opening your/our doors to so many poor people for whatever reason and stop loading down / flooding the system and adding more and more programs to the system. Hint: The ones who enable as the ones most reliant upon their money and reliant upon their tax dollars to fund socialist programs or pet programs.

[pbrower2a]

(10-15-2019, 04:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-12-2019, 11:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-12-2019, 09:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-12-2019, 05:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-12-2019, 10:34 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: In recent years, the United States has endured a strong trend toward pure plutocracy in which most people are obliged to suffer for a tiny elite of rich and powerful people seemingly unaccountable to anyone. Seemingly. There was Jeffrey Epstein, and there is Donald Trump. We are in a Crisis Era, and this one seems so far to elevate the narcissist as much as the last one tore the narcissistic tendency down. If the Depression did not shake people of narcissism, then the Second World War did. We need to go to some basics -- do good for people, and you will do well... but do bad things to people and be ruined.

I agree. Now, how much of that plutocracy is liberal as you say and more enthused with funding their own pet projects abroad and more enthused with funding their political choice and more enthused with feeding their own precious ego's and more enthused drinking expensive wine and eating expensive food and seeking to again more attention to/for themselves or flying around the world at the taxpayers expense promoting their ideology and themselves to the children of those who are similar to them or promoting family members or close friends while being treated and served like kings and queens of old. PB, do you think I would cry, get upset or feel bad if an event similar to the French revolution took place in San Fransisco or California and Nancy Pelosi was placed on public trial and voted guilty and beheaded. Nope, I wouldn't be upset because that is what they do, what they teach by doing it and seem to be OK with it.

It is the people you support and vote for who are the plutocratic elite, not the people liberals like me vote for and support.

Your anti-tax, anti-welfare, pro-gun ideology enables the plutocrats to have lower taxes, fewer regulations, less government; and this enables them to pile up riches and build the oligarchy.

Dude, the plutocratic elites are the ones financially backing you guys now. Dude, NIKE or any other flashy brand has more sway over blues than reds. Where the fuck do you think the billions being spent to elect ho de do liberal Democrats is coming from? Hint: it's not falling from the sky or falling off tree branches. It's coming from plutocrats. You have a blue plutocrat representing a Republican district. Do you know how a blue plutocrat runs their business? The blue plutocrat pays their employees minimum wage, skirts the laws by only allowing their people to work part time or slightly below legal full time hours and relies upon federal/state programs to take care of the rest for them. So, you go ahead point fingers at me while I laugh at you for not having an f-n clue as to what is going on here.

I think what I wrote above is a good summary of who enables the plutocrats. It is certainly not some of us who buy nike shoes. People of all persuasions do that. I don't think you are going to be able to divide runners at a 10K or a marathon into blues and reds. Good luck with that though; let me know how you make out with your survey   And anyway, I thought you guys were all in favor of self-reliance? If more of us bought those shoes and did their running or other exercize, health care would not be so damned expensive.

It is clear that many  plutocrats have deep pockets for supplying money to politicians and advocacy groups when such expenditures can lead to cuts in costs (wages and regulation) or achieve new profits (through crony capitalism and sweetheart deals for privatization of public assets). It is possible that the difference between the "Crisis of 1940" in America and the current one is that in the last Crisis, Big Business was unable to buy the political process; in this one Big Business has the means. 

Due to the concentration of industry, few of us have much choice in the consumer products that we buy. I have an aversion to buying anything offered by Koch Industries because of its support for right-wing politics.    

Quote:Most plutocrats are Republicans. A few like Buffett have some liberal ideas; good for them. But as to which party supports the plutocrats in exchange for campaign contributions, the Republicans get the bulk of that, but so do some Democrats, because that's the system which you Republicans impose upon us in the name of free enterprise. YOUR supreme court has decreed this. This charge that Democrats are elected by plutocrats has been decided a while back by the Citizens United decision. 5 Republican appointees voted to keep money in politics on the basis of "free speech," while 4 Democratic appointees voted to get money out of politics. Democrats want reform of the system; Republicans want to make the system always beholden to big money. Case closed.

Some plutocrats are wise enough to recognize that a social order in which the common man has no hope for a good life is at risk of a proletarian revolution. People with either hope or happiness in what exists at the time have no cause for revolt. Countries on the brink of revolution are unhappy places. Only fools want to live in such places no matter how plush the setting is for them.

[pbrower2a]

Axios/College Reaction Poll: Impeachment

Support for impeachment is swelling across political silos and demographic brackets. Perhaps the most emphatic flash sign comes with the college demographic. According to the latest Axios/College Reaction poll, 76% of college students support an impeachment inquiry. That number has soared from just 52% in late May.

