# It's so bad you have to pay people to move to Vermont



## Orca (Jan 1, 2020)

Vermont has chosen economic policy that is so unattractive to business and the younger demographic that wants to participate in a vibrant economy, that its government is now paying people to move there.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/610887/you-can-now-get-paid-7500-move-vermont

It's hardly worth saying that such interventions are not sustainable and not a long term solution.

Vermont's median age us up 10 years from 1990 when its median age was the same as the country. (The rest of the country is up 5 years from 1990.) Vermont has seen population decline of 0.3% from 2010. The working age population is in decline.

If each state functions a sort of laboratory experiment to demonstrate the results of government policy, Vermont is playing its role as a cautionary lesson to the other states.


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 1, 2020)

Orca said:


> Vermont has chosen economic policy that is so unattractive to business and the younger demographic that wants to participate in a vibrant economy, that its government is now paying people to move there.
> 
> https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/610887/you-can-now-get-paid-7500-move-vermont
> 
> ...



You're being a political troll. Go ski/ride.


----------



## Orca (Jan 1, 2020)

Bumpsis said:


> You're being a political troll. Go ski/ride.



The economic health of the state matters to many skiers.


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Jan 1, 2020)

Orca said:


> Vermont has chosen economic policy that is so unattractive to business and the younger demographic that wants to participate in a vibrant economy, that its government is now paying people to move there.
> 
> https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/610887/you-can-now-get-paid-7500-move-vermont
> 
> ...



this is so dumb.  what's the lesson?  don't be a tiny, cold state in the middle of nowhere with no large city/cities and/or natural resources??


----------



## EPB (Jan 1, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> this is so dumb.  what's the lesson?  don't be a tiny, cold state in the middle of nowhere with no large city/cities and/or natural resources??


Must be an election year. One thread is crapping on VT for being a failed lefty state and another is asking why ski areas bother expanding when there won't be any snow to ski on. Not good.

As a piece of free advice, you should disavow yourself of the idea that being resource rich is a key condition to be prosperous (besides, doesn't VT have the finest of windy peaks and ridges at its disposal?). 

Think about it. Does anyone in the US envy the economies of Appalachia, North Dakota or West Texas? Does anyone think that Russia is more prosperous than Japan? Is anyone itching to move to oil rich Venezuela?

Texas and Saudi Arabia have both taken steps to diversify away from oil in recent years - the former trying to poach tech jobs from places like San Francisco - and the latter is attempting to IPO is national oil company and use the proceeds to modernize it's economy. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 1, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> this is so dumb.  what's the lesson?  don't be a tiny, cold state in the middle of nowhere with no large city/cities and/or natural resources??



It's not dumb, it's economic reality.  

The youth have been fleeing Vermont for years now due to high taxes, correlated high prices, lack of opportunity, and declining solid corporate jobs.  My wife is a perfect example of precisely what this "policy" (if you can call it that) seeks to reverse.  So is her brother. Both Vermonters who fled.  This article speaks of a real phenomena.


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Jan 1, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's not dumb, it's economic reality.
> 
> The youth have been fleeing Vermont for years now due to high taxes, correlated high prices, lack of opportunity, and declining solid corporate jobs.  My wife is a perfect example of precisely what this "policy" (if you can call it that) seeks to reverse.  So is her brother. Both Vermonters who fled.  This article speaks of a real phenomena.



but it is.  people are leaving the state due to the hard realities i described. you can slash environmental regulation and cut taxes as much as you want and it won't change the fact that vermont is cold, remote and lacking in cities and resources.  gov't policies or lack thereof can not change that, no matter which party is in charge.  but i guess it's easier to shake your fist and yell 'I BLAME DA GOVERMENT HERRDERRR'.


----------



## kingslug (Jan 1, 2020)

Ive often thought of moving up here as moving west is not an option at this time. But then reality kicks in.


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 1, 2020)

Maple syrup sales must be down. 

Don’t they just print them Bernie bucks up there for that free healthcare and college?


----------



## FBGM (Jan 1, 2020)

raisingarizona said:


> Maple syrup sales must be down.
> 
> Don’t they just print them Bernie bucks up there for that free healthcare and college?



When you bang your sister in your double wide do you have a picture of trump above the bed?


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 1, 2020)

Why do you keep saying Vermont lacks resources? What resources are you talking about. Vermont hasn't lost any resources and yet somehow people flocked there, to that cold and remote place, and made a successful state since 1790. There's abundant farm land and forest land. We'll need young farmers to supply food and other AG products. Vermont needs to stop taxing people to death and incentify youth to stay and build new economies.


----------



## EPB (Jan 1, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> but it is.  people are leaving the state due to the hard realities i described. you can slash environmental regulation and cut taxes as much as you want and it won't change the fact that vermont is cold, remote and lacking in cities and resources.  gov't policies or lack thereof can not change that, no matter which party is in charge.  but i guess it's easier to shake your fist and yell 'I BLAME DA GOVERMENT HERRDERRR'.



The only point you raise that is at all legitimate is that VT doesn't have proximity to a major city (Montreal doesn't really count because it's across the border). Everything else you mentioned is blatantly wrong. I've already spelled out as simply as possible why you don't know what you're talking about Re: resources. 

Re: cold. Is Chicago or Minneapolis not cold? How about Toronto? I assume you have enough life experience to know this was a bad argument.

Let's assume you're a rational business operator for a minute. All else equal, you would rather run your business in a state that promotes business development over VT, which clearly doesn't. That's not up for debate. How far would it move the needle, however, is anyone's guess.

Is the all caps stuff a reference to something? It reads like you're trying to dismiss the fact that BG exposed your ignorance on this subject by pretending he's beneath you.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## mister moose (Jan 1, 2020)

Scruffy said:


> Why do you keep saying Vermont lacks resources? What resources are you talking about. Vermont hasn't lost any resources and yet somehow people flocked there, to that cold and remote place, and made a successful state since 1790. There's abundant farm land and forest land. We'll need young farmers to supply food and other AG products. Vermont needs to stop taxing people to death and incentify youth to stay and build new economies.



Some past jobs are outdated.  The mill town economy isn't coming back, not to any state.  Small family farming that provides a ubiquitous product, like milk, eggs, and beef can't compete with larger corporate farms.  Sustenance living where you grow your own food and live off the land, while still feasible, has lost it's luster.  Vermont has always been a rural, less educated and less industrial state.

However,  boutique farms, premium ice cream and turbine blades have found a home in VT.  There are some opportunities.

Why did IBM build a chip fab plant in Essex Junction in the 60's, and expand it in the 80s, and become the largest employer in the state?  What existed then that doesn't exist now?

Why does the state even listen to opposition of basing a squadron of F35s at BTV?  What is the economic impact of that?

Answer those two questions, and you'll be on your way.


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 1, 2020)

FBGM said:


> When you bang your sister in your double wide do you have a picture of trump above the bed?



My stepsister is the best kisser in the park bud! Show some respect!


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 1, 2020)

mister moose said:


> Some past jobs are outdated.  The mill town economy isn't coming back, not to any state.  Small family farming that provides a ubiquitous product, like milk, eggs, and beef can't compete with larger corporate farms.  Sustenance living where you grow your own food and live off the land, while still feasible, has lost it's luster.  Vermont has always been a rural, less educated and less industrial state.
> 
> However,  boutique farms, premium ice cream and turbine blades have found a home in VT.  There are some opportunities.
> 
> ...



Local farm goods are enjoying a renaissance as people realize that shipping food across country, while necessary sometimes, in general doesn't make sense. The farm to table movement and the desire to find new ways to farm and new uses for products are fueling a resurgence in local small farms. Parts of NY are seeing this, Vermont could to. 

Why did IBM open a plant in Vermont? Tom Waston Jr. loved to ski Stowe. That not withstanding, high tech can be developed anywhere, so Vermont is as good as anyplace.

As to the F35 issue, I don't know enough about the issues to comment.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 1, 2020)

This has been a successful agricultural development in Maine.   42 acre year round greenhouse.  Produces o we a million tomatoes a week!

https://www.backyardfarms.com/how-we-grow/our-greenhouse

Be interesting to see if more such businesses take hold in rural New England

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 1, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> This has been a successful agricultural development in Maine.   42 acre year round greenhouse.  Produces o we a million tomatoes a week!
> 
> https://www.backyardfarms.com/how-we-grow/our-greenhouse
> 
> ...



Yes.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 1, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> This has been a successful agricultural development in Maine.   42 acre year round greenhouse.  Produces o we a million tomatoes a week!
> 
> https://www.backyardfarms.com/how-we-grow/our-greenhouse
> 
> Be interesting to see if more such businesses take hold in rural New England



I seriously have tomatoes on my counter in my kitchen here in NJ right now from that farm...


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 1, 2020)

cdskier said:


> I seriously have tomatoes on my counter in my kitchen here in NJ right now from that farm...



:flag:


----------



## mikec142 (Jan 1, 2020)

This policy has been going on for at least two years.


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Jan 1, 2020)

vermont will always be small, remote, and cold...the growing season and land quality do not lend themselves to serious AG and nobody is making a real living tilling rocky fields with horses.  farm to table only works where you have transplant trustafarians who can afford the high prices.  you can slashl the taxes and kill all the endangered animals in the state and it will still not change those facts.  tourism and niche AG are about all its got.  this aint the 1790's and i don't see it becoming the new tech hotbed either.  it is what it is.  the bleak-ass ride up 22a, that's the real vermont.


----------



## Orca (Jan 1, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> vermont will always be small, remote, and cold...the growing season and land quality do not lend themselves to serious AG and nobody is making a real living tilling rocky fields with horses.  farm to table only works where you have transplant trustafarians who can afford the high prices.  you can slashl the taxes and kill all the endangered animals in the state and it will still not change those facts.  tourism and niche AG are about all its got.  this aint the 1790's and i don't see it becoming the new tech hotbed either.  it is what it is.  the bleak-ass ride up 22a, that's the real vermont.



So you say Vermont is pathetic and always will be no matter what cuz thems the facts. But, I doubt your pessimism is shared by the working people of the state nor the businesses. My guess is that their big concerns aren't the cold or the size of the state or horses plowing fields, but rather the hostile tax structures that make economic life harder than in other states.


----------



## Orca (Jan 1, 2020)

"Vermonters pay an average of 10.3% of their income in state and local taxes every year, one of the highest shares of any state. Vermonters pay more in taxes on average than residents of any other state. The state collects an average of $4,950 per taxpayer annually, the most of any state and about $2,000 more than is typical across all states."

-- USA Today, 6 April 2018


----------



## mbedle (Jan 2, 2020)

raisingarizona said:


> My stepsister is the best kisser in the park bud! Show some respect!



LOL - that was good.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 2, 2020)

Orca said:


> "Vermonters pay an average of 10.3% of their income in state and local taxes every year, one of the highest shares of any state. Vermonters pay more in taxes on average than residents of any other state. The state collects an average of $4,950 per taxpayer annually, the most of any state and about $2,000 more than is typical across all states."
> 
> -- USA Today, 6 April 2018



That's sobering.  When it comes time, even though I might have a retirement ski home in VT, I might need to have a residence for 181 days somewhere else.


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 2, 2020)

mister moose said:


> That's sobering.  When it comes time, even though I might have a retirement ski home in VT, I might need to have a residence for 181 days somewhere else.



It's not just the income tax that gets you (the income tax rates aren't, IME, all that bad; with a relatively steady income level, I didn't see a lot of difference in Vermont vs. Montana vs. Maine); it's that in combination with a high cost of living, plus sales tax.

The sales tax has more carve outs than some states, but 6% on almost everything adds up quickly, especially vehicles.

The high cost of housing, while influenced by regulatory regime, isn't that alone; you *can* get a nice place pretty cheap in some parts of Vermont, it just won't be particularly close to particularly good ski terrain or employment opportunities (Jay may be an exception because it's so damn far from everything else). Again IME, but I think the out-of-state money driving up real estate values around tourist centers is a big part of the housing-cost issue, and if there's a way to regulate yourself out of it, I'm not sure what that is.

I've looked at the tax data from a couple of different sources, as well as my own results, and while Vermont is a relatively high-tax state, so are most of its neighbors, so I don't think that's the only piece of the puzzle.

Oh, and don't forget that there *is* a property-tax credit for Vermont being your primary residence, so that would offset some of the income-tax hit. If you're actually going to try to beat the system, you'll need to take a close look at a lot of details; things like how many vehicles you own can have a significant impact.


