The General American Politics Thread

[Solkia]

 

So the anti-bottled water petition about the california drout reach national attention.

Now the person behind it is planning a protest and is askign for donations.

Being the cynical prick that I am, I’m not going to donate because too many assholes exploit tragedies for profit (I’m also flat broke), but here’s a link if you’re interested.

https://couragecampaign.actionkit.com/donate/ShutdownNestle_Donate/?t=3&akid=1693.1965656.110AMs

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-to-obama-on-nike-trip-just-dont-118371547706.html

Bernie Sanders has criticized Obama's plans to visit Nike to involve them in a Trans-Pacific deal between several countries.

His argument goes, “Nike epitomizes why disastrous unfettered free-trade policies during the past four decades have failed American workers, eroded our manufacturing base and increased income and wealth inequality in this country.”

He likewise argues that if Nike can sell shoes for triple digits, they should be made in the USA and not in Vietnam for 56 cents an hour.

Where do I begin?

1. Yeah, it sucks if you were one of the handful of Americans working in shoe manufacturing, but in general outsourcing leads to lower prices because inevitably one company engages in a price war against another, using the extra profit margin from lower manufacturing costs as their ammunition. Outsourcing is just made an issue because the newly-unemployed workers are the most affected by the change, and with their free time, can lobby against it.

2. It's very American to view 56 cents an hour as exploitative, but ask yourself this: are these people taking these jobs at gunpoint in these poorer countries, where subsistence is likely still an option? Probably not. They most likely take them because it's better than other opportunities. Stop being paternalistic. It's rather akin to 19th and 20th century imperialism when you start going "Oh those non-white countries don't know what's best for them." Let them decide.

3. "Shoes made for pennies an hour and sold for hundreds of dollars should be made here." Yeah, no. Speaking as a businessman, you don't get to tell me what my profit margin should be. Do tell me, Mr. Sanders, in your ideal world what's the perfect profit margin? 10%? 100%? 1000%? No profit at all? The market decides the value of things and what they sell for, not you.

Jackasses like this guy are why in spite of left wing views, I refuse to identify as Democrat. I'm all for ensuring businesses remain within certain guidelines but there's a limit.

[Patticus]

Bernie Sanders is hardly a jackass, bringing as he is the continental US' first single payer healthcare system, while the rest of the country remains beholden to their health insurance corporate overlords. The ACA's original vision, uncorrupted by congress, and undeniably the economically superior system.

 

The man's a social democrat who cares deeply about his country, despite the inevitable vitriol coming his way that will paint him in a harsher light than Obama has been exposed to. I think he's a far, far better person than any of the other contenders in the race, and we need him.

 

Anyway, shoes. Sanders is basically arguing that anything Americans need to wear can and should be made in the US - it's a protectionist stance that would likely raise prices dramatically, but it'll probably plays well with the ever growing 'Murica crowd. If manufacturing were brought back home, could ways not be found to lessen the cost while not screwing consumers or workers over? Surely it has to be possible.

[Tani Coyote]

Bernie Sanders is hardly a jackass, bringing as he is the continental US' first single payer healthcare system, while the rest of the country remains beholden to their health insurance corporate overlords. The ACA's original vision, uncorrupted by congress, and undeniably the economically superior system.

That's all well and good, but I'm absolutely going to call anyone who thinks he has the right to tell people like me how much profit we're allowed to make a jackass.

Tax income progressively and don't worry about my bottom line, thank you. The government's pretty good at ignoring businesses' bottom line with everything else, after all.

But anyway. Would this be a dealbreaker for me in an election? Maybe not. I still highly dislike that sort of attitude he's got going, though.

 

If manufacturing were brought back home, could ways not be found to lessen the cost while not screwing consumers or workers over? Surely it has to be possible.

Probably not or they would have done it already. You don't take on all the extra burdens of doing overseas business unless there's clearly more profit in it than doing business at home.

The cost of living as much as regulations are just too high to really make American manufacturing feasible in a lot of fields. First world economies are based on services, not manufacturing. We should rejoice at the flight of manufacturing overseas because of how much it increases the buying power of everyone else.

[shdowhunt60]

Anyway, shoes. Sanders is basically arguing that anything Americans need to wear can and should be made in the US - it's a protectionist stance that would likely raise prices dramatically, but it'll probably plays well with the ever growing 'Murica crowd. If manufacturing were brought back home, could ways not be found to lessen the cost while not screwing consumers or workers over? Surely it has to be possible.