Homing in on support for impeachment across parties italicizes the upward trend. In our latest polling, here's how each party comes down on an impeachment inquiry:



Student support for impeachment (by party)

• Democrats: 97% of Democratic students approve of the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

• GOP: 22% of Republican students approve of impeachment inquiry.

• Independents: 76% of Independent students approve of impeachment inquiry.



But the story comes into starker relief when we compare this week's numbers to late May.



College students - May vs. October



May 28th October 8th Net +/-



Dems 71% 97% +26

Independents 44% 76% +32%

GOP 16% 22% +6%





The biggest movement is among Independents, who now support impeachment as much as Democrats did 3 months ago. Democratic students have shifted to a near-unanimous chorus in support of impeachment. And while Republican students don't support the inquiry at comparable rates, even their support has ticked up 6 percentage-points.

Here's how students' support for impeachment fits with the broader public, as defined by 538's impeachment support model:





College students vs. General Public



Students General public



Dems 97% 84%

Independents 76% 45%

GOP 22% 14%





As the party sub-currents swirl and ultimately settle, we'll understand how likely impeachment (and possible removal) actually is. The number to watch will be what percentage of Republicans and Independents across age brackets convert gentle apprehension into active support for impeachment.



Key findings:



Axios/College Reaction Poll | October 8th-10th | n=850 | m.o.e: +/- 3.3%



• 76% of college students approve of impeachment of President Trump



• 22% of Republican students approve of impeachment of President Trump



• 76% of Independent students approve of impeachment of President Trump



• 97% of Democratic students approve of impeachment of President Trump

https://collegereaction.com/posts/poll-7...mpeachment

[Eric the Green]

(10-15-2019, 06:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-15-2019, 03:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-14-2019, 06:21 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-14-2019, 01:02 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(10-13-2019, 10:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What do you expect, you guys are still promoting socialism/socialist ideology. You don't look/act like a dead horse.

Uh, I like some "socialist" stuff like roads, post office, cops, firemen, rules to keep Big Oil from violating my property rights (my body), and our private healthcare system is broken. I'll take Medicare now, which really should begin at age 0 instead of 65. Oh, yeah, I want my Social Security, cause I don't know how old I'll to be.

So, what do the Republicans have on offer?

Well, I don't associate road maintenance/constructions, law enforcement, the US postal service, firemen, military and so on with socialism. I don't even view Medicare and Social Security as socialist programs. However, I do view Medicare for all starting at birth or single payer as a socialist program. Me, I like the freedom to choose my healthcare provider and the freedom to choose another healthcare provider. I'm a private sector guy myself and I don't like the idea of being reliant on a bureaucratic system for all my healthcare needs.

And on that basis you call all Democrats "socialists?"

There is a range of opinion among Democrats on Medicare and healthcare. The Republicans want to take all Medicare and social security away and privatize roads, prisons, the postal service, etc.

I don't see any difference between medicare for seniors and medicare for all. What's the difference? If it works for older people, why not for everyone? Private insurance takes people off their insurance for no reason and jacks up rates and deductibles without cause or prior notice. Medicare allows me to choose my doctor.  Most insurance programs, I think, have networks and require you to choose someone in the network. There's no difference between private and public on that account. Just calling one bureaucratic, and the other one private sector, is just labeling. There is no difference between a public and private bureaucracy. Corporations are bureaucracies too, except they are owned by a few billionaires instead of by we the people.

If you don't call "medicare and social security, road maintenance/constructions, law enforcement, the US postal service, firemen" socialist , where do you draw the line? Why do you assume that all blue Democrats (and all Democrats are "blue") are communists, when what we advocate is a mixed system, and so do you?

Dude, I don't call all Democrats socialists or view them all as socialists. I know that there is a difference between the Democratic voters. I know the  party is split about even ( roughly half in favor of more socialism and the other half in favor of more capitalism). I've already clearly stated that in other posts. Where do I draw the line? I'd draw the line some where between you and Bob or Bob and Roadbuilder. Dude, America isn't dumb. If you want a mixed system as you say, you should stop opening your/our doors to so many poor people for whatever reason and stop loading down / flooding the system and adding more and more programs to the system. Hint: The ones who enable (are) the ones most reliant upon their money and reliant upon their tax dollars to fund socialist programs or pet programs.