----------



## EPB (Jan 2, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> vermont will always be small, remote, and cold...the growing season and land quality do not lend themselves to serious AG and nobody is making a real living tilling rocky fields with horses.  farm to table only works where you have transplant trustafarians who can afford the high prices.  you can slashl the taxes and kill all the endangered animals in the state and it will still not change those facts.  tourism and niche AG are about all its got.  this aint the 1790's and i don't see it becoming the new tech hotbed either.  it is what it is.  the bleak-ass ride up 22a, that's the real vermont.



This is precisely why being friendly to companies like IBM and trying to convince businesses that there is a solid base of young people that love VT graduating from its many Burlington area colleges to hire is a much better way forward than trying to gouge companies into oblivion (or more practically, into another state). People love going to VT for it's scenery/outdoor activities. Many more would make it their permanent home if it has a more robust business scene.

It's 2020. Nobody in the developed world wants to be an agrerarian or oil-based economy. Why you continue to hold up the fact that VT can't be one demonstrates that economics is not in your wheelhouse - which is fine because we all cultivate specialized skill sets in the developed world. Commodity businesses are notoriously cyclical and have slim profit margins. They do not provide the abundance of stable college-level jobs that service-based companies do. 

Does VT have the economic resources of Westchester County, NY? Of course not. But there are countless "bleak ass rides" you could take in upstate, central and western NY, too (same goes for your native PA by the way). The reason why VT as a whole has fared so poorly is much to do with their (and your) misunderstanding of how businesses make location decisions (which isn't tough - just put the shoe on the other foot and ask why Business X would want to put up with my regulatory regime). The foundation for a strong Burlington-area economy exists, but leadership and the electorate has stood in its own way.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## FBGM (Jan 2, 2020)

mbedle said:


> LOL - that was good.



Ah the two trumptards but there 6 brain cells together and made a funny


----------



## 56fish (Jan 2, 2020)

we're fine :beer::beer:


----------



## EPB (Jan 2, 2020)

FBGM said:


> Ah the two trumptards but there 6 brain cells together and made a funny


Have you made a single intelligent comment on this site?

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Jan 2, 2020)

FBGM said:


> Ah the two trumptards but there 6 brain cells together and made a funny



If you're going to make fun of someone else's intelligence, at least don't make numerous simple mistakes in your comments.


----------



## EPB (Jan 2, 2020)

cdskier said:


> If you're going to make fun of someone else's intelligence, at least don't make numerous simple mistakes in your comments.



Hahahahaha. My skin is plenty thick enough to handle this guy calling me an idiot. I do find it quite pathetic that he needed to stoop to using a term like the one he used, though. It's classless.

FBGM - feel free to make a substantive challenge to anything I said. It would be fun to see if you're capable of anything other than nonsense.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 2, 2020)

FBGM said:


> Ah the two trumptards but there 6 brain cells together and made a funny



Making ass-umptions ain’t so smart either bud. Show me where I wrote about being a trump supporter. That’s right, there’s nothing because I’ve never said that ever on the Internet or in real life. 

You wanna know what’s really dumb? Identity politics. That really brings the jack ass out in people. 

The funniest part though is that this whole hard core leftist bit where as soon as someone says something you don’t agree with and y’all get super triggered is gonna March that orange buffoon right back into office after the next election. I may not be a supporter but I will enjoy that part.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 2, 2020)

Orca said:


> Vermont has chosen economic policy that is so unattractive to business and the younger demographic that wants to participate in a vibrant economy, that its government is now paying people to move there.
> 
> https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/610887/you-can-now-get-paid-7500-move-vermont
> 
> ...



Very true.  Count my wife and me as examples of those younger folks who left.  A lot of my friends and family who are still there are wondering why they are paying people to live there when they should be reducing the cost of living there for everyone.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 2, 2020)

Orca said:


> "Vermonters pay an average of 10.3% of their income in state and local taxes every year, one of the highest shares of any state. Vermonters pay more in taxes on average than residents of any other state. The state collects an average of $4,950 per taxpayer annually, the most of any state and about $2,000 more than is typical across all states."
> 
> -- USA Today, 6 April 2018



Bingo.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 2, 2020)

mister moose said:


> Why did IBM build a chip fab plant in Essex Junction in the 60's, and expand it in the 80s, and become the largest employer in the state?  What existed then that doesn't exist now?



FWIW the former IBM plant in Essex Junction is a very small shadow of its former self.  IBM moved a lot of its production to Fishkill.  The State of Vermont from the 1980's on basically killed that plant and those very good jobs.  Same thing with Vermont Yankee.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 2, 2020)

mister moose said:


> That's sobering.  When it comes time, even though I might have a retirement ski home in VT, I might need to have a residence for 181 days somewhere else.



A lot of folks do that.


----------



## flakeydog (Jan 2, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> FWIW the former IBM plant in Essex Junction is a very small shadow of its former self.  IBM moved a lot of its production to Fishkill.  The State of Vermont from the 1980's on basically killed that plant and those very good jobs.  Same thing with Vermont Yankee.



I would respectfully disagree with this statement.  While it conveniently fits the narrative, don't think for a moment that the state of Vermont actually had any significant influence on the business strategy of a multi-national semiconductor manufacturer.  When business is good, things are great, downturns and a fundamental global shift in the industry are the root cause of this issue.  Not even massive corporate welfare can help- ask the state of New York.  They paid _$400-500k per job _back in the early 2000s.  That worked out so well that they just shelled out another $40M to "preserve" the scraps of those very same jobs.  Yes, Vermont could do more to attract business but they don't have the deep pockets that other states have for this sort of thing but given the history of some of these deals, that may not be a bad thing.

And yes, it can be expensive to live here but, for me, I am willing to pay that premium.  Vermont is a very nice place and like most things in life, nicer stuff costs more.


----------



## Orca (Jan 2, 2020)

"[The] assertion that Vermont has an overspending problem and not a revenue problem is backed up by the numbers. In fact, had Vermont kept state spending in line with the rate of population growth and inflation during the last decade, the state would’ve spent $6 billion less than it did."

-- Forbes, 3 April 2016


----------



## Orca (Jan 2, 2020)

"Vermont homeowners can breathe a temporary sigh of (relative) relief. A government shutdown has been avoided, and most homeowners’ property taxes will not increase until 2020. Vermont business owners were not so lucky, and will face a tax hike in 2019.

Simply put, our government made the tax situation worse this year when it passed the hike. In 2017, Vermont had the 3rd most oppressive business taxes in the country. After our 2018 tax hike, Vermont can compete with California and New Jersey for the ignominious title of “state with the highest taxes on enterprise.”"

-- Ethan Allen Institute, 29 June 2018


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 2, 2020)

flakeydog said:


> I would respectfully disagree with this statement.  While it conveniently fits the narrative, don't think for a moment that the state of Vermont actually had any significant influence on the business strategy of a multi-national semiconductor manufacturer.  When business is good, things are great, downturns and a fundamental global shift in the industry are the root cause of this issue.  Not even massive corporate welfare can help- ask the state of New York.  They paid _$400-500k per job _back in the early 2000s.  That worked out so well that they just shelled out another $40M to "preserve" the scraps of those very same jobs.  Yes, Vermont could do more to attract business but they don't have the deep pockets that other states have for this sort of thing but given the history of some of these deals, that may not be a bad thing.



International pressures are certainly a factor.  But the relationship between the State and IBM played a significant role.  One example is that NY threw a lot tax incentives to IBM to expand Fishkill.  Vermont?  Not so much.  Additionally, IBM had two big concerns--electricity and access for its employees.  Electric rates (set by the State) were very high.  Second, remember that project called the Circ Highway?  IBM really wanted it.  That project, as you know, was killed.  

This is an opinion piece, but it does discuss the Circ Highway issue as well as NYS and its efforts. 

https://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/ibm-the-circ-and-ibm,223944



> And yes, it can be expensive to live here but, for me, I am willing to pay that premium.  Vermont is a very nice place and like most things in life, nicer stuff costs more.



This reasoning has been used for years by the left in Vermont to justify their policies.  I'm interested to hear what you think this "premium" is getting you in Vermont.  As someone who is native to there and grew up there, I can tell you that when I go back to visit it is really sad.  The middle class is all but gone.  Local organizations (one my local ski hills included) can't get enough volunteers to operate.  Costs of living, high taxes, and poor job prospects leave many to move out.  This is leaving a lot of poor and a few rich people in the State.  It also is creating the huge demographic problem that many of us saw ten years ago or so but those in power are only now recognizing.  The fact is now that the demographics of the state now make a lot of Vermont's policy decisions simply unsustainable.


----------



## Orca (Jan 2, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> International pressures are certainly a factor.  But the relationship between the State and IBM played a significant role.  One example is that NY threw a lot tax incentives to IBM to expand Fishkill.  Vermont?  Not so much.  Additionally, IBM had two big concerns--electricity and access for its employees.  Electric rates (set by the State) were very high.  Second, remember that project called the Circ Highway?  IBM really wanted it.  That project, as you know, was killed.
> 
> This is an opinion piece, but it does discuss the Circ Highway issue as well as NYS and its efforts.
> 
> https://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/ibm-the-circ-and-ibm,223944



Circ:
https://www.peaktraffic.org/vermont.html

Vermont is so paralyzed regarding modernization that it couldn't build 16 miles of road.


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 2, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> Very true.  Count my wife and me as examples of those younger folks who left.  A lot of my friends and family who are still there are wondering why they are paying people to live there when they should be reducing the cost of living there for everyone.



Nah, they want to make sure they get all of their money back after you purchase a home there.


----------



## gregnye (Jan 2, 2020)

Orca said:


> Circ:
> https://www.peaktraffic.org/vermont.html
> 
> Vermont is so paralyzed regarding modernization that it couldn't build 16 miles of road.



No need to build roads if no one is going to use them. Also roads aren't modernization. The interstate highway system is technology from the 50's and 60's. 

Now if it was a bullet train or high speed rail that connected burlington to all the ski areas so I could sleep and wake up at the mountain--now that's modernization!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 2, 2020)

Orca said:


> Circ:
> https://www.peaktraffic.org/vermont.html
> 
> Vermont is so paralyzed regarding modernization that it couldn't build 16 miles of road.


I lived in the area from 95 - 2001 and then again 2004-2006.  From 97 - 2000 I was a student at UVM.   I remember the circ project well.  Locals dug their heels in hard on that one.  They acted like the circ was their version of Boston 128 going in and that it would absolutely destroy the "charming" character of Williston, Essex and Colchester. Sprawl would follow that roadway and there'd be Walmarts and Home Depots on every corner.  

The Williston Taft Corners was a big fight as well.  The developers won that one.  The big box stores moved in around 99 and that area today looks pretty much the same.  

Burlington metro does have potential to see much more economic growth than it has.  It's got all the fuel it needs for a young, vibrant, tech based economy.  Great Universities, a world class hospital, an airport, highway access and perhaps the best location in New England to be for outdoor enthusiasts to live.  Not sure what policy changes need to occur to make that happen.  Maybe it's the circ!

Not sure what to do to spur growth elsewhere in the state though.  I spent high school in Southern VT.  The "big cities" down there are Brattleboro and Rutland.  Both are pretty much exactly the same as they were 25 years ago.  They lack anchor universities or businesses to ever change.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## EPB (Jan 2, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> I lived in the area from 95 - 2001 and then again 2004-2006.  From 97 - 2000 I was a student at UVM.   I remember the circ project well.  Locals dug their heels in hard on that one.  They acted like the circ was their version of Boston 128 going in and that it would absolutely destroy the "charming" character of Williston, Essex and Colchester. Sprawl would follow that roadway and there'd be Walmarts and Home Depots on every corner.
> 
> The Williston Taft Corners was a big fight as well.  The developers won that one.  The big box stores moved in around 99 and that area today looks pretty much the same.
> 
> ...


It's clear over the years we disagree quite a bit on economic policy, but I think we're quite close in alignment on this one. I know many UVM grads from childhood (in southern NH) and I know of only one that stayed in greater Burlington. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 2, 2020)

Growth is over rated. If anything, humans need to slow down a bit and cut back on consumption


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 2, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> It's clear over the years we disagree quite a bit on economic policy, but I think we're quite close in alignment on this one. I know many UVM grads from childhood (in southern NH) and I know of only one that stayed in greater Burlington.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


Of my UVM friends who wanted to stay in the NVT area, I'd say about 25% of them found a way to make it work and haven't left.  They mostly work in Healthcare or Engineering with a few in hospitality.  In 1999 I wanted to spend the rest of my life living in that area.  By 2001 I was gone.  I just couldn't see the earnings potential and cost of living equation working.  Came back a second time 04-06 and said now way.  Haven't looked back.

Almost none of my Southern VT friends with career motivation are still there.  If you're not in healthcare or own a business, forget about it down there. 