 

I don't know, something about what he said reminds me a bit too much of the toilet paper shortage over in Venezuela, because the government said that they can't charge more than X for toilet paper.

[Tani Coyote]

I don't know, something about what he said reminds me a bit too much of the toilet paper shortage over in Venezuela, because the government said that they can't charge more than X for toilet paper.

Price ceilings are shitty economic policy, it's true.

In New York City, the government decided to impose rent control. Result: nobody wants to build apartments anymore and converts them to other uses at first opportunity. Secondary result: people will actually read obituaries to see if any apartments are now empty.

It's no secret I lean left economically but holy lord are some of their ideas stupid no matter how well-intentioned they are.

Barring some human rights violation, the government needs to tread carefully in the market.

We can see this sort of dilemma with universal healthcare. Eliminating the presence of private insurance is fine and dandy since they don't produce any innovation, but what of the doctors and pharmaceuticals? They certainly add a lot to the cost, and expecting people to do things out of the goodness of their heart generally doesn't work.

What would really help healthcare isn't targeting the industry at all though. It would be clamping down on lawyers. Ever since we relaxed restrictions on lawyers, prices for everything have gone up. And of course we have trouble getting those restrictions back, given the government is populated by them.

[Patticus]

The rest of the developed world does okay with cheaper, more equitable healthcare systems that are not visibly worse than America's in terms of quality or expense to the taxpayer.

 

Socialized healthcare has been shown multiple times in multiple places to work well, albeit its not without problems. No matter what problems universal and single payer have, though, they are nothing compared to the monstrous healthcare expenses companies, governments and people have to handle every day, nor do they really compare to callously depriving tens of millions of care just because their bank accounts aren't fat enough. Going the socialized route would prove a huge boost to the economy, especially given that any additional taxes would be minor compared to the costs of premiums. You can even keep private insurance and healthcare around too, for whomever can actually afford it. The marketplace would shrink, sure, but people wouldn't need to be deprived of private care.

 

It all boils down to one question: Do you view the public's access to healthcare as a right, or a privilege?

 

Much of the rest of the developed world sees it as a right. You cannot, after all, have a life, have any real liberty, or pursue happiness, if you cannot afford to be well enough to do so.

 

 

As for price ceilings elsewhere (can socialized healthcare really be said to be a price ceiling if private care/insurance remains, albeit in a market diminished by it no longer being forced upon the populace?), I must admit that it doesn't sound like sound economic policy, but I trust that Sanders knows what he's talking about. It certainly doesn't sound so batshit mental as Cruz's "I'll repeal common core!" pledge, or Jeb Bush consulting his brother of all people about the Middle East.

[Tornado]

I don't see anything mental about repealing Common Core either. That's one of the rare governmental disasters where even the people asked to consult on it were pretty much thrown out of the loop when they weren't the yesmen the government (and the standardization corporations) wanted them to be and loudly expressed such; and even more luckily opposition to it hasn't been silenced as time has gone by.

 

 

The entire thing has devolved into the most blatant corporate cronyism the country has probably had since the 1960s; which is particularly impressive because no one on the actual education side of things seemed to want it or wanted to be quiet about how little they wanted it.

Even Obamacare, as much as the insurance companies loved (and actively lobbied) to get a law passed that basically mandated you pay them for health insurance, had portions that obviously, immediately and tangibly helped people. Common Core is built around theories based on other theories based on supposed hard data that doesn't seem to actually exist, since any attempt to actually debate any facts contrary are consistently dismissed out of hand. So focused on teaching the "concepts" of the subjects rather than the procesdures and logic behind them that even teachers of the subject don't understand the esoteric explanations given; and parents basically can't help their children at all. Common Core standards even worsened the main problem with No Child Left Behind, continuing to fuck over teachers for being stuck with the dumb kids or working in the poor schools instead of trying to actually fix those two things by making the grading curve so high for the smarter students that it is literally impossible for them to meet it but then punishing the teachers anyway. It's pretty telling the amount of stories you still get about a few dozen children actually taking the tests while the entire rest of the school opts out of them.

[shdowhunt60]

The rest of the developed world does okay with cheaper, more equitable healthcare systems that are not visibly worse than America's in terms of quality or expense to the taxpayer.

