the "blue wave" last night and the government shutdown

[essentialsaltes]

Mamdani should be hailed as a paragon of fiscal efficiency.

With Cuomo garnering just under 855,000 votes, that amounted to the would-be power brokers spending $65 per vote for a losing candidate.

Meanwhile, independent committees that included backers such as the Working Families Party dropped a relatively paltry $16 million to either support Mamdani or go after Cuomo. Mamdani snagged a little more than 1 million votes, making their investment come in at $15.81 per vote.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you believe that if the United States reduces its military spending, US adversary such as China, Russia, or Iran will also decrease their military capabilities?

Who cares? We can crush them like bugs.

 

[DaisyDay]

Not all things can be addressed early but things like screenings and staying generally healthy weight, diet things like that can be.

That was one of the strengths of the ACA - it made preventive care, including annual checkups and vaccines, be included in any covered insurance plan.

 

[NxNW]

Do you believe that if the United States reduces its military spending, US adversary such as China, Russia, or Iran will also decrease their military capabilities?

Irrelevant.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Who cares? We can crush them like bugs.

View attachment 372899

Taking a screenshot for use in a discussion forum can be helpful for illustrating a point; however, this type of data does not fully represent the complexity of the defense department's budget when comparing to other countries' defense budgets.

There are many reasons why the United States defense budget significantly exceeds those of other countries. One of the aspect of higher defense budget is that U.S. states allocate substantial resources to troop training, safety measures, and equipment maintenance.

The following is a comparison of the training duration for fighter pilots with those from other countries.

Country​	Initial Flight Training​	Advanced/Fighter Training​	Annual Flight Hours​	Remarks​
US	IFT + UPT: ~200 flight hours total	~16 IFF flights + MQT	180–250	High flight hour emphasis & simulation focus
India	Stage I & II: ~48 weeks (no detailed hr data)	Stage III + fighter OCU	Target 180; actual 120–150	Infrastructure limits actual hours
China	Basic + Adv: ~260 flight hours	Conversion in service units	100–110	Training time reduced recently
France	~100 flight + 30 sim hours	Fighter conversion (unspecified)	147–162 (below NATO)	Working toward 180h target

The United States spends an average of $12 billion annually on nuclear contingency planning and training. In contrast, India and China reportedly allocate no funds to nuclear contingency, and France also lacks a dedicated budget for nuclear disaster strategy, likely relying on the US.

At the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war, Russian tanks frequently broke down en route to Ukraine. Russia's defense budget is relatively low for its military size because it relies on outdated, poorly maintained equipment, making its expenses much less than those of the US.

If the United States reduces its role as a global superpower, withdraws from international affairs, and decreases its military presence worldwide, it is likely that military spending could be significantly reduced. However, this does not necessarily mean that U.S. military expenditures would match those of countries such as China or India, given the desire to maintain high-quality personnel and equipment to ensure the safety and security of service members.

It is noteworthy how conservatives and liberals differ in their approaches to various issues. Typically, liberals support reducing military spending; however, when a disaster, famine, or conflict arises elsewhere in the world, it is often liberals who advocate for deploying U.S. military resources to aid those in need. Conversely, conservatives generally prefer allocating funds to build a highly capable military, yet, except for neo-conservatives, most would rather maintain military forces within the United States rather than intervene globally.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Irrelevant.

It’s not irrelevant; US military power depends on global actions. You avoid discussing this because it would weaken your argument for military spending.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The 1.5 trillion paid to insurance companies does not automatically transfer to the universal health care system.

Of course not. No one ever inferred that. What I did infer is that there was a very large amount of money flowing into the healthcare system through insurance premium paid by employers and employees and that diverting it to the single payer system would have low disruption on employer costs and take home pay.

Employer premiums may not be available unless a Bismarck-style tax is implemented, requiring employers to contribute to universal healthcare.

Given that adding $1T+ expenditure to the annual budget is certainly *not* going to be funded by a giant hole in the federal budget we should expect new or expanded taxes. One principle mode would almost certainly be an expanded Medicare payroll tax. (Currently it is 1.45% for employers and employees each for the first $200,000 of wage and 0.90% for employers beyond that.)