So, here I am in Southern NH quite satisfied for the past 11 years   Recreationally it's not as good as NVT, but the income to COL works for me very well.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## EPB (Jan 2, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> Of my UVM friends who wanted to stay in the NVT area, I'd say about 25% of them found a way to make it work and haven't left.  They mostly work in Healthcare or Engineering with a few in hospitality.  In 1999 I wanted to spend the rest of my life living in that area.  By 2001 I was gone.  I just couldn't see the earnings potential and cost of living equation working.  Came back a second time 04-06 and said now way.  Haven't looked back.
> 
> Almost none of my Southern VT friends with career motivation are still there.  If you're not in healthcare or own a business, forget about it down there.
> 
> ...


Glad it's working out. Miss southern NH a lot. Maybe one day in the not too distant further southern NH/northern MA will be in play for me again.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Orca (Jan 2, 2020)

raisingarizona said:


> Growth is over rated. If anything, humans need to slow down a bit and cut back on consumption



Except that is not how you actually live your life


----------



## Orca (Jan 2, 2020)

gregnye said:


> No need to build roads if no one is going to use them. Also roads aren't modernization. The interstate highway system is technology from the 50's and 60's.



Yeah, but you drive a car for almost any economically-related activity you do (go to work, buy food, shop, etc.), and you need roads to do so


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 2, 2020)

Orca said:


> Except that is not how you actually live your life



I actually live a pretty simple life but generally speaking you’re right. Humans are programmed for self destruction, like cancer cells hell bent on killing their life support system.


----------



## Orca (Jan 2, 2020)

raisingarizona said:


> I actually live a pretty simple life but generally speaking you’re right. Humans are programmed for self destruction, like cancer cells hell bent on killing their life support system.



Not so very much of that either. We look for direction and purpose, fight nature for survival, seek a modicum of meaning, and if grace allows, do it with lightness and humor --- all the time knowing our limits and vulnerabilities, that we lose everything in the end. Don't be so down on humans. We deserve some compassion.


----------



## Orca (Jan 2, 2020)

raisingarizona said:


> My stepsister is the best kisser in the park bud! Show some respect!



Introduce me. I need a great kisser. I must hang with the wrong crowd.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 2, 2020)

raisingarizona said:


> Growth is over rated. If anything, humans need to slow down a bit and cut back on consumption



This. The herd could use some thinning.


----------



## Orca (Jan 2, 2020)

"Let’s review:

• Vermont ranked 49th for private sector total compensation (wages and benefits).
• People do not see Vermont as a place where they can have a stable financial future. 40% of young professionals responding to a survey indicated an intention to leave the state, citing low wages and housing challenges.
• Vermont’s workforce has shrunk by 15,000 workers, and our unemployment rate is dangerously low.
• Vermont ranked 33rd for public sector total compensation, showing a growth of 67.7% (vs 7.34% in the private sector).
• Vermont has a $2.3 billion liability in retiree health care benefits for teachers and employees.
• Our minimum payment on those healthcare liabilities will be $205 million in 2020 – an amount that comes right off the top of our budget and grows every year.
• We are under-funding these health plans. In 2020 there will be an $85 million shortfall, a number which will grow unless we make a change.
• An aging population will deflate tax revenues.
• We are also facing a $2 billion obligation for pension benefits.
• Ranked worst in the U.S. for retirement, potentially pushing out even more taxpayers."

-- VT Digger, 14 May 2019


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 2, 2020)

Orca said:


> Not so very much of that either. We look for direction and purpose, fight nature for survival, seek a modicum of meaning, and if grace allows, do it with lightness and humor --- all the time knowing our limits and vulnerabilities, that we lose everything in the end. Don't be so down on humans. We deserve some compassion.



Oh there’s so much great too, I’m just synical by nature and think we take ourselves a bit too seriously.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 3, 2020)

cdskier said:


> If you're going to make fun of someone else's intelligence, at least don't make numerous simple mistakes in your comments.



Specifically, FBGM made five errors in a fourteen word sentence.  Impressive.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 3, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> FWIW *the former IBM plant in Essex Junction is a very small shadow of its former self.  IBM moved a lot of its production* to Fishkill.  *The State of Vermont from the 1980's on basically killed that plant and those very good jobs.  Same thing with Vermont Yankee.*



When I lived in Vermont, Howard Dean basically made it his mission as governor to chase anything that even looked like a potentially successful business, out of state.  State of Vermont's policy boiled down to,_ "businesses are evil, now give us your money"._


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 3, 2020)

gregnye said:


> No need to build roads if no one is going to use them. Also *roads aren't modernization. The interstate highway system is technology from the 50's and 60's*.



You've obviously never lived in the area.  The Circumferential Highway would be quite useful. 

Also, I'm not sure where you're purchasing your flying cars.



gregnye said:


> Now if it was a bullet train or high speed rail that connected burlington to all the ski areas so I could sleep and wake up at the mountain--*now that's modernization!*



Now that's financial ruin!


----------



## EPB (Jan 3, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> You've obviously never lived in the area.  The Circumferential Highway would be quite useful.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure where you're purchasing your flying cars.
> 
> ...


Haha why not just wait to see if Google et al. can really deliver autonomous vehicles first and not waste all the upfront capital expenses (and shoulder all the ongoing operating loses) from a train system?

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## farlep99 (Jan 3, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> You've obviously never lived in the area.  The Circumferential Highway would be quite useful.



Yeah it would.  Williston & South Burlington have exploded with housing over the last few years.  Lots of development going on, and in Williston much of that is coming in the form of Townhouses.  So these areas are packing people into a small area but doing nothing about the infrastructure (i.e. roads).  Know what happens then?  Traffic.  Bad traffic.  It's not quite a nightmare yet but it gets worse every year as these units fill up.  I have no issues with expanding housing and development in general for that matter.  But it has to be done wisely and right now it's not.


----------



## Orca (Jan 3, 2020)

"Another year, another projected rise in property tax bill.

An education tax rate letter, released every December through the Vermont Department of Taxes, estimates statewide education spending will grow by $71.5 million during fiscal year 2021. 

With this forecasted increase in education spending is a projected 6% increase in the average property tax bill taxpayers should receive by July 2020."

-- Burlington Free Press, 5 December 2019


----------



## slatham (Jan 3, 2020)

Perspective - I am a mid-50's flatlander with a second home in SoVt who is seriously thinking of retiring there in the not to distant future. I  don't know much yet about the issues with VT, and don't live there, so I appreciate most of the above as it has been enlightening. 

As I read the above and other sources about VT, I have been surprised (disappointed) by the tax situation but completely baffled by the flight of young residents and lack of economic opportunity. And when I think of Burlington, I reject the "cold and remote argument" - there are plenty of remote and cold/hot/rainy small cities in the US that are doing just fine. I agree with the statement above that BTV has "Great Universities, a world class hospital, an airport, highway access and perhaps the best location in New England to be for outdoor enthusiasts to live". These are attributes the young people SEEK. 

I have to think that not capitalizing on these strengths is a conscious decision of the electorate and government. That is fine, but I do not think it is sustainable....


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 3, 2020)

slatham said:


> As I read the above and other sources about VT, *I have been surprised (disappointed) by the tax situation but completely baffled by the flight of young residents and lack of economic opportunity. *



This is like saying you're surprised by the high cheesecake consumption, but baffled by the lack of weight loss.  

Generally speaking, businesses move to, and flourish in, low tax environs. That's a big part of it.  

The other part is the excessive "extra" regulation Vermont foists upon businesses.   What start-up in its' right mind would choose Chittenden County to start its' life?  The first several years of a new business are crucial to its' success (or quick death).   The flight of Vermont youth is in concert with this lack of jobs & opportunity.    

Frankly, a lot of the high-paying jobs in Vermont are government jobs (i.e. "fake" economy jobs) which Leahy (to his credit or discredit depending on your perspective) parachuted in.   Hell, if you removed government workers making $80,000+ from Vermont the state would go into crisis.  There are only 2 states in America with more government jobs per capital (HI & AK).   And HI is because it's a tiny state with a huge military presence, and AK is because nobody lives there.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 3, 2020)

slatham said:


> Perspective - I am a mid-50's flatlander with a second home in SoVt who is seriously thinking of retiring there in the not to distant future. I  don't know much yet about the issues with VT, and don't live there, so I appreciate most of the above as it has been enlightening.
> 
> As I read the above and other sources about VT, I have been surprised (disappointed) by the tax situation but completely baffled by the flight of young residents and lack of economic opportunity. And when I think of Burlington, I reject the "cold and remote argument" - there are plenty of remote and cold/hot/rainy small cities in the US that are doing just fine. I agree with the statement above that BTV has "Great Universities, a world class hospital, an airport, highway access and perhaps the best location in New England to be for outdoor enthusiasts to live". These are attributes the young people SEEK.
> 
> I have to think that not capitalizing on these strengths is a conscious decision of the electorate and government. That is fine, but I do not think it is sustainable....



BTV is a great place to go to school for sure--especially if someone else is footing the bill.  The cost for rent is very high and open units are hard to find due to the fact that so many students live in BTV and everyone else is in that area to try to make any decent living.  But after a while it starts to feel like a fishbowl as I can personally attest.  Opportunities are still pretty limited though.


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 3, 2020)

slatham said:


> Perspective - I am a mid-50's flatlander with a second home in SoVt who is seriously thinking of retiring there in the not to distant future. I  don't know much yet about the issues with VT, and don't live there, so I appreciate most of the above as it has been enlightening.



Well, when it comes to housing costs, you're likely part of the problem. The wages even in ChittCo are not, and never will be, on par with the New York or Boston metro areas. Unfortunately, the pressure from flatlanders buying second homes pushes the cost of real estate closer to the metro pricing than to "Real Vermont" pricing (compare somewhere rural and not near skiing, say Corinth, to Granville, let alone Waitsfield, for example).

Yes, the tax and regulatory regimes have a significant impact, but comparing the tax situation here in Maine to that in Vermont, it seems pretty damn similar (significant income tax, significant sales tax, although I'm not sure how the property tax compares because that was hidden as part of rent for me in Vermont). Compared to elsewhere, it seems like Vermont has the tightest rental market I've seen (Maine doesn't seem as bad, and at least the part of Montana I was in was a piece of cake comparatively), providing the greatest incentive to own (rather than rent) while also making it damn near impossible to save up enough to get there on a middle-class income. If you look at all three states—Maine, Vermont and Montana—the tightest real-estate markets tend to be those with the greatest pressure "from away" (Bozeman, I'm looking at you).

Yes, building the Circ would probably be a good thing for traffic flow in ChittCo, and it would have been an even better thing three decades ago. I drove from the New North End to Bolton at least five days a week for a couple of years, and trying to get from the New North End to anywhere south of Burlington is a PITA. I don't doubt that a lot of the engineering work done decades ago is now outdated, but people sitting in idling cars in traffic isn't a good thing for them or their environment.

Some of the tax costs are just a factor of living in a sparsely populated state; it's more efficient to provide services when you have more residents per mile of roadway (think road maintenance, school transport costs, etc). Vermont has a lot of small schools in part because it isn't really productive for kids to spend three hours a day on school buses, and that's what it would take to consolidate a lot of the smaller schools to get more-normal staff-to-student ratios.

Some of the ever-increasing property-tax (i.e. education) cost is driven by health-care costs. Implement single-payer nationally in a manner consistent with what European nations have done, and you can stem that bleeding. Until then, you're going to see continuing increases. The data prove that our way of doing things (with respect to health care) is the most expensive (by far) in the first world, and it doesn't provide the best results. It's also a huge hit on small businesses and a serious disincentive to entrepreneurship, especially if you have any sort of chronic condition or prescription needs. 

Vermont *does* a lot of high-tech industry. Yes, losing the chip fab and related jobs hurts, particularly given that a lot of those positions were well-funded, stable and long-term. But I don't think you can throw a rock around Burlington without it landing near a tech company, and the availability of real broadband (i.e. fiber) far outpaces most states with similar quality of life and access to mountains and forests.

At the end of the day, I'd be running numbers real carefully before moving back, particularly given that my wife is a teacher and the current changes in the Vermont schools could make a huge difference in employment opportunities for her, but a lot of the structural issues with the economy parallel shifts (and issues) in the national economy.


----------



## Orca (Jan 3, 2020)

"Property Taxes: Vermont is the fifth highest state, with a mean effective property tax rate of 1.70% on owner-occupied homes (The Informed Vermonter pays way more than this in Randolph)

Individual Income Taxes: Vermont is the fifth highest state with a top marginal tax rate of 8.95%

Corporate Taxes: Vermont is the eighth highest state, with a top marginal tax rate of 8.5%

Sales Tax: Vermont is the 36th highest state with a 6% sales tax rate."