I do want a mixed system. I am a former small capitalist myself and I have investments. Communism would not be good for me. So that doesn't change if I also take positions you disagree with. Which I do. But it is rare for any two people to agree on most things in life.

I don't see a flood of new social and poverty programs to the system these days. That happened mostly in the sixties, and since Reagan they have been cut back, and poverty levels have not budged or increased since then. Liberals like me believe that the government helping people get out of poverty is a benefit to the system overall. Poverty does not create jobs for rich people or business owners. 

There have been floods of people crossing our borders lately. Yes I think they should be treated like human beings, and I think this flood, which I predicted long ago would happen in these times (using planetary cycle correlations), is due to the poor governance by nations in Latin America, as well as the climate change pressures caused by failure of our system to convert to non-polluting energy and land management.

I want a fair tax system. That means a good balance between reasonable taxes that don't crush business owners, plus enough regulation to cure bad business practices that harm people, and enough taxes on wealthier people to fund the programs that help people get along and advance, and thus add to our prosperity. The "job creaters" are not the main source of this prosperity, and welfare programs do not perpetuate poverty. More people working for fair wages and salaries and spending money is the main source of a good economy. Seeing through the smokescreen of trickle-down economics is the main difference of liberals from conservatives in these times. But that does not necessarily make us socialists.

Roadbuilder, also known as Kevin I believe on that secret site we are not involved in, is more of a social than an economic conservative, because as a Jones late Boomer he felt that the pressure to conform to the freewheeling sex life of hippie boomers ruined his chances for monogamy.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-15-2019, 08:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Axios/College Reaction Poll: Impeachment

Support for impeachment is swelling across political silos and demographic brackets. Perhaps the most emphatic flash sign comes with the college demographic. According to the latest Axios/College Reaction poll, 76% of college students support an impeachment inquiry. That number has soared from just 52% in late May.

Homing in on support for impeachment across parties italicizes the upward trend. In our latest polling, here's how each party comes down on an impeachment inquiry:



Student support for impeachment (by party)

• Democrats: 97% of Democratic students approve of the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

• GOP: 22% of Republican students approve of impeachment inquiry.

• Independents: 76% of Independent students approve of impeachment inquiry.



But the story comes into starker relief when we compare this week's numbers to late May.



College students - May vs. October



                                           May 28th    October 8th   Net +/-



Dems                                       71%               97%          +26

Independents                         44%               76%          +32%

GOP                                        16%                22%          +6%





The biggest movement is among Independents, who now support impeachment as much as Democrats did 3 months ago. Democratic students have shifted to a near-unanimous chorus in support of impeachment. And while Republican students don't support the inquiry at comparable rates, even their support has ticked up 6 percentage-points.

Here's how students' support for impeachment fits with the broader public, as defined by 538's impeachment support model:





College students vs. General Public



                                   Students               General public



Dems                               97%                           84%

Independents                 76%                           45%

GOP                                 22%                           14%





As the party sub-currents swirl and ultimately settle, we'll understand how likely impeachment (and possible removal) actually is. The number to watch will be what percentage of Republicans and Independents across age brackets convert gentle apprehension into active support for impeachment.



Key findings:



Axios/College Reaction Poll | October 8th-10th | n=850 | m.o.e: +/- 3.3%



• 76% of college students approve of impeachment of President Trump



• 22% of Republican students approve of impeachment of President Trump



• 76% of Independent students approve of impeachment of President Trump



• 97% of Democratic students approve of impeachment of President Trump

https://collegereaction.com/posts/poll-7...mpeachment

I don't/ wouldn't have a problem with an impeachment inquiry either.

[Hintergrund]

What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

[pbrower2a]

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

1. Expose Donald Trump as a disgrace for lacking loyalty to old decencies that most of us have taken for granted. 

2. Expose Republicans, especially in the Senate, who defend the bad stuff of Trump.

Defeating Trump in 2020 may not be enough to take down the Senate majority. If the Senate minority uses some dismissive trick such as dismissing the case for impeachment with some parliamentary trick, then Senators participating in such a trick will put themselves at greater risk of defeat than otherwise.

[David Horn]

(10-29-2019, 08:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: What's the point of it? The Democrats will never get 67 votes against Trump. So what is this good for? To show that they really, really dislike him? I think we all know about that.

This was said about Nixon too, and Trump is the modern Nixon.  If GOP Senators feel threatened, the calculus will change fast.  If not, then it will left to posterity to address this properly … or not.  

Personally, I think Trump would be okay with being impeached and convicted, it he is then able to parlay that into a Trump Network to rival Fox.  He hates this job, and he's not making money like he expected.