 

Socialized healthcare has been shown multiple times in multiple places to work well, albeit its not without problems. No matter what problems universal and single payer have, though, they are nothing compared to the monstrous healthcare expenses companies, governments and people have to handle every day, nor do they really compare to callously depriving tens of millions of care just because their bank accounts aren't fat enough. Going the socialized route would prove a huge boost to the economy, especially given that any additional taxes would be minor compared to the costs of premiums. You can even keep private insurance and healthcare around too, for whomever can actually afford it. The marketplace would shrink, sure, but people wouldn't need to be deprived of private care.

 

It all boils down to one question: Do you view the public's access to healthcare as a right, or a privilege?

 

Much of the rest of the developed world sees it as a right. You cannot, after all, have a life, have any real liberty, or pursue happiness, if you cannot afford to be well enough to do so.

 

 

As for price ceilings elsewhere (can socialized healthcare really be said to be a price ceiling if private care/insurance remains, albeit in a market diminished by it no longer being forced upon the populace?), I must admit that it doesn't sound like sound economic policy, but I trust that Sanders knows what he's talking about. It certainly doesn't sound so batshit mental as Cruz's "I'll repeal common core!" pledge, or Jeb Bush consulting his brother of all people about the Middle East.

 

The problem I have with this, is that it runs off the assumption that people get denied medical care, just because they cannot afford it. That's not the case. No hospital will deny you medical care if you need it, and if you can't afford it right now, then they'll work out an arrangement where you can make payments to pay it off.

 

I honestly strongly disagree with the notion that medical care is a right. It's not. It's a service provided by another person. I think going in and acting like you have the right to a service that someone provides is a very dangerous mentality.

 

I suppose if it was a publicly owned hospital, that could be a different story. Because you pay your taxes to have a service available to the public, like roads and police officers. But at the same time, consider how poorly maintained roads can be. Consider how lazy and incompetent police are, or even out-right bigoted. Think of other public services too, and how frustrating they can be.

 

I'm not saying that this wouldn't be a problem that's prevalent only in public hospitals, but I personally wouldn't want hospitals run like DMV's.

 

Personally speaking, I don't have much faith in services operated by the government, and I fail to see how socialized healthcare is this magic bullet that'll automatically fix our healthcare issues.

[Tani Coyote]

To say medical care is not a right is to say life is not a right, because medical care is what enhances life and makes it possible.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all rights in the American lexicon, and you do not need to pay for them.

Extrapolation: you shouldn't have to pay for emergency care at the very least. And you can make an argument to expand the availability of extra care on the basis of that third right.

Reducing healthcare costs also has a huge economic effect by increasing the buying power of the working class. It also allows more productivity as well as more leisure time (i.e. consumption) since people are no longer terrified of walking into the hospital.

 

I suppose if it was a publicly owned hospital, that could be a different story. Because you pay your taxes to have a service available to the public, like roads and police officers. But at the same time, consider how poorly maintained roads can be. Consider how lazy and incompetent police are, or even out-right bigoted. Think of other public services too, and how frustrating they can be.

 

I'm not saying that this wouldn't be a problem that's prevalent only in public hospitals, but I personally wouldn't want hospitals run like DMV's.

 

Personally speaking, I don't have much faith in services operated by the government, and I fail to see how socialized healthcare is this magic bullet that'll automatically fix our healthcare issues.

The good news is most socialized healthcare systems still have a private option where you can pay more. The idea isn't to make everyone equal, so much as make sure society's least fortunate aren't saddled with ridiculous healthcare bills.

It isn't a magic bullet by far, but when you see how much of GDP is devoured by healthcare costs, it becomes apparent that the economy is suffering because of it. Diversity is the key to a strong economy.

Sure, you can get a "payment plan," but is it really fair to expect a person to spend years paying off a life threatening emergency? Frankly I find the "well you could die and not pay it!" alternative to be insane.

I don't see why we're more concerned with Bill Gates keeping more of his money when it's obvious he can afford to part with more of it.

Plus, here's a historical fact that will make trickle down enthusiasts shit their pants: America's most prosperous years have been under high tax regimes, not low tax ones. Eisenhower is one of the most popular Presidents and oversaw the Golden Age... and his top marginal rate was 91% on all incomes over 400k.

Cutting taxes or otherwise increasing the spending power of the wealthy means little in the long run. Increasing the buying power of the poor and middle class absolutely makes a difference.

[shdowhunt60]

 

To say medical care is not a right is to say life is not a right, because medical care is what enhances life and makes it possible.

 

 

I'm really hoping that this is hyperbole, because to insinuate that life would be impossible without healthcare defies all logic and explanation. I guess in the cauldron of life millions of years ago, amongst the oxygen, carbon, and liquid water somewhere in that primordial mix was healthcare.

 

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all rights in the American lexicon, and you do not need to pay for them.

 

You're right. And you certainly don't have to. But you can take steps to improve your quality of life by getting a paying job that lets you provide the needs of improving that.

 

 

 

Extrapolation: you shouldn't have to pay for emergency care at the very least. And you can make an argument to expand the availability of extra care on the basis of that third right.

 

You can make that argument, but then you'd be entirely misinterpreting the whole concept of what the inalienable rights are. They are a statement that says that nobody can violate your right to live, to have liberty, and to pursue happiness as you see it. I could argue that what you're arguing is in violation of a medical care provider's right to liberty by saying that he must provide his trade, because someone else is entitled to it.

 

The point of inalienable rights isn't so that somebody can make your rights better. It's to prevent some other guy from violating them.

 

Reducing healthcare costs also has a huge economic effect by increasing the buying power of the working class. It also allows more productivity as well as more leisure time (i.e. consumption) since people are no longer terrified of walking into the hospital.

 

The good news is most socialized healthcare systems still have a private option where you can pay more. The idea isn't to make everyone equal, so much as make sure society's least fortunate aren't saddled with ridiculous healthcare bills.

It isn't a magic bullet by far, but when you see how much of GDP is devoured by healthcare costs, it becomes apparent that the economy is suffering because of it. Diversity is the key to a strong economy.

 

If that's the case, then why are people acting like Socialized Healthcare is the only solution?

 

 

Sure, you can get a "payment plan," but is it really fair to expect a person to spend years paying off a life threatening emergency? Frankly I find the "well you could die and not pay it!" alternative to be insane.

I don't see why we're more concerned with Bill Gates keeping more of his money when it's obvious he can afford to part with more of it.

 

 

 

Because it's not my damned business what Bill Gates does with his money. It's his money. It belongs to him. Why are we specifically targeting Bill anways? I'm a lower middle-class perfectly healthy male in my early 20's. I don't want to pay for somebody else's healthcare. Why should I be forced to?

[Tani Coyote]

I'm really hoping that this is hyperbole, because to insinuate that life would be impossible without healthcare defies all logic and explanation. I guess in the cauldron of life millions of years ago, amongst the oxygen, carbon, and liquid water somewhere in that primordial mix was healthcare.

Just because women could give birth without all the luxuries of modern medical care doesn't mean they should.

We have evolved beyond the Law of the Jungle. We can absolutely get by without providing everyone emergency care free of charge, but that doesn't mean it's the best option.

 

You're right. And you certainly don't have to. But you can take steps to improve your quality of life by getting a paying job that lets you provide the needs of improving that.

This implies:

A. All jobs pay enough, and

B. Everyone can have a job.

A is absolutely false, and B is idiotic because it would lead to mass inflation.

"You must work to eat" is a doctrine that can only be believed by those who do not comprehend basic economic fact.

In fact, as a conservative, you should absolutely oppose the idea of everyone having a job. Such a situation empowers labor and begins the transition to true socialism now that workers are no longer expendable.

 

You can make that argument, but then you'd be entirely misinterpreting the whole concept of what the inalienable rights are. They are a statement that says that nobody can violate your right to live, to have liberty, and to pursue happiness as you see it. I could argue that what you're arguing is in violation of a medical care provider's right to liberty by saying that he must provide his trade, because someone else is entitled to it.

 

The point of inalienable rights isn't so that somebody can make your rights better. It's to prevent some other guy from violating them.

The Hippocratic Oath can be summed up as "do no harm."

If a woman will die giving birth without your medical help, and you refuse to help her because she can't pay you, you are no different than someone shooting her in the head in my view.

We may distinguish between negligence and malice, but at the end of the day they have the same result here - a woman is dead because of your action or lack thereof.

The medical profession should absolutely be expected to provide emergency care free of charge. The money making element of healthcare is because it's a necessity in a scarcity-based economy, not because that's the purpose of healthcare. The purpose of a profession is ultimately to provide a service to society, with the paycheck second.

The doctrine of negative rights is quite clear. Your rights end where mine begin. And some rights inevitably trump others.

A guy is not expressing his freedom if I'm dying on the floor, he can heal me, and I can't pay him, so he refuses to treat me. He's being an asshole. He decided a paycheck - money that can easily be recouped - is more valuable than a human life - something that can't be.

Behold, however, single payer! He can treat me no matter how dirt poor I am, then he can invoice the government and receive payment. Everyone wins.

 

If that's the case, then why are people acting like Socialized Healthcare is the only solution?

Because we've tried market-based solutions and they don't work.

Insurance companies push money around and reap a fat profit. Medical associations limit how many doctors get licensed so they can keep their wages high. Lawyers sue everyone in sight and force everyone in healthcare to raise prices to cover these lawsuits.

Insurance mandates are a matter of social responsibility. Single payer isn't that far of a stretch from that because you were already paying money for insurance, and it will be cheaper with single payer anyway now that the insurance profit margin has been eliminated.

 

Because it's not my damned business what Bill Gates does with his money. It's his money. It belongs to him. Why are we specifically targeting Bill anways? I'm a lower middle-class perfectly healthy male in my early 20's. I don't want to pay for somebody else's healthcare. Why should I be forced to?

Because we have to pay for you if for some reason you are critically injured and can't pay. You need to have insurance.

As for Bill and all his fellow magnates... simple. They not only have more marginal utility per dollar than poor people, but have the most stake in society. If the government ceased to exist today, it is not the poor person with nothing but their apartment and the clothes on their back who will suffer. It is the wealthy person with their large portfolios of property.

"Everyone should be taxed the same rate" is inherently a poor idea because it assumes we all benefit the same from the existence of the state.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

You're right. And you certainly don't have to. But you can take steps to improve your quality of life by getting a paying job that lets you provide the needs of improving that.

The problem isn't lacking the job to improve the quality. The problem is affording to improve it.

 

What your saying assumes that the person who can't take steps to improve their life doesn't have a job, when that may very well not be the case. Many people actually have paying jobs and still can't afford it, so that doesn't exactly help them improve their quality of life than it does merely helping them get by. And that's partially due to prices of certain things going up more than people can spend their wages on despite having a job.

 

For example, going to college for a better education is one way to improve your life. But were it not for scholarships and student loans, tell me how many people would be able afford the hundreds or even thousands of dollars per class to obtain a higher education like that? Much less keep themselves employed, while covering things like food, transportation, or even housing? And to say nothing of how much the textbook for that class would cost if you're buying it from the campus store.

[Tani Coyote]

The above is more or less why I abandoned fiscal conservatism.

The doctrine prides itself on giving people control of their lives and not the state, but it ignores the fact most of us are guided along certain paths by the wealthy and their institutions anyway.

What it really proposes is giving the socioeconomic elite control of people's lives.

Between a large government and an independent elite, I choose the former. The former can at least be brought to the people by making it heavily transparent and democratic.

Maybe when every business is a cooperative, we can consider abolishing regulations and gutting the government.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I'd rather not. For all it's flaws, the government and its regulations are what keeps the more ruthless and exploitative parts of businesses in check.

 

I doubt businesses being cooperative wouldn't return to the laissez-faire era of the 19-century without them.

[Patticus]

I don't see anything mental about repealing Common Core either.

 

I do, since because it isn't legislation and was adopted voluntarily by the various states, it cannot be repealed. It's like trying to repeal shirts people choose to wear: you can't.

Common Core can only really be wound down by the individual states which adopted it, and only of their own accord rather than by some high profile repealing, which you'd think would go against Cruz's states rights thing.

[Tani Coyote]

I'd rather not. For all it's flaws, the government and its regulations are what keeps the more ruthless and exploitative parts of businesses in check.

 

I doubt businesses being cooperative wouldn't return to the laissez-faire era of the 19-century without them.

Do you know what a cooperative is?

It's a business that is not owned by shareholders, but by the people who work there.

They can be trusted to not be exploitative if the people in the company have any shred of common sense, because it's hard to exploit yourself.

For other regulations, I imagine they'd still be more responsible than modern businesses, because they'd be run by the people of the communities they're in.

Cooperatives also have a ton of evidence supporting their success. If any form of true socialism will exist, it will be through them. Socialism feels this need to be a grandiose socioeconomic and political experiment, when all it really needs to do to change society is change the way companies are run. Right now, companies are run by third party shareholders who might not even work there. With cooperatives, you keep the current market framework but expand the shareholders to be the many instead of the few.

[Tornado]

I do, since because it isn't legislation and was adopted voluntarily by the various states,

Except one of the driving reasons it was so widely adopted was because of promises of potential carrot funding by the federal government as part of the Race to the Top program. Conveniently, the Common Core standards were the high profile education standards when Race to the Top was announced, and conveniently Race to the Top made bigger promises if you adopted approved education standards immediately. Otherwise states were told to just make their own or they get no money.

Even the Common Core Myths vs Facts page, when specifically asked whether federal grants were what drove adoption, can't cram enough double speak in the entire paragraph response to hide that their answer to the question is essentially "Of course not (but pretty much, yeah)"; so let's not pretend the federal government didn't have a strong hand in its wide adoption.

Is it odd/hypocritical for Cruz to be rallying against something that technically the individual states chose to do? Yes. Is he wrong for doing so when the word "chose" in that sentence has a big asterisk next to it?

[Patticus]

If there's no legislation, it can't be repealed in the sense Cruz said, i.e, "every word of it." You can remove the carrot funding though, yes, but that's a bit different to the repeal process, and you'd have to have something to replace it with, unless you think the states did just dandy beforehand.

[shdowhunt60]

 

Just because women could give birth without all the luxuries of modern medical care doesn't mean they should.

We have evolved beyond the Law of the Jungle. We can absolutely get by without providing everyone emergency care free of charge, but that doesn't mean it's the best option.

 

[TailsTellsTales]

I not come here often but thought that I would ask. How come elected republican politicians never want to help the working poor? I rarely ever hear they say anything nice about the poor. They are often referred to as lazy and other mean words. And they always seem obsessed with raising the working poor taxes. They are against every policy that would help the working poor like raising the minimum wage. It would be great if they started treating the poor as regular people instead of shaming them for something that is generally not their fault. Sorry if I offend anybody here. I was only wondering and figured I ask here.

[shdowhunt60]

I not come here often but thought that I would ask. How come elected republican politicians never want to help the working poor? I rarely ever hear they say anything nice about the poor. They are often referred to as lazy and other mean words. And they always seem obsessed with raising the working poor taxes. They are against every policy that would help the working poor like raising the minimum wage. It would be great if they started treating the poor as regular people instead of shaming them for something that is generally not their fault. Sorry if I offend anybody here. I was only wondering and figured I ask here.

[Nepenthe]

$15 might be a bit steep for some places, but we need a raise to the minimum wage anyway because it barely does what is advertised. And what would happen if we raised it is that poor people would invariably have more money to spend and pump back into the economy, which would make everyone better off. This doesn't mean consumers lose choice either. McDonald's can try to raise the price on their shitty burgers to equalize their costs to what they were before a wage increase instead of making the oh-so arduous risk of spending five cents more on their meat, and their profit margins can continue falling like they are already. Also, most minimum wage jobs are retail and restaurant work. Not sure how you're going to ship those overseas, and we don't have androids yet.

America won't blow up if wages actually start scaling with worth and productivity. It might burn a bit more if we keep finding excuses not to pay people, especially if rich motherfuckers will continue flaunting their golden parachutes and dividing us against our common interests.

[shdowhunt60]

we don't have androids yet.

 

No, but we're certainly close.

 

 

Here's a better idea. Why not cut taxes for the poor? There's more than one way to skin a cat if what you're wanting is more money in the hands of poor people. I just think that it's raising the minimum wage is a really, really bad idea that's going to create a ton of inflation.

[Nepenthe]

Automated order and pay machines for restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, and movie theaters already exist in droves, and the jobs associated with their tasks still remain. They've increased efficiency, but it's probably cheaper in the long run to have a human element present that can continue performing after the machine has busted and to add a level of interest and hospitality for patrons, then it is to rely solely on machines with a fleet of more-expensive IT people on stand by; forget the costs associated with this to mom-and-pop shops and start-ups. I wager this will be our reality until we solve the problem of long-term unemployment that we have introduced with the potential of AI and scaleable technology. We'd rather be like the proverbial horse that continues to exist despite the existence of the car rather than the, I don't know, the telegraph or something.

I'd also rather hold the wealthy to paying their fucking share of taxes, instead of doing their damnedest to continually duck out of their social obligation. Constantly cutting taxes isn't going to fix everything, especially if we're not willing to look at our ridiculous military budget or the waste in Medicare.