-- The Informed Vermonter, 29 September 2017


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 3, 2020)

Orca said:


> "Property Taxes: Vermont is the fifth highest state, with a mean effective property tax rate of 1.70% on owner-occupied homes (The Informed Vermonter pays way more than this in Randolph)
> 
> Individual Income Taxes: Vermont is the fifth highest state with a top marginal tax rate of 8.95%
> 
> ...



...so it is the property tax that's actually significantly higher, at least according to that article. Vermont may be in the top ten on those first three categories, but if you compare the per-capita numbers to US average per-capita numbers, it's $2,609 per capita vs $2,519 per capita for the national average. That's not particularly significant, although it may diverge more based on income level (Vermont gets dinged in several articles for a high maximum marginal rate, but that doesn't kick in until you're talking $195k/yr in income, where Montana and Idaho, to pick two, both get into their maximum brackets under $20k/yr.

Property tax (state & local), however, is $2,342 vs $1,451 for national average. As noted in the linked article, that's 61%.

That also doesn't delve into things like vehicle registration fees and whatnot that are effectively use taxes but a bit harder to compute. My gut feeling is that Vermont is probably better than southern New England in that regard and a whole lot worse than Rocky mountain states (I know it is for motorcycle and trailer registration, at least).


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 3, 2020)

VT is really cheap to register a car at least compared with NH or Maine

https://dmv.vermont.gov/registrations/fees

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 3, 2020)

Orca said:


> "Property Taxes: Vermont is the fifth highest state, with a mean effective property tax rate of 1.70% on owner-occupied homes (The Informed Vermonter pays way more than this in Randolph)
> 
> Individual Income Taxes: Vermont is the fifth highest state with a top marginal tax rate of 8.95%
> 
> ...


Orca, what exactly is your point here??

You started this thread off referencing an article that was actually quite positive and described VT's program that to many people actually ought to make a lot of sense. In essence, it said, that if you want to move to really nice state and perhaps bring a job with you (my understanding from a different source on that subject),VT welcomes you.

You're carping about high taxes in VT, which if compared to a bunch of other states, are not really all that bad. There is plenty of other states with higher taxes and higher living expenses, but I don't hear you bitching about NY, NJ or CT, just to name a few.

You offer a half baked conclusion that is far form supported that business flee VT because of leftist politics, yet there is plenty of startups and thriving high techs/biotechs doing very well in high tax/high cost of living states. So obviously, there is more to that picture than the right wing boilerplate demagoguery of "high taxes kill business". 

There a plenty of places in the US where taxes are low, and what you get is  well, you get what you pay for... Let's just say, I would not even want to visit some of those, much less live there.

The question worth asking is what do you get for the taxes paid. The article which was your point of origin actually points out quite a few nice things about VT (see the included link in that article). Perhaps people ought to have a look at that article rather than carp about VT.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 3, 2020)

The common thread of where tech excels does have less to do with taxes and COL than it does availability of talent and proximity to cities / entertainment.  

Burlington has UVM and St Michaels, which are decent schools, but certainly won't be confused with the talent factories of schooling in Boston, NYC, DC, Austin, San Fran etc.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## slatham (Jan 3, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> The common thread of where tech excels does have less to do with taxes and COL than it does availability of talent and proximity to cities / entertainment.
> 
> Burlington has UVM and St Michaels, which are decent schools, but certainly won't be confused with the talent factories of schooling in Boston, NYC, DC, Austin, San Fran etc.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



Those Cities are not comps to BTV. What about (and I am asking a question, I don't know) Eugene OR, Portland OR, Portland ME, Boulder CO, Boise ID, Grand Rapids MI, Santa Fe NM, and many other small Cities highly ranked by "attractiveness" by various periodicals?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 3, 2020)

No they're not, which is kind of the point. BVT doesn't offer enough density of talent nor big city attributes to draw tech companies to set up shop there.  Boulder certainly does due to its proximity to Denver.  

When I left Burlington, it was actually for Portland, ME.  The cost of living was lower and earnings higher.  Probably still the case.  I think Portland benefits from being close enough to Boston to draw some talent up there and generally speaking people tend to be more attracted to the coast than mountains.  Not sure what the reason, but Portland has a pretty strong insurance industry. Unum is probably the largest employer in the area outside of Maine Medical Center and there are a number of smaller specialty insurance companies.  Idexx is a decent tech company there, but that's about it. Some decent sized law firms too. 

Can't speak to the other areas as I've not been to them

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## flakeydog (Jan 3, 2020)

I must say, I like the conversation here. Full disclosure, I was born here, raised here, went to public school here (gasp), educated here (under-grad and graduate), been employed here (from small biz to full on corporate) and now raising children here so I am probably biased. 

A few points:
1) we prob should have the Circ but the demise of IBM had nothing to do with that (I will stop beating that dead horse now, sorry)
2) I am fully aware that I could make 2-3x my salary elsewhere but-
     - my kids would prob have to be in private school
     - my house would cost twice as much
    - I would not be able to live the lifestyle I have now
3) it is really nice here (referring to the Chittenden/Washington county area)
     - I can ski 40-50 days
     - my kids have access to a great education
    - I have all the benefits of a small, tight knit community 
    - I have lake Champlain at my disposal all summer 
    - I have found employment that matches my education level
     - healthcare here is world class
4) other nice things here:
     - 99% of people have health insurance (yes it is expensive, but good for society at large)
     - public education here is good (see above comment)
    - one of the healthiest states in the country 
    - while it can be a pain in the ass, Vermont does not look the way it does by accident, there is something to be said about Vermont’s approach to growth and development (I have been to a lot of other places and Vermont is quite unique in this sense)
    - proximity to other places ( Montreal, Boston, NYC).  We can be rural without being isolated. 
5) it’s not all perfect
    - low population density- a blessing (small towns) and a curse (makes everything expensive)
    - high taxes (but good education and we take care of our fellow Vermonters)
    - employment can be tough (but there are opportunities out there)
    - finding employees is tough ( we need to attract more workers for sure)

Bottom line is I can live very well here on a decent salary in a vacation paradise and still be productive in life and raise kids. What could be better than that?  Virtually anywhere else that has this kind of access to outdoor recreation (skiing, hiking, boating, fishing, hunting, etc) is expensive, devoid of legit job opportunities, isolated from quality cultural and medical facilities, or is not a great place to live year round. 

That “premium” I spoke of before is the quality of life here, it has value. I would have to be a very wealthy man to live this way anywhere else.


----------



## Orca (Jan 3, 2020)

Bumpsis said:


> Orca, what exactly is your point here??



I am not picking on Vermont; I am picking on Vermont's _government_ for its harmful choices.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 4, 2020)

Orca said:


> I am not picking on Vermont; I am picking on Vermont's _government_ for its harmful choices.



Who elects this government? The government doesn't get created by itself. The people of the state elect them to do what the majority of the voters want.


----------



## Orca (Jan 4, 2020)

Smellytele said:


> Who elects this government? The government doesn't get created by itself. The people of the state elect them to do what the majority of the voters want.



Nationally, about 8% of voters are vocal far left and 6% are vocal far right. The remaining 86% are relatively quiet and are fairly mainstream centrist. Do you think that our national government is doing what the majority of voters want? Do you think the presidential candidates' positions are representative of the majority?


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 4, 2020)

Orca said:


> Nationally, about 8% of voters are vocal far left and 6% are vocal far right. The remaining 86% are relatively quiet and are fairly mainstream centrist. Do you think that our national government is doing what the majority of voters want? Do you think the presidential candidates' positions are representative of the majority?


Better of 2 evils type of voting. 
I guess people get pigeon holed into voting by party and VT has a majority of liberal leaning voters (happens the other way in red states). With that said you get what you pay for.


----------



## gregnye (Jan 4, 2020)

Alaska has to pay people to move to Alaska too (provided they stay one year and are not seasonal). Where's the uproar about that?

Let's be real. The future of employment lies within Urban Areas. It's why Boston is so expensive to live. It's why Somerville and Cambridge Mass has a bunch of young people and Vermont and New Hampshire do not.

New Hampshire just steals off of Boston's success. I bet if we removed the entire 93 corridor from Salem NH to Concord NH, the rest of NH would be in a similar state as Vermont economy-wise. The rest of NH is just tourism in the White Mountains, some box stores in Lebanon, and whatever happens in Keene.

For those in Vermont that don't want to pay taxes, simply move to New Hampshire! It's not like we are in the midwest where every state takes 8 hours to drive through.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 4, 2020)

Bumpsis said:


> Orca, what exactly is your point here??
> 
> 
> *You're carping about high taxes in VT, which if compared to a bunch of other states, are not really all that bad.* There is plenty of other states with higher taxes and higher living expenses, but I don't hear you bitching about NY, NJ or CT, just to name a few.



This is false.

You have to look at the economic picture in its' entirety, and yes, Vermont really is "all that bad" in this perspective.  Vermont is essentially close to as expensive, as expensive, or more expensive to live in (or worse) than some of those above states you referenced.  I am quite familiar with both VT & NJ, and I could make the argument that Vermont is actually more expensive than even New Jersey from a C.O.L. perspective once everything's factored in (salary, taxes, food, etc..).   To really simplify it, your house is Vermont is probably pretty cheap, but everything else probably isn't.  That's the saving grace for Vermont when you looks at hose Most/Least expensive places to live chart.   But to think Vermont is a "cheap" place to live is really misguided.  It aint.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 4, 2020)

flakeydog said:


> Virtually anywhere else that has this kind of access to outdoor recreation (skiing, hiking, boating, fishing, hunting, etc) is expensive, devoid of legit job opportunities, isolated from quality cultural and medical facilities, or is not a great place to live year round.



I get all the broader points you made, but I have to disagree with the one above.  There are myriad places in this country where you can do all of the above (and frankly much better than in Vermont) and still have a nice job and be 20 or 30 minutes to a hospital, etc...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 4, 2020)

gregnye said:


> *Let's be real. The future of employment lies within Urban Areas.*



 I used to get paid to predict the future, and not to be a DB, but I have to chuckle as how poor you are at it from your posts in this thread.  Massive CBDs are growing less important with each passing day, and I believe there will be a commercial real estate crisis globally within 20 years. Some are already preparing for this, and I've been thinking how to invest for it ahead of the masses. My best current guess is many corporate skyscrapers will be turned into apartments, with the bottom floor being service industry, restaurants, and surviving retail.


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 4, 2020)

Nicely made points, flakeydog. 
They closely reflect how my VT living friends (and their friends) feel. Not having a ton of money, they enjoy a lifestyle that's high on value (what you get for your money). With a house close to lake Champlain and a nice sailboat, close proximity and access to everything they treasure, it's a good life, not easily attainable elsewhere.

This especially resonates with me: "_Vermont does not look the way it does by accident, there is something to  be said about Vermont’s approach to growth and development (I have been  to a lot of other places and Vermont is quite unique in this sense)_"

You can really feel it, almost from the moment you cross over from NH border. Perhaps it's just the anticipation of having a relaxed time in a truly beautiful space.


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 4, 2020)

Smellytele said:


> Better of 2 evils type of voting.
> I guess people get pigeon holed into voting by party and VT has a majority of liberal leaning voters (happens the other way in red states). With that said you get what you pay for.



Yup, liberal left politics sound great and nice and all but then there’s reality unfortunately.


----------



## Orca (Jan 4, 2020)

Smellytele said:


> With that said you get what you pay for.



That statement shows a lot more faith in government than I have. You sure pay, but sometimes you don't get much or, worse, get something altogether harmful.


----------



## Orca (Jan 4, 2020)

raisingarizona said:


> Yup, liberal left politics sound great and nice and all but then there’s reality unfortunately.



+1

Free stuff ain't free. It's taxpayer funded. There is, in fact, a difference.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 4, 2020)

gregnye said:


> New Hampshire just steals off of Boston's success. I bet if we removed the entire 93 corridor from Salem NH to Concord NH, the rest of NH would be in a similar state as Vermont economy-wise. The rest of NH is just tourism in the White Mountains, some box stores in Lebanon, and whatever happens in Keene.



I don't agree with that about NH "stealing off of Boston's success."  Sure, a lot of companies and individuals moved up from Boston, and a lot of folks commute to Boston, but NH has long positioned itself as a low-tax and corporate-friendly state surrounded by states that are otherwise.  Hence the retail industry in NH. That said, retail does not create a lot of good well-paying jobs.  



> For those in Vermont that don't want to pay taxes, simply move to New Hampshire! It's not like we are in the midwest where every state takes 8 hours to drive through.



I think the whole point of the thread is that too many folks have left Vermont.  :lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 4, 2020)

flakeydog said:


> Bottom line is I can live very well here on a decent salary in a vacation paradise and still be productive in life and raise kids. What could be better than that?  Virtually anywhere else that has this kind of access to outdoor recreation (skiing, hiking, boating, fishing, hunting, etc) is expensive, devoid of legit job opportunities, isolated from quality cultural and medical facilities, or is not a great place to live year round.



I used to think the same, but once I got out and traveled I found a lot of places that have all of these things and lower costs of living and better income and career potential.  I'm living in one area now.  



> That “premium” I spoke of before is the quality of life here, it has value. I would have to be a very wealthy man to live this way anywhere else.



I get this as well, but again, my question was how does paying high taxes contribute to this quality of life?  It doesn't in fact.  Vermont's infrastructure is in shambles because lawmakers from Chittenden county decided that VTrans should not determine what roads need work and they instead shifted control and money to Chittenden County.  Look at Route 2.  I won't comment about the complete lack of oversight and accountability by Vermont's government the last 10 years other than to say that there is a lot of conflicts of interest, self-dealing, and complete fraud.  The attitude is that just because such deals benefit the "left" it is OK.  Well, that doesn't make this kind of behavior acceptable.  Need I remind folks about the EB-5 scandal?  What sensible investor would ever invest in a Vermont business after that debacle?  

While I agree that some schools are very good, the fact is that most of Vermont's are not doing that "great" compared to the national average, and when considering the amount of money spent.  I'm sure you have read the many articles about how schools are closing and consolidating because of costs.  And, most disappointing, the State took over education funding in the late 1990's thanks to the Brigham decision in order to provide all kids with the same opportunities.  Now more than 20 years later, guess what?  The "gold towns" still have great schools while the rest of the towns are struggling.  Here is one article on school performance in Vermont by Art Woolf, and before anyone labels him as "far-right", realize that he is Governor Kunin's former Chief Economist for the State back in the 1980's:  https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com...ent-test-results-arent-worth-money/525909002/

As to post-secondary education, outside of Middlebury, UVM (to some extent), Norwich, St. Mike's, and Champlain College, schools are really struggling.  Vermont lost how many colleges last year?  At least three by my count.  Vermont's state colleges are grossly underfunded and they are slowly being consolidated and cut back so far that at least Johnson or Lyndon will probably soon be gone.  Not good.  

Last comment is that the "high quality of life" and community that you and many love is not because of the work of highly-paid bureaucrats, but by people in the community who genuinely care and volunteer to make things better for everyone.  Since you said you're from Vermont (like me) you probably get it and honestly you sound like a "doer" in your community.  But the truth is that these types of folks have died or left.  I'm not the Wolf of Wall Street or some ruthless businessman who only cares about money.  I'm a Scout leader.  I volunteer with my local community council.  I mentor kids who are interested in a career like mine.  I do lots of community service projects.  I interview kids for my (Vermont) college alma mater.  I donate money to many Vermont groups and organizations.  I honestly try to be a good citizen and yes, we do pretty well thanks to our hard work.  But ten years ago when I contacted my Rep who was the Whip in the Vermont House about concerns about increasing taxes and pushing more young people and other "contributors" out, I was told that "only revenue mattered."  So guess what?  Ten years later Vermont is struggling much more because "revenue" is down, communities are losing volunteers and other organizations because nobody wants to volunteer or can volunteer, there is a huge drug problem throughout the state, the State cannot adequately fund its public colleges or maintain its roads, and schools are shutting down or consolidating because there are not enough kids to justify costs.  What I feared came pretty much true.  And now the State lost our "revenue" and our community lost our hours volunteering and other benefits we provided to everyone else.  Needless to say, our new area appreciates both.  

So it's great that you have a good gig.  Good for you.  But I think folks do need to take a critical look at what is going on and what needs to change if Vermont is going to be sustainable.  Though Orca's posts are attention-grabbing they do raise a legitimate point to be discussed and not dismissed.  

And one last comment: the worst part of the situation is that those who can make a difference in the legislature are not at all looking at the underlying problems seriously.  Instead, they go on tangents and focus on missions that although are noble are not really pressing at all.  The first bill introduced for the session dealt not with these big issues of demographic challenges but instead on "decriminalizing sex work."  Nero continues to play the fiddle while Rome burns.  :roll:


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 5, 2020)

A great, holistically encompassing post by TTB.

I "gave up" on the future of Vermont a while ago, predicting that it would turn into the hell-in-a-hand-basket that it's currently in the process of becoming now.  I told my Vermont side of the family such about a decade or so ago, and they mostly laughed off my predictions & thought I just didn't get it because I'm not a Vermonter.

They're not laughing anymore.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 5, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> The first bill introduced for the session dealt not with these big issues of demographic challenges but instead on *"decriminalizing sex work."  Nero continues to play the fiddle while Rome burns.*  :roll:



I find it absolutely hysterical how grandiose, self-important, completely out-of-touch, and irrational Vermont's house & senate is. 

 Instead of focusing on jobs for Vermonters, roads & infrastructure, schools,  boosting GDP, and other important state issues, they tend to focus on whatever far-leftist issue of the day is currently being discussed on MSNBC & by liberal blogs, Mother Jones, HuffPo, etc..  Often it's national & global (really) issues they focus on, while Vermont continues to slip into decay.  As someone else mentioned though, you get the government you vote for.


----------



## EPB (Jan 5, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> I used to think the same, but once I got out and traveled I found a lot of places that have all of these things and lower costs of living and better income and career potential.  I'm living in one area now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is right. I'd love to live in close proximity to Burlington/the NVT mountains, but even if a similar job to the one I have now opens up (there are precious few), I'd have serious concerns about what's going to happen to the state budget over the next ~30 years I plan to work. Taking an adversarial stance towards business while funding a large government (per capita) and generous social programs is a recipe for disaster. Tax rates continuously need to rise to cover costs and the state becomes progressively less competitive with neighboring NH, MA and NY. 

Businesses and private sector laborers are the life blood of the government's income statement. They pay income, property and consumption taxes. Taking an adversarial stance towards business is akin to a supermarket taking an adversarial stance towards customers. Not every business/customer relationship is advantageous, but taking the baseline stance that business is inherently problematic is myopic and foolish. It feels like that sentiment is prevalent in VT. 

Your question wasn't answered as you posed it. Instead, "how do you justify the high taxes in VT?" Was answered. I see this in NJ, too. People say things like "of course taxes are high - I have easy access to NYC". Wrapped up in this is the justification that paying the toll man whatever he wants is just the cost you need to pay. It's a fine justification if it floats your boat, but the blunt answer to your question is "nothing" or "the satisfaction that the government is benevolently throwing money at problems whether it actually solves them (efficiently or at all)". Good on the people that arrive at the decision that VT is for them and it's worth the regulatory burden. To each their own - there's no prescription for everyone.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2020)

There is opportunity in the Burlington area.  Mostly because it’s hard to find people who want to live there.  Young people want career mobility.  Burlington doesn’t offer that as compared to a larger city.

The rest of the state is the big problem.  Very good jobs are practically nonexistent.  I’ve been lucky, but there is nothing here for my children.  Health care is about all there is, and once that is nationalized salaries will go down.  And hospitals are already on the verge of bankruptcy thanks to insane state regulations.  The hospital in Springfield is a canary in the coal mine.

I love Vermont, but it’s a decaying state.  Just look at the demographics.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Jan 5, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> I find it absolutely hysterical how grandiose, self-important, completely out-of-touch, and irrational Vermont's house & senate is.
> 
> Instead of focusing on jobs for Vermonters, roads & infrastructure, schools,  boosting GDP, and other important state issues, they tend to focus on whatever far-leftist issue of the day is currently being discussed on MSNBC & by liberal blogs, Mother Jones, HuffPo, etc..  Often it's national & global (really) issues they focus on, while Vermont continues to slip into decay.  As someone else mentioned though, you get the government you vote for.



I like the part where they keep Bernie in office. How much does he do for the State of Vermont, instead of being a professional Presidential Candidate for HOW many years? Lol!!! Yep, you get what you vote for!


----------



## Method9455 (Jan 5, 2020)

My wife and I recently purchased a 2nd home in southern VT (yes, we're part of the problem), and our lawyer pointed out that redeveloping properties has been pretty much choked out by the Land Gains Tax. Considering the additional wear & tear hard winters puts on structures that's one of the reason the housing stock is largely dismal. Thankfully it has been repealed starting in 2020 after roughly 50 years in existence, so that should drive some reinvestment and create more construction jobs.

Vermont is never going to be competitive for things like manufacturing, with or without changes in government policy. But if they lean into education & connectivity it could be a place that draws remote working professionals that want to be close to the mountains. I'm definitely going to be working from our ski house some days because it doesn't really matter where I am most of the time. I doubt I would move their full time, primarily because my family is down here in NJ, but I'm paying taxes now and every day I spend up there is more money into the local economy. 

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont...l-spark-growth-or-sprawl/Content?oid=25563832


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 5, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> The first bill introduced for the session dealt not with these big issues of demographic challenges but instead on "decriminalizing sex work."  Nero continues to play the fiddle while Rome burns.  :roll:



Shit like this is why VT is not even a consideration for our family, even though geographically it would be ideal. I saw California is trying to legalize hookers now too. I'm surprised they don't just draft the bill making it only legal for politicians.

But I guess "whore justice" is a thing now. Talk about a downward spiral. Good news is the snake ends up eating it's own head.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 5, 2020)

For a while our retirement home was going to be in either VT or NH. VT is off the list after some research. 

NH is a tax haven for retired folks, VT taxes social security benefits and everything else. Just waiting a few years for the megapass shakeout to occur to see which ski areas are left that are worth living near.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 5, 2020)

JimG. said:


> For a while our retirement home was going to be in either VT or NH. VT is off the list after some research.
> 
> NH is a tax haven for retired folks, VT taxes social security benefits and everything else. Just waiting a few years for the megapass shakeout to occur to see which ski areas are left that are worth living near.



People knock NH but it has some great places and the White Mountains are pretty awesome IMHO.  I cut my hiking teeth hiking the Whites as opposed to the Greens because there is so much more awesome stuff to hike and see in the Whites.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## EPB (Jan 5, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> People knock NH but it has some great places and the White Mountains are pretty awesome IMHO.  I cut my hiking teeth hiking the Whites as opposed to the Greens because there is so much more awesome stuff to hike and see in the Whites.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


The ski areas are generally bigger/better in VT, but the mountains are much bigger in NH. The scenery in NH is superior in my humble and biased opinion, too.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 5, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> The ski areas are generally bigger/better in VT, but the mountains are much bigger in NH. *The scenery in NH is superior in my humble and biased opinion, too.*



Is the rural NH countryside being destroyed by gigantic, ugly, industrial, wind turbines like it is in VT?


----------



## bigbob (Jan 5, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Is the rural NH countryside being destroyed by gigantic, ugly, industrial, wind turbines like it is in VT?



There are a few wind farms in NH, newest is in Antrim. Not as many as Maine. Power has to come from somewhere. VT now has many hayfields filled with solar panels, didn't they ban billboards back in the 60's since they were ugly?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 5, 2020)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> I like the part where they keep Bernie in office. How much does he do for the State of Vermont, instead of being a professional Presidential Candidate for HOW many years? Lol!!! Yep, you get what you vote for!



Don't get me started on Bernie.  :lol:  Four years ago someone on the Snowbird Tram assumed that because I was from Vermont that I automatically LOVED Bernie.  i gave her a pretty dirty look.  

Admittedly, when I was younger, I did agree with a lot of his concerns.  Hell, in someways I still do.  But as I got older and the years passed by, I slowly realized that the only thing that Bernie did was get elected so he could keep a job.  His first job years after college and "borrowing" or stealing from neighbors to survive?  Being Mayor of Burlington.  Look at what legislation he has sponsored or even gotten through.  I will save you the time--it is none.  What is worse in my mind is that his message resonates with A LOT of people right now who are not doing well at all and have been screwed but he has NO INTENTION of making good on any of those promises--he wants to sell a few more books, buy a FOURTH house, and keep a job.  That's it.  I find that downright infuriating to take such advantage of people who are hurting.  You will see that a lot of Vermont voters buy him lock, stock, and barrel, but there are an increasing number who see through him.  

It is also classic that he is now going on YEARS without having a meaningful sit-down with the Vermont press to answer questions.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 5, 2020)

Yes NH does have wind turbines. 
Also the issue with NH and taxes is property tax. So if you are living on a fixed budget (ie retired) property tax keeps going up.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 5, 2020)

Smellytele said:


> Yes NH does have wind turbines.
> Also the issue with NH and taxes is property tax. So if you are living on a fixed budget (ie retired) property tax keeps going up.



Very true, but the trade-off is that it is THE ONLY tax.  Still, they are relying a lot on that tax to fund things and that is not sustainable.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2020)

Smellytele said:


> Yes NH does have wind turbines.
> Also the issue with NH and taxes is property tax. So if you are living on a fixed budget (ie retired) property tax keeps going up.



Isn’t there a senior adjustment?  My mother in law paid a substantially reduced rate in Nashua.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 5, 2020)

VTKilarney said:


> Isn’t there a senior adjustment?  My mother in law paid a substantially reduced rate in Nashua.


Maybe it is by town but I parents nor in-laws ever had a reduced rate. Veterans and their spouses if they have passed do get a discount state wide.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2020)

yes, by town.  We don't have it in Newmarket, but I know Exeter does for retirees.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 5, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Is the rural NH countryside being destroyed by gigantic, ugly, industrial, wind turbines like it is in VT?


 yeah, coal burning smokestacks with ash ponds leaching mercury, arsenic and other toxic goodies are just so much more aesthetically pleasing...


----------



## JimG. (Jan 5, 2020)

Smellytele said:


> Yes NH does have wind turbines.
> Also the issue with NH and taxes is property tax. So if you are living on a fixed budget (ie retired) property tax keeps going up.



Yes the property taxes are biggest disadvantage I found but we will downsize considerably. We are pretty well set financially so property taxes that are outrageous percentage wise will still be considerably lower than what I'm paying here in NY. We aren't depending on SS at all but I found it amazing that a few states (8 total I think) tax SS benefits.


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Jan 5, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> Don't get me started on Bernie.  :lol:  Four years ago someone on the Snowbird Tram assumed that because I was from Vermont that I automatically LOVED Bernie.  i gave her a pretty dirty look.
> 
> Admittedly, when I was younger, I did agree with a lot of his concerns.  Hell, in someways I still do.  But as I got older and the years passed by, I slowly realized that the only thing that Bernie did was get elected so he could keep a job.  His first job years after college and "borrowing" or stealing from neighbors to survive?  Being Mayor of Burlington.  Look at what legislation he has sponsored or even gotten through.  I will save you the time--it is none.  What is worse in my mind is that his message resonates with A LOT of people right now who are not doing well at all and have been screwed but he has NO INTENTION of making good on any of those promises--he wants to sell a few more books, buy a FOURTH house, and keep a job.  That's it.  I find that downright infuriating to take such advantage of people who are hurting.  You will see that a lot of Vermont voters buy him lock, stock, and barrel, but there are an increasing number who see through him.
> 
> It is also classic that he is now going on YEARS without having a meaningful sit-down with the Vermont press to answer questions.





oh man don't get me started on that jerk...wanting to educate people and give them healthcare...the fucking nerve!


----------



## EPB (Jan 5, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> oh man don't get me started on that jerk...wanting to educate people and give them healthcare...the fucking nerve!


It is pretty amazing that he's such a charitable instructor and doctor that he's just going to give educations and healthcare to everyone. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 5, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> It is pretty amazing that he's such a charitable instructor and doctor that he's just going to give educations and healthcare to everyone.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app



He’s gonna fire up that printer and hand out free money to everyone!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 6, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> Admittedly, when I was younger, I did agree with a lot of his concerns.  Hell, in someways I still do.  But as I got older and the years passed by, *I slowly realized that the only thing that Bernie did was get elected so he could keep a job. * His first job years after college and "borrowing" or stealing from neighbors to survive?  Being Mayor of Burlington.  Look at what legislation he has sponsored or even gotten through.  I will save you the time--it is none.  *What is worse in my mind is that his message resonates with A LOT of people right now who are not doing well at all and have been screwed but he has NO INTENTION of making good on any of those promises--he wants to sell a few more books, buy a FOURTH house, and keep a job.  That's it.  I find that downright infuriating to take such advantage of people who are hurting.  *



Yup; Bernie Sanders is a total fraud.  

I think of him as the government version of one of those phony religious preachers who trick people into giving them all their money.


----------



## farlep99 (Jan 6, 2020)

flakeydog said:


> I must say, I like the conversation here. Full disclosure, I was born here, raised here, went to public school here (gasp), educated here (under-grad and graduate), been employed here (from small biz to full on corporate) and now raising children here so I am probably biased.
> 
> A few points:
> 1) we prob should have the Circ but the demise of IBM had nothing to do with that (I will stop beating that dead horse now, sorry)
> ...



This is really well put & why I also live, work, and am raising children here.  I often find myself jealous of my own kids that they get to grow up here.  So much fun stuff for kids and while I'm an avid skier and it's a huge part of why I moved to VT in the first place (I would've loved to go out west but extended family reasons made that tough), I've come to appreciate summer/fall here just as much as ski season.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 6, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> oh man don't get me started on that jerk...wanting to educate people and give them healthcare...the fucking nerve!



Those are indeed issues with which we all agree.  But again, ask yourself, what has he actually DONE to advance those issues?  Nothing other than run his mouth.  All hat and no cattle as they say out here in the west.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 6, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yup; Bernie Sanders is a total fraud.
> 
> I think of him as the government version of one of those phony religious preachers who trick people into giving them all their money.



Good one.  :lol:

He's got a great gig.  Say all these things that everyone wants and then when he fails to deliver he can just shrug and blame DC politics.  He plays the victim.


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 6, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> Good one.  :lol:
> 
> He's got a great gig.  Say all these things that everyone wants and then when he fails to deliver he can just shrug and blame DC politics.  He plays the victim.



And never once during his last campaign did he ever lay out a plan or explain how any of his grand ideas would actually work. He just kept saying what people wanted to hear over and over again. 

We would definitely be a better and happier country if everyone was insured and educated but then there’s reality. Heck, a lot of this thread has been on the people in Vermont being taxed too much, imagine the taxes if we had all of that “free” stuff.


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 6, 2020)

raisingarizona said:


> And never once during his last campaign did he ever lay out a plan or explain how any of his grand ideas would actually work. He just kept saying what people wanted to hear over and over again.
> 
> We would definitely be a better and happier country if everyone was insured and educated but then there’s reality. Heck, a lot of this thread has been on the people in Vermont being taxed too much, imagine the taxes if we had all of that “free” stuff.



Whether or not he did last time around, he has provided specific cost estimates and funding sources this time around. You can debate the education side of it, but the data is damned clear that doing health care the way we do it is stupid. We spend more (even per capita) and get less than any first-world nation. Take the same amount of money we already spend, collect it via taxes, and you could fund nationalized health care with reasonable care levels.

With health-care costs controlled, you substantially reduce the year-over-year cost increases for a lot of Vermont government spending on both the government and education sides of things, as well as making things a lot more sane for small businesses and more welcome to entrepreneurs, who can now take bigger risks because a business setback doesn't mean their kids can't get their inhalers.


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 6, 2020)

Oh yeah, I agree that our health care is totally f-d but I imagine we spend a big chunk of our money on military efforts. One could argue that we should stay out of foreign affairs but it’s probably too late for that.


----------



## FBGM (Jan 6, 2020)

republicans Should not be allowed to ski.


----------



## EPB (Jan 6, 2020)

FBGM said:


> republicans Should not be allowed to ski.


Your capitalization scheme is quite Trumpian. Bravo!

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 6, 2020)

FBGM said:


> republicans Should not be allowed to ski.



How millennial liberal of you, freedom when it’s convenient and agreeable for you!


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 6, 2020)

FBGM said:


> republicans Should not be allowed to ski.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Jan 6, 2020)

...and a Starter jacket? :lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 6, 2020)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> ...and a Starter jacket? :lol:



RIGHT!  Nobody has said anything about Starter Jackets lately!  :lol:


----------



## abc (Jan 6, 2020)

Is the ski season so bad everyone is bitching about the politics of Vermont in January? 

Or perhaps THAT is the real problem for Vermont, that the skiing had gone... steadily downhill?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 6, 2020)

raisingarizona said:


> And *never once during his last campaign did he ever lay out a plan or explain how any of his grand ideas would actually work. He just kept saying what people wanted to hear over and over again. *



It's worse than that, because Sanders' plans are complete financial fairy tales & mathematically impossible.  

Sanders breathlessly convinces the naive that America can have all this "free" stuff if we just increase taxes on "the richest" Americans, which is a total lie. 

The reality is even if you rounded-up all of those rich people he speaks of & confiscated all their money & sold-off all of their assets, it still wouldn't pay for all of Sanders' plan.  Sanders is a total fraud; the millionaire "Socialist" with 3 houses who made millions from Capitalism.


----------



## Orca (Jan 6, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's worse than that, because Sanders' plans are complete financial fairy tales & mathematically impossible.



As Margaret Thatcher said, "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."


----------



## 1dog (Jan 6, 2020)

The two things we all have in common - liberty and freedom. 

Without those two there are no choices. We got a good cross-representation on this forum for almost all.

Try having a business with no ,er 'Republicans'. Or none who believe in community collectivism. Gotta have both for most, right?

We have a ( somewhat) conservative state ( NH) next to a pretty progressive one. One has higher mountains and much more hiking/climbing and the other one has better snow, generally more challlenging terrain.( inbounds anyway)

One has 1.3M people and the other half that.  One has no billboards and the other a sh**show of them. Live free or die.

If the nation goes toward more government funded programs we all lose - thats my take - one size does not fit all.

The real problem long term is our ( oh boy here comes that word) 'collective greed' - I'm a Boomer, and many here are X or Millenials and I bet even a few from the Greatest G.

Long term liability is going to crush every city and town, state and the nation. Think we all want more and pretend we have the money to pay for it - especially when it's someone else's. 

Socialism has never worked anywhere - except a few places like the 1st church in Acts - for a simple reason - it was all voluntary. Thats why many here like the VT community action - lots of very caring people willing to give time and money and if they don't have the money  - more time and energy. Mad River Valley is amazing like that.

My taxes have doubled since purchasing a house there 17 years ago. Its not my primary home - that one? 400% in 35 years but a school system that beats most in the country. And I have 5 kids. I got bang for the buck. Cheaper than private school.

I have the freedom to raise the rent when I don't use it to pay for it. I have the liberty to move if I don't like MA. ( But like BGomez says - that RE bubble can't last forever)

If healthcare is a right - and it isn't - shouldn't food, clothing, and shelter come 1st? 


We have the best healthcare in the world ( stop with the statistics that others have better - they don't - when the wealthy have issues they fly to Boston- and a few other places in the US.) Most European  drug companies purchase US companies so they can keep some profits and get some new drugs developed w less government interference - soon that won't be true either. No potential profits, no large scale investments on risky drugs. ( truehealthcarefacts.com)

We're spending our kids and grandkids $$ and some of us pay and others take.

10% pay 80% of all federal income taxes and somewhere around 40-45% pay nothing or worse - get tax credits back.


A sharp Communist put it this way ' When the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it is sure to have the suport of Paul.' GB Shaw I think.

Since we still have freedom NY/CA and a couple others are losing population - especially if you discount illegal immigrants. Beautiful places. But too expensive becoming more dangerous, and lack of the rule of law. They are going to flat f'ugly places like Florida too! Imagine? I can't.

And the debt looms. . . . . both parties at fault there - back to the greed I'm guilty of as well - even though I wouldn't support candidates who spend what we don't have. Dont have much of a choice most times.

Since 2014 each quarter saw record income to the Treasury. What is the problem? Its not lack of $$ its lack of accountability like most of us  have each month. Take home $3/$5/$7/$10K, spend 90% of that and you'll be ok.

Take in $4.4 T and spend $5.5T? Only a matter of time.

A government large enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.

Cute but true. That's indentured servitude. Taking half of your income? Rome, Athens, heck California.


----------



## Orca (Jan 7, 2020)

Literally published today, 38 minutes ago:

"Montpelier, January 7, 2020 — As the legislature convenes today in Montpelier, there are many legislative initiatives that will increase the cost of doing business and hinder the owner’s ability to operate and to succeed. NFIB, representing hundreds of small businesses across the state, will be closely monitoring these bills and explaining the consequences to lawmakers. More than half of the Vermont workforce is employed by small businesses (63.3%), and there are 77,615 small businesses in the state.

“The Legislature needs to be laser-focused on policies that lead to economic growth, rather than adding more costs for Vermont’s small business sector,”said Shawn Shouldice, state director of NFIB in Vermont. “The conversations about expanding paid leave funded with a payroll tax, artificially increasing Vermont’s base wage, double-digit property tax increases, fuel taxes and higher health insurance premiums have our members very concerned.”

“With more and more Vermonters seeking greener pastures, placing more financial pressure on the state’s small businesses is endangering job creation and the ability for workers to meet their financial needs,” added Shouldice."

-- VTDigger, 7 January 2020


----------



## Orca (Jan 7, 2020)

"Despite a soaring stock market and strong GDP growth, many Vermonters are still struggling to make ends meet. High taxes, skyrocketing insurance premiums, escalating utility costs, and more, are keeping many stuck in a crisis of affordability. At the same time, small businesses that have been the bedrock of our towns and villages are struggling with excessive regulations, a labor force shortage, and intense competition from tax-friendly states like New Hampshire. It is no wonder so many Vermonters are leaving our state."

-- Rep. Pattie McCoy, VTDigger, 6 January 2020


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 7, 2020)

Orca said:


> "Despite a soaring stock market and strong GDP growth, many Vermonters are still struggling to make ends meet. High taxes, skyrocketing insurance premiums, escalating utility costs, and more, are keeping many stuck in a crisis of affordability. At the same time, small businesses that have been the bedrock of our towns and villages are struggling with excessive regulations, a labor force shortage, and intense competition from tax-friendly states like New Hampshire. It is no wonder so many Vermonters are leaving our state."
> 
> -- Rep. Pattie McCoy, VTDigger, 6 January 2020



And yet the legislature will not respond to these concerns.  In fact, Sen. Anthony Pollina is convinced that Vermont needs a $300 million "green new deal" that will be paid for by...wait for it...the 5,000 "rich" people in Vermont.  Let me put it this way...that is asking essentially the population of a small town to subsidize a huge new program.  That is not sustainable.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 7, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> And yet the legislature will not respond to these concerns.  In fact, Sen. Anthony Pollina is convinced that *Vermont needs a $300 million "green new deal" that will be paid for by...wait for it...the 5,000 "rich" people in Vermont.*  Let me put it this way...that is asking essentially the population of a small town to subsidize a huge new program.  That is not sustainable.



One of the more irrational aspects of liberalism is their failure to understand that human beings are not rooted like vegetation.


----------



## JoeB-Z (Jan 7, 2020)

And many of the "rich" people are highly portable. I intend to retire, at least for a while, in my Vermont house. That would change on a dime. I deeply suspect I would be a "rich" person. I grew up, at times, in relative poverty and just paid off my last student loan (law degree) two years ago, at age 62. Polina's scheme would attempt to extract an extra $60,000 from each "rich" person. For me, that would just instigate a move.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 7, 2020)

1dog said:


> We have the best healthcare in the world ( stop with the statistics that others have better - they don't




Basically, you are saying that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, as long as we disregard any objective measure of performance.  By objective measures I mean things like infant mortality rates, life expectency, morbidity rate, and despite spending twice as much as the average of developed countries.

If you are rich, or have a very good insurance plan through your job, your health care system is indeed excellent (I've experienced it when living in Houston), otherwise it absolutely sucks.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 7, 2020)

JoeB-Z said:


> And many of the "rich" people are highly portable. I intend to retire, at least for a while, in my Vermont house. That would change on a dime. I deeply suspect I would be a "rich" person. I grew up, at times, in relative poverty and just paid off my last student loan (law degree) two years ago, at age 62. Polina's scheme would attempt to extract an extra $60,000 from each "rich" person. For me, that would just instigate a move.



Bingo.  If just ten people left, or died, that would screw up everything.  

I still will never forget the news article from about ten years ago or so with the State relieved that its budget was balanced...by the mere fact that one rich person died and the estate taxes saved them!


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 7, 2020)

abc said:


> Is the ski season so bad everyone is bitching about the politics of Vermont in January?
> 
> Or perhaps THAT is the real problem for Vermont, that the skiing had gone... steadily downhill?



Bitching?  I think that there has been a good discussion of some serious issues.  And my ski season, at 18 days so far, has been pretty damn good!


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 7, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> Basically, you are saying that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, as long as we disregard any objective measure of performance.  By objective measures I mean things like infant mortality rates, life expectency, morbidity rate, and despite spending twice as much as the average of developed countries.
> 
> If you are rich, or have a very good insurance plan through your job, your health care system is indeed excellent (I've experienced it when living in Houston), otherwise it absolutely sucks.



Yeah, I agree.  It seems that this issue demonstrates how our society is just so polarized and can no longer solve big problems.  The biggest problem with Obamacare?  The fact that the Republicans never bought into it and have spent 10 years destroying it.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 7, 2020)

The _"biggest problem with Obamacare", _is that its' problems were intentional.

Obamacare failures were not bugs, but features.


----------



## kingslug (Jan 7, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> Bitching?  I think that there has been a good discussion of some serious issues.  And my ski season, at 18 days so far, has been pretty damn good!


That gets a ...yup


----------



## abc (Jan 7, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> Basically, you are saying that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, as long as we disregard any objective measure of performance.  By objective measures I mean things like infant mortality rates, life expectency, morbidity rate, and despite spending twice as much as the average of developed countries.
> 
> If you are rich, or have a very good insurance plan through your job, your health care system is indeed excellent (I've experienced it when living in Houston), otherwise it absolutely sucks.


Health care and health care "system" aren't the same thing. 

The US has some of the best health care technology. But the "system" has some huge holes that train loads of people fell right through. 

That said, ask anyone from Canada. They're quite proud of their health care system. It works pretty well for most, most of the time. But every so often, a patient gets into a bind. Fortunately for some (not necessarily "rich"), they have the option to cross the border into the US to seek care they can't get in Canada, even though they had to pay it out of their pocket! 

Let's face it. Most people WILL mortgage their house if that's what it takes to pay for medicine that will save the life of their love ones! So, that's what we have here, the best medicine money can buy. 

What we don't do well is routine medical care without mortgaging our house. But people don't seem to want to give up the "best medicine" and shift the money to cover the rest.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2020)

US healthcare technology in regards to equipment actually lags behind the rest of the developed world.  All the major equipment manufacturers bring their new technologies to market in Europe and Asia 2-3 years before they are approved for sale here. US leads in how quickly new drugs and treatments come to the market vs the rest.  That's about an equal difference.   It has to do with regulatory differences around the globe.

End of the day, purely from a financial standpoint and percentage of population with insurance coverage, it's pretty hard to say our system is even top ten.  I'll take a hybrid system like Japan's any day over ours.  And I say this as someone who benefits professionally from capitalism in HC. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## 1dog (Jan 7, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> Basically, you are saying that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, as long as we disregard any objective measure of performance.  By objective measures I mean things like infant mortality rates, life expectency, morbidity rate, and despite spending twice as much as the average of developed countries.
> 
> If you are rich, or have a very good insurance plan through your job, your health care system is indeed excellent (I've experienced it when living in Houston), otherwise it absolutely sucks.



You're quoting fake stats - infant mortality rate for instance: In Switzerland, they start counting after a kid is 2.5 yrs old.  US starts at one of the lowest rates - 3 months? Don't recall. Hey, it's not your fault. Humans use stats to further their cause. 

And you are free to go to Canada - where 'free drugs' exist as long as someone else pays for them or you do in  even higher than US tax rates. And please lets not debate 5 million Fins - they're all Finnish fercryinoutloud and ride bikes and eat fresh fish! We got every kind of race and tribe under the sun and sixty six times that number. 

I'll give you another example - my rates went from $850 a month in '08 just before Romney/ObamaCare per month for a fam of 4 w $2K deductible. Jan 2018 went to $2500 per month w $4K deductible. most smaller insurance companies went out of business, consolidation and feds telling them to cover this and that.

Imagine you buy a smashed car and government says GIECO has to cover pre-existing. . . .  guess where that $1500 per year rate is going.


No one says its perfect - never will be. Its the best care in the world for the most people, period.

Or you can go to UK and wait to get treatment for stuff you need cared for now. Have plenty of customers who lived there and had to purchase private. It's all great until your sick.

Anyone here agree that the RMV or the IRS are great places to do business? And if not, what are your choices? Exactly.

The same people who can't get along on any polarizing issues want THEM to decide how your healthcare is being divvied up? ( note - Congress is NOT under nor do they have to abide by Obamanation Care - THEY get private - and I repeat - same for Social Security - not for them.) Some of us smoke too much dope.

Here is my cure for $34K annual premiums before I  can use the plan: Canned it, got an indemnity catastrophic health sharing of cost plan. Covers ANY thing over $500 with any doc or hospital. I pay for everything under that, including scripts.

Highest cost plan for family of 4 $490 per month. Ask you don't smoke or drink to excess. ( akin to driving w good record right?)

Cut my script bill from $958 per month to $482 by cash and generic. Still saving $10K a year so we got a concierge Dr with some of the extra cash and STILL come out w $6K more in pocket.

I don't care if his name is Donald Duck, keep deregulating and let the ( kinda) free market dictate prices. With the savings we all cover those in need, not those in want. Unless it is defense - centralized government does not work. 

My senator ( Chief Spreading Bull, Lie-awatha, Faux-cahantas, etc.) want to put ' $100B toward opiate crisis but not $5B towards  a defensive wall where the majority of the illicit drug is traveling thru.  Perfect illustration. Will Rogers has many more.

Ready to ski wet powder Saturday?  If I hit a tree, I gotta pay 1st then they reimburse me. If I live . . . .


----------



## 1dog (Jan 7, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> US healthcare technology in regards to equipment actually lags behind the rest of the developed world.  All the major equipment manufacturers bring their new technologies to market in Europe and Asia 2-3 years before they are approved for sale here. US leads in how quickly new drugs and treatments come to the market vs the rest.  That's about an equal difference.   It has to do with regulatory differences around the globe.
> 
> End of the day, purely from a financial standpoint and percentage of population with insurance coverage, it's pretty hard to say our system is even top ten.  I'll take a hybrid system like Japan's any day over ours.  And I say this as someone who benefits professionally from capitalism in HC.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



Again they are mostly Asians with similar diets and such. You are correct on lagging w new drugs - a great illustration of government overreach - my customers in that business say its  FDA  that prevents quicker to market here. And I know we have a boatload of lawyers on here -a few in that profession don't help much. A society of litigation.  And take a look at their GDP - flat for 30 years.

How come the Perdue family gets smashed to bits but no one from the FDA - who must have taken years to approve of opiates - get no blame at all? How does that work?

Less freedom and less liberty. That doesn't end our experiment we call US of A well.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 7, 2020)

1dog said:


> How come the Perdue family gets smashed to bits but no one from the FDA - who must have taken years to approve of opiates - get no blame at all? How does that work?
> 
> .



Not to go on another tagent, but the reason is that the Purdue Pharma knew that their drugs had terribly addictive properties and misled folks as to the extent of those issues.  Additionally, they aggressively marketed these drugs despite knowing that these drugs were deadly and highly addictive.  That's why.  

And it is the Sackler family....not the Perdue (sic) family.


----------



## 1dog (Jan 7, 2020)

Whether you agree or disagree or are somewhere in the middle - here's a great example of free-market creation of wealth and the Brit who gets most of the credit for their success:

As to stats he says:  Cowperthwaite answered, “If I let them compute those statistics, they’ll want to use them for planning.”

If that sounds quaintly backward or archaic, let me remind you that the biggest economic flops of the past century were both centrally planned and infatuated with numbers.

https://fee.org/articles/the-man-behind-the-hong-kong-miracle/

Ski Free or Die Trying!


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 7, 2020)

1dog said:


> You're quoting fake stats - infant mortality rate for instance: In Switzerland, they start counting after a kid is 2.5 yrs old.  US starts at one of the lowest rates - 3 months? Don't recall. Hey, it's not your fault. Humans use stats to further their cause.



You serioulsy believe what you write ?   You seriously think the WHO would do such a terrible job ?   Common stats compile neo-natal death rates, 0 to 1-year and 0 to 5-year mortality rates.  There are many obvious reasons why the US does a lot worse than all other industrialized coutries.  As ABC said, the problem is the system, not the health care itself.





1dog said:


> And you are free to go to Canada -



Well, I am Canadian, so I am definitely free to go there.


----------



## abc (Jan 7, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> I'll take a hybrid system like Japan's any day over ours.


I'm curious about it. 

Many other western countries also have a 2-tier public+private systems. How does it work differently in Japan?


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 7, 2020)

abc said:


> Health care and health care "system" aren't the same thing.



Agreed.





abc said:


> That said, ask anyone from Canada. They're quite proud of their health care system. It works pretty well for most, most of the time. But every so often, a patient gets into a bind. Fortunately for some (not necessarily "rich"), they have the option to cross the border into the US to seek care they can't get in Canada, even though they had to pay it out of their pocket!



I am Canadian.   The main problem of our system is not what you state (which essentially never happens), but rather the waiting lists for 'non-urgent' surgeries, and wait times at the ER.   You may wait several  months for a knee replacement surgery, and spend 8 to 10 hours with a broken arm at the ER.   For any real emergency however (trauma, cancer, birth), the system is world class and free for anyone.   To give you an example, 10 years ago, I felt like shit,  went to my family doctor who quickly diagnosed an arrythmia problem.   The ambulance was there in 5 minutes.  10 minutes later, I was at the ER and a cardioversion was immediately performed by a team waiting for my arrival.  I had several tests done in the next few hours and was released at the end of the day.  NO insurance to deal with.  Zero paperwork.  Did not cost me anything, beside a high tax rate obviously.   People going to the States are typically people not willing to wait for minor surgeries, although this is happening less and less since there is a slowly growing private system availble in Canada to those who do want to skip the wait lines. 

Not arguing out system is the best, but it is not leaving anyone behind.


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 7, 2020)

1dog said:


> I'll give you another example - my rates went from $850 a month in '08 just before Romney/ObamaCare per month for a fam of 4 w $2K deductible. Jan 2018 went to $2500 per month w $4K deductible. most smaller insurance companies went out of business, consolidation and feds telling them to cover this and that.
> 
> Imagine you buy a smashed car and government says GIECO has to cover pre-existing. . . .  guess where that $1500 per year rate is going.



Yes, expanding coverage holes increases the cost of coverage. But you *can* survive without a car (at least as long as you pick a reasonable place to live); surviving without healthcare when you need it is more of a question (and tends to increase the cost of care once you do get care).



1dog said:


> Or you can go to UK and wait to get treatment for stuff you need cared for now. Have plenty of customers who lived there and had to purchase private. It's all great until your sick.



The last statement is also true for a lot of U.S. plans. I have good coverage now, which I mostly haven't in the past 10-15 years (aside from two years in Montana where the insurers apparently grossly underpriced a low-OOP max plan after ACA implementation). Aside from the low-OOP max plan years, most of the time I'd have been looking at $2k if I got transported to an ER, plus substantially more if I actually needed care, until I hit the $5k-$6k mark and maxed the deductible and cost sharing...and most of those plans were still more than rent. That trend hasn't changed, as far as I can tell, due to ACA—my costs were going up before then, and they've been going up since then, at rates well above everything else.



1dog said:


> Anyone here agree that the RMV or the IRS are great places to do business? And if not, what are your choices? Exactly.



Ever actually dealt with an insurance claim that got miscoded? I'll take the IRS over a health-insurance company, at least I can find the regulations online.



1dog said:


> I don't care if his name is Donald Duck, keep deregulating and let the ( kinda) free market dictate prices. With the savings we all cover those in need, not those in want. Unless it is defense - centralized government does not work.



Claiming that our current health-care system is even a "kinda" free market is a stretch. Show me a restaurant that won't tell me how much a meal will cost when I'm ordering, but will send me a bill weeks later that itemizes the server, food cost, and back-of-house costs separately (probably with a facility charge for the restaurant itself), with prices that vary depending on whether or not someone else is picking up part of the bill, and which line cook happened to prepare the steak, because one is part of the network and the other isn't. You won't find one, because that's a completely screwed-up way to do business, and it's truly not a capitalistic system, because capitalism requires a consumer being able to make informed decisions. You can try with health care (and some people do better than others), but it's damn near impossible. And that's assuming you even have competing options; in most rural parts of the country, that doesn't really make sense.

Anecdotal example: four x-rays in the same room, with the same machine, on the same leg, a few weeks apart. First one was fully covered (prior to Dec. 31, and I maxed out the OOP on my plan that year). Second one (in early January) cost me something like $35 including all the related line items. Third and fourth were $250 because they were considered "out of network". I only found out about the cost as I was sitting in the waiting room prior to the fourth one and opened the EOB from the previous claim.



1dog said:


> Ready to ski wet powder Saturday?  If I hit a tree, I gotta pay 1st then they reimburse me. If I live . . . .



FWIW, the total insurance-paid amount last time I did that was something in the neighborhood of $50k (give or take 10, trying to follow all the paperwork got to be more effort than it was worth at a certain point); total billed was closer to $75k. My out-of-pocket cost thanks to an ACA plan was something like $2250 not counting PT, for which I never got billed (and the therapist said something like, "yeah, the billing system is pretty screwed up. I wouldn't recommend asking about it."); my insurance did pay their portion. Best $303 in premium money I ever spent on any kind of insurance.

I strongly recommend making sure your tree-skiing bindings are appropriate to the task and not set for racing GS.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 7, 2020)

kbroderick said:


> Claiming that our current health-care system is even a "kinda" free market is a stretch. Show me a restaurant that won't tell me how much a meal will cost when I'm ordering, but will send me a bill weeks later that itemizes the server, food cost, and back-of-house costs separately (probably with a facility charge for the restaurant itself), with prices that vary depending on whether or not someone else is picking up part of the bill, and which line cook happened to prepare the steak, because one is part of the network and the other isn't. You won't find one, because that's a completely screwed-up way to do business, and it's truly not a capitalistic system, because *capitalism requires a consumer being able to make informed decisions.* You can try with health care (and some people do better than others), but it's damn near impossible. And that's assuming you even have competing options; in most rural parts of the country, that doesn't really make sense.
> 
> Anecdotal example: four x-rays in the same room, with the same machine, on the same leg, a few weeks apart. First one was fully covered (prior to Dec. 31, and I maxed out the OOP on my plan that year). Second one (in early January) cost me something like $35 including all the related line items. Third and fourth were $250 because they were considered "out of network". I only found out about the cost as I was sitting in the waiting room prior to the fourth one and opened the EOB from the previous claim.



Why not try fixing this aspect before we throw in the towel on the entire system?  I'd like to see an easily read, posted in the doctor's office for common items, online for the rest, summary of procedures and fees.  Doctor visit, x-ray, set a bone, blood test, stitch a cut, pull a bean out of your 3 year old's ear.  Whatever.  How many of us have had a car accident and taken the car to a body shop and walked out with a detailed estimate in 15 minutes?   Everything is priced, each part, each procedure, each disposal fee, tax, everything.  If 20 minutes of a doctor's time is worth $150, but a 20 minute doctor procedure (same doctor) is billed at $500, what possible sense does that make?  

A pill costs $10 for one club, but $40 for a different club, and $150 if you walk in off the street?  That should be illegal, and drug prices should be posted as well.  You can charge whatever you like, but you don't get to offer secret exclusionary pricing.

More than one medical professional has told me that the system is designed to extricate the most money possible from each provider or patient.  Note that all businesses operate to maximize profit, but the medical profession does it behind a wall of pricing chess that you are not allowed to see or compare.

Single payer addresses cost reduction by (supposedly) more efficient delivery of services and a unilateral bargaining agent to the medical community.  Why not address the cost side of the equation before you governmentize the payment side of the equation and further reduce choice by the consumer?


----------



## abc (Jan 7, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> I am Canadian.   The main problem of our system is not what you state (which essentially never happens), but rather the waiting lists for 'non-urgent' surgeries, and wait times at the ER.   You may wait several  months for a knee replacement surgery, and spend 8 to 10 hours with a broken arm at the ER.   For any real emergency however (trauma, cancer, birth), the system is world class and free for anyone.   To give you an example, 10 years ago, I felt like shit,  went to my family doctor who quickly diagnosed an arrythmia problem.   The ambulance was there in 5 minutes.  10 minutes later, I was at the ER and a cardioversion was immediately performed by a team waiting for my arrival.  I had several tests done in the next few hours and was released at the end of the day.  NO insurance to deal with.  Zero paperwork.  Did not cost me anything, beside a high tax rate obviously.   People going to the States are typically people not willing to wait for minor surgeries, although this is happening less and less since there is a slowly growing private system availble in Canada to those who do want to skip the wait lines.
> 
> Not arguing out system is the best, but it is not leaving anyone behind.


I was in the north country the past 2 weeks. Hotel has Canadian TV. I randomly watch a program, some kind of panel discussion. It turned out to be about some rare forms of Lyme disease and the difficulty of getting treatments in Canada. Several of the patients cross the border for treatment in the US, to the tune of something like $20K. 

It was interesting for me to watch because I happened to know someone who had that type of Lyme disease (Lyme got in the brain). Never heard of it anywhere else except in the border region between NH and Canada! 

My impression of the saga were, the little "waiting period" for non-life-threatening illness can potentially add up in the event you either don't respond to standard treatments, or the diagnosis were incorrect. Because by the time you're "suppose" to be responding, and you don't, you enter another "short" waiting period, another "short" wait, and yet another "short" wait... By the time you've actually got diagnosed, or a treatment that works on YOU, a year or several year of your life had gone down the drain!


----------



## abc (Jan 7, 2020)

mister moose said:


> Single payer addresses cost reduction by (supposedly) more efficient delivery of services and a unilateral bargaining agent to the medical community.


Isn't that what HMO's do? 

Typically, the "saving" is pass back to the consumer as lower premiums too.

But somehow, HMO doesn't have a great reputation. Traditional POS type of insurance are still very popular despite the higher cost. That tells me people may moan about the high cost of medical care in general, a substantial portion are still willing to pay extra for the "best money can buy" medical care!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 7, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> I am Canadian.   The main problem of our system is not what you state (which essentially never happens), but rather the waiting lists for 'non-urgent' surgeries, and wait times at the ER.   You may wait several  months for a knee replacement surgery, and spend 8 to 10 hours with a broken arm at the ER.



Another problem is many of the best Canuck doctors have fled to America.  That's been going on since at least the 1990s.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Another problem is many of the best Canuck doctors have fled to America.  That's been going on since at least the 1990s.


No longer the case really

https://cmajnews.com/2017/06/15/fewer-canadian-mds-heading-to-the-us-cmaj-109-5419/

Key stat from the article

2006: 8162 Canadian docs practicing in the US
2015:  The number had dropped to 6709

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Edd (Jan 7, 2020)

1dog said:


> You're quoting fake stats - infant mortality rate for instance: In Switzerland, they start counting after a kid is 2.5 yrs old.  US starts at one of the lowest rates - 3 months? Don't recall. Hey, it's not your fault. Humans use stats to further their cause.
> 
> And you are free to go to Canada - where 'free drugs' exist as long as someone else pays for them or you do in  even higher than US tax rates. And please lets not debate 5 million Fins - they're all Finnish fercryinoutloud and ride bikes and eat fresh fish! We got every kind of race and tribe under the sun and sixty six times that number.
> 
> ...



Have you lived outside of the US?


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 7, 2020)

Edd said:


> Have you lived outside of the US?


I'm sure he hasn't. But given all that right wing drivel that he's lacing into the narrative, facts may not matter all that much.

Millions of people here still without health insurance and even more millions with insurance praying (or they should) that they will never get seriously sick (cancer, long term autoimmune diseases, etc.). That's when people find out that what they have may not save them from financial ruin and switch to "go fund me" plan. And all the money spent may not guarantee a good health outcome. You do know what the number one reason for personal bankruptcies is, right?

Even without being afflicted by some nasty, long term malady, it's easy to be financially ground up by our health care costs even for such standard procedures as giving birth. 

1dog, ease up a bit on the right wing anger and mockery and try to look how other 1st world countries, in Europe and Asia  set up their health case systems.


----------



## EPB (Jan 8, 2020)

Bumpsis said:


> I'm sure he hasn't. But given all that right wing drivel that he's lacing into the narrative, facts may not matter all that much...
> 
> 1dog, ease up a bit on the right wing anger and mockery and try to look how other 1st world countries, in Europe and Asia  set up their health case systems.



I get this is a big and important issue. But, after reading this, I'd suggest taking a deep breath and looking in the mirror before you throw stones over others fostering partisan anger.

This was obviously going to be a testy subject, but debating the merits of the US healthcare system vs. RoW is has nothing to do with skiing and really isn't relevant to the subject at hand.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Edd (Jan 8, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> I get this is a big and important issue. But, after reading this, I'd suggest taking a deep breath and looking in the mirror before you throw stones over others fostering partisan anger.



Comparing post 143 to 157 and suggesting that they’re similar in tone and anger is a false equivalency. I suspect you know that.


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 8, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> I get this is a big and important issue. But, after reading this, I'd suggest taking a deep breath and looking in the mirror before you throw stones over others fostering partisan anger.



Taking a deep breath is rarely a bad idea, and I'd rather look at policy cost and impacts based on rational measurements than attempt to foster ange, but..



eastern powder baby said:


> This was obviously going to be a testy subject, but debