Actually, that’s not true because most use the 2006 book by Brooks, “Who Really Cares” whereas the NYT article cites research by Google. It also differentiates in that Liberals donate more to universities, Museums, and Symphonies which have no impact on poverty stricken people. I did mention that some types of missionary work where charitable and others were not. Also, the 10–25% was a general figure that I believe came from a LA Times article and I’m not sure of the basis for it and I have been to churches who give more or less based on the financial situation of the church. As well, some churches donate to the community in other ways like offering daycare and pre-school at a lower rate than is typical due to allocating some of the collected money.
Noted, but I will say that your minimum wage point is nonsensical because most of the population (97%) makes more than the minimum wage (https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm) so raising it would not help most of those people. As well, as seen in Seattle, San Francisco, and New York, excessive minimum wage raises have huge consequences in terms of yearly earnings and loss of jobs and further pricing the poor out of the market for necessities (due to taxes and rising food costs associated with “earning” more money, they now don’t have enough for staples and this wouldn’t affect their poverty level) and would only raise the poverty amount level without raising anyone out of it.
Think Progress is insanely biased and that former congressman is an idiot. That’s pretty much all I got from it. Also, he’s kinda correct in that if you can’t afford staples, it’s time to look at excesses and cut those out of your life. A smartphone is neither a right nor a necessity.
No, but most people are insured by their employers (even those working at places like McDonalds have access to health insurance!) and this only left a few in the lurches who made a little too much to be on Medicaid before Obamacare (most people insured were due to medicaid expansion and not any individual market changes; many people still pay the fine over paying for care because it’s cheaper to do that then carry health insurance) and those who couldn’t afford the individual market (though Obamacare barely helped that at all). This means that between family and community they could have been fine.
He wasn’t so it’s completely moot. Also, his parents raised the money and could have come if the doctors had allowed it. They could have payed out of pocket for everything. Also, infant mortality is completely misleading because in many European countries pre-me deaths are not counted as an infant death whereas it is in the US (counted as miscarriage). As well, I believe some of them don’t include babies who die within a certain number of months of being born like if they die of SIDS whereas these are also counted in the US. Also, the death stat is misleading too because Americans are way more free to make dumb choices (risk takes), we drive more (super deadly + motorcycles), etc. We also have high obesity, heart conditions, and other deadly diseases caused by overconsumption because “I can live how I want” and that means “IMA DIE REAL SOON”
I was mostly talking about all taxes. If you include every portion of government then the government is very bloated. Also, that one program may be actually very efficient, but considering the issues of medicare and social security as well as other types of fraud seen within various programs, it’s highly doubtful on those government numbers especially since the government has an interest in making it appear as if they’re doing things well, when we all see inefficiencies on a daily basis (construction, DMV, etc).
So this is debatable since Reagonomics lead to a boom of growth within the economy that didn’t really weaken until the .com bubble burst in the late 90’s to early 00’s so the increase in capital for “the rich” led to more capital investment into startups and small businesses (angel investors and venture capitalist groups). This means more jobs as most of our jobs are created by small businesses. As well, democrats tend to forget that many small business owners simply have the business under their name and the companies income is there income to the IRS (WAY simpler than separating the two). This means that even if they would only take like say 60k per year from their business for living, they’d still be on the hook tax-wise for the whole 500k or whatever the business made. In other words, a huge percentage of “the rich” that are taxed at much higher percentages than someone making 60k a year means that’s less money to invest in their business or spend on themselves. Of course, this leads to some reasons why Republicans want to simplify the tax code (it’d also save oodles of money since the IRS wouldn’t have to be so huge to manage the insane tax code).
Our healthcare system is so broken because government has over-regulated it to insane levels! This means hospitals have to cover: compliance costs, buffer for malpractice suits, insurance compliance (insurance takes LOTS of paperwork and so you can find cash doctors who’ll charge a set rate for visits and some tests that’s often lower than if you payed with insurance) costs, drug costs, etc. Essentially, our healthcare and drug system in the modern era has never been free market! Also, people fail to realize that because of insurance, (secondary payer) no fee negotiation goes on between the actual consumer and the supplier (docs, hospitals, etc) meaning we don’t have any say in what things cost whereas in normal parts of the market you can pick and choose by shopping elsewhere or negotiating for a lower price.
Lastly, I’d also like to point out that grocery stores are highly regulated with expiration dates having to be thrown out (seriously, you can find foods DEEPLY discounted if it’s near its expiration date because if they don’t sell it, they have to throw it out and that means it’s a total loss instead of some loss) when most foods last quite a long time past their regulated expiration date. Yes, dented cans is a definite issue because of botulinum toxin, but bruised fruit and “yucky looking” vegetables are more often then not fine if you clean them and remove any “bad parts” whereas they can’t even sell those! I mean, look at what France did with allowing stores to sell those items where they’re discounted instead of throwing them out and they’ve decreased food waste by a lot and allowed people with less disposable income to eat a bit healthier because they no longer have to get for processed/packaged foods as much. Yes, there should still be expiration dates and shelf lives where if it looks too bad it should be thrown out, but shoppers often make these decisions on look and timing anyways so it’s essentially extraneous anyways thus costing businesses money that could be put towards other things.