 

[Pommer]

It’s not irrelevant; US military power depends on global actions. You avoid discussing this because it would weaken your argument for military spending.

Yes, how could we blow up fishing narco-terrorist’s boats with a measly $600B defense budget?

 

[rjs330]

Unless the GOP can get some traction regarding the economy and inflation the Blue Wave will be huge in 2026.

The economy and inflation isn't bad, but its not as good as Trumps first term. And inflation sure isn't as bad as under Biden. However, Americans don't care. The midterms will go to the Democrats anyway. It always goes to the party not in power. So if the GOP wants to get somw things done, they need to move quickly. They don't have much time. If you ask.me they are wasting time with this shut down, even though its the Dems fault.

 

[NxNW]

It’s not irrelevant; US military power depends on global actions. You avoid discussing this because it would weaken your argument for military spending.

We could cut the military budget by half and still be #1 with room to spare. How many aircraft carriers do we have? How many does #2 have? Or do you believe there is still a 'missile gap'?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Unless the GOP can get some traction regarding the economy and inflation the Blue Wave will be huge in 2026.

The economy and inflation isn't bad, but its not as good as Trumps first term. And inflation sure isn't as bad as under Biden. However, Americans don't care. The midterms will go to the Democrats anyway. It always goes to the party not in power. So if the GOP wants to get somw things done, they need to move quickly. They don't have much time. If you ask.me they are wasting time with this shut down, even though its the Dems fault.

Unlike other issues, neither the media nor political parties can control the economic narrative, especially regarding inflation, because every voter experiences it firsthand. Whether buying gas, shopping, or dealing with job loss, people directly feel the state of the economy, making it impossible for any party to shape this narrative.

As a proponent of free-market capitalist, I believe government intervention only harms the economy rather than improves it. The Trump administration's tariffs have damaged economic growth, and added inflation to stay up, while removing them could help, it may be too late for significant recovery before November 2026.

The GOP is confronting several challenges. Notably, youth voters who supported the GOP in 2024 appeared to shift back to the Democratic Party during the last week election, as did Hispanic voters. President Trump made significant gains among Hispanic voters since 2016; however, results from Virginia and New Jersey indicate that the GOP lost nearly 25% of its Hispanic support in those states. While it remains uncertain whether this trend will continue in other swing states such as Arizona, Nevada, or Georgia, it was evident in New Jersey and Virginia.

Hispanic voters’ decisions were influenced not only by economic concerns and inflation, but also by immigration policies. Exit polls suggest these policies are a deeply personal issue for many Hispanic Americans. Millions of Hispanic American citizens are affected by immigration policy through family members who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Many Hispanic communities are closely connected, often including both documented and undocumented individuals, making their experiences intertwined and inseparable. President Trump’s immigration policies have had a substantial impact on these communities. While some may discuss law and order from a distance, for Hispanic Americans these policies are personal, and they have responded by voting for Democrats in at least three states.

Historically, during mid-term elections, the White House typically loses seats to the opposition party. This pattern has been consistent throughout decades of American politics. The question for 2026 is the extent of losses that the GOP may experience, as well as what developments might occur following that year. If the economy rebounds, President Trump could receive recognition for this change. It remains uncertain whether Hispanic voters or younger will come back to GOP as they did in 2024.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We could cut the military budget by half and still be #1 with room to spare. How many aircraft carriers do we have? How many does #2 have? Or do you believe there is still a 'missile gap'?

There still is a mine shaft gap.

View attachment 372985

Aircraft carriers are tricky. The ocean is big, so if you are going to be an all oceans navy and deploy them as such, you do need a few. What is clear is that the US is the only such nation left.

(The count for Russia is too high in that chart.)

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Yes, how could we blow up fishing narco-terrorist’s boats with a measly $600B defense budget?

It can be done, just get in closer to machine gun range.

 

[camille70]

Unlike other issues, neither the media nor political parties can control the economic narrative, especially regarding inflation, because every voter experiences it firsthand. Whether buying gas, shopping, or dealing with job loss, people directly feel the state of the economy, making it impossible for any party to shape this narrative.

As a proponent of free-market capitalist, I believe government intervention only harms the economy rather than improves it. The Trump administration's tariffs have damaged economic growth, and added inflation to stay up, while removing them could help, it may be too late for significant recovery before November 2026.

The GOP is confronting several challenges. Notably, youth voters who supported the GOP in 2024 appeared to shift back to the Democratic Party during the last week election, as did Hispanic voters. President Trump made significant gains among Hispanic voters since 2016; however, results from Virginia and New Jersey indicate that the GOP lost nearly 25% of its Hispanic support in those states. While it remains uncertain whether this trend will continue in other swing states such as Arizona, Nevada, or Georgia, it was evident in New Jersey and Virginia.

Hispanic voters’ decisions were influenced not only by economic concerns and inflation, but also by immigration policies. Exit polls suggest these policies are a deeply personal issue for many Hispanic Americans. Millions of Hispanic American citizens are affected by immigration policy through family members who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Many Hispanic communities are closely connected, often including both documented and undocumented individuals, making their experiences intertwined and inseparable. President Trump’s immigration policies have had a substantial impact on these communities. While some may discuss law and order from a distance, for Hispanic Americans these policies are personal, and they have responded by voting for Democrats in at least three states.

Historically, during mid-term elections, the White House typically loses seats to the opposition party. This pattern has been consistent throughout decades of American politics. The question for 2026 is the extent of losses that the GOP may experience, as well as what developments might occur following that year. If the economy rebounds, President Trump could receive recognition for this change. It remains uncertain whether Hispanic voters or younger will come back to GOP as they did in 2024.

They aren't losing Hispanics because they are wanting to deport undocumented people. It's the enforcement mechanism where citizens are getting caught up for simply looking Mexican. Also the administration lied when they said they weren't against legal immigration. They are targeting permanent residents, green card holders and asylum seekers who are following the process. They disregard legal paperwork. Even if someone gets released after a few days or a week, they can experience abuse, unsanitary conditions, job loss, children abandoned and the fear of not knowing what happened to missing people. Damage to cars. Towing costs. It's a mess.

 

[Job 33:6]

I used per capita math to simplify a complex issue, but I agree it doesn't capture the complexity of universal health care.

Americans would pay more taxes to fund healthcare under either a progressive or flat system. My current yearly insurance premium is about $6,000, but with universal healthcare, my taxes would likely increase, while families earning $28,000 may pay less due to lower tax brackets. I am willing to pay higher taxes to support lower-income families, though everyone would still contribute through taxation. Ultimately, taxes would rise for all income levels.

I'm not opposed to it. If all Americans agree to higher taxes, it's feasible. However, universal healthcare supporters often claim that only the top 1% or high earners will pay more, and eliminating insurance companies will save money. These points are myths, not realities.

All Americans must pay higher taxes to fund universal health care. Senator Sanders and supporters of universal health care do not typically acknowledge this point. They often repeat the statement that the top 1% will be responsible for funding it.

Every major country that uses universal healthcare, France, Germany, Canada, Japan etc. All receive healthcare at a fraction of the cost that we do, and they all have better health outcomes and in most, if not all cases, longer average lifespans. So why do you believe that if the US had universal healthcare, that it would be more expensive than things are now?

Country - per capita healthcare cost, and whether or not they use universal healthcare:

United States~ $14,880 per person
No — the U.S. does not have universal health care coverage

Germany~ $8,000
Yes — universal, multi-payer system with statutory insurance.

Switzerland~ $8,000
Yes — mandatory private insurance for all residents.

Norway~ $9,300–10,000
Yes — tax-funded universal coverage.

France~ $6,900
Yes — universal health insurance plus complementary private insurance.

Canada~ $6,800–6,900
Yes — government-funded universal coverage for medically necessary services.

Australia~ $6,800 (2022)
Yes — Medicare system provides universal access.

United Kingdom~ $5,000–5,500 (2022) (OECD mid‑range)
Yes — National Health Service (NHS) provides universal care.

Japan~ $5,400–5,500 (2022)
Yes — universal coverage via mandatory statutory insurance.

Netherlands~ $7,300 (2022)
Yes — universal system, mostly via regulated private insurance.

And while it may be true that taxes would need to increase, the counter point would be that you wouldn't need 500-1000 dollar premiums hitting your bank account every month, and deductibles that bankrupt Americans. In contrast, European countries with universal healthcare generally don't have premiums or deductibles at all. Or even co-pays.

Collectively it's much cheaper to have taxes fund a streamlined and efficient universal option, over us paying directly into expensive and disjointed private health insurers.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Every major country that uses universal healthcare, France, Germany, Canada, Japan etc. All receive healthcare at a fraction of the cost that we do, and they all have better health outcomes and in most, if not all cases, longer average lifespans. So why do you believe that if the US had universal healthcare, that it would be more expensive than things are now?

Country - per capita healthcare cost, and whether or not they use universal healthcare:

United States~ $14,880 per person
No — the U.S. does not have universal health care coverage

Germany~ $8,000
Yes — universal, multi-payer system with statutory insurance.

Switzerland~ $8,000
Yes — mandatory private insurance for all residents.

Norway~ $9,300–10,000
Yes — tax-funded universal coverage.

France~ $6,900
Yes — universal health insurance plus complementary private insurance.

Canada~ $6,800–6,900
Yes — government-funded universal coverage for medically necessary services.

Australia~ $6,800 (2022)
Yes — Medicare system provides universal access.

United Kingdom~ $5,000–5,500 (2022) (OECD mid‑range)
Yes — National Health Service (NHS) provides universal care.

Japan~ $5,400–5,500 (2022)
Yes — universal coverage via mandatory statutory insurance.

Netherlands~ $7,300 (2022)
Yes — universal system, mostly via regulated private insurance.

And while it may be true that taxes would need to increase, the counter point would be that you wouldn't need 500-1000 dollar premiums hitting your bank account every month, and deductibles that bankrupt Americans. In contrast, European countries with universal healthcare generally don't have premiums or deductibles at all. Or even co-pays.

Collectively it's much cheaper to have taxes fund a streamlined and efficient universal option, over us paying directly into expensive and disjointed private health insurers.

What are the primary objectives of universal health care? Why some progressive advocate universal health care in USA?

 

[Job 33:6]

What are the primary objectives of universal health care? Why some progressive advocate universal health care in USA?

The primary objectives of universal health care are to ensure that every person has access to essential medical services without financial hardship, to control overall healthcare costs, and to improve public health outcomes.

And many nations have already accomplished this ahead of the US. France, Germany, the UK, Canada, and Japan, are examples of universal healthcare systems that have much cheaper and affordable healthcare with better health outcomes and longer average lifespans for the public.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The primary objectives of universal health care are to ensure that every person has access to essential medical services without financial hardship, to control overall healthcare costs, and to improve public health outcomes.

And many nations have already accomplished this ahead of the US. France, Germany, the UK, Canada, and Japan, are examples of universal healthcare systems that have much cheaper and affordable healthcare with better health outcomes and longer average lifespans for the public.

Only 8% of Americans lack health insurance; the rest are covered by employers, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, VA, or other sources, and most are satisfied with their healthcare access.

We should focus on finding a solution that provides affordable health care access to the 8% of Americans currently without it, rather than overhauling or dismantling a system that effectively serves the remaining 92%.

 

[durangodawood]

Only 8% of Americans lack health insurance; the rest are covered by employers, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, VA, or other sources, and most are satisfied with their healthcare access.

We should focus on finding a solution that provides affordable health care access to the 8% of Americans currently without it, rather than overhauling or dismantling a system that effectively serves the remaining 92%.

ACA is on the verge of failing because of the costs of insurance. VA and Medicare are in a sense single-payer systems. Put that all together and the for-profit insurance model doesnt come out looking so great.

 

[BCP1928]

Only 8% of Americans lack health insurance; the rest are covered by employers, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, VA, or other sources, and most are satisfied with their healthcare access.

We should focus on finding a solution that provides affordable health care access to the 8% of Americans currently without it, rather than overhauling or dismantling a system that effectively serves the remaining 92%.

That won't fly. Too many people are aware that the present system does not effectively serve the remaining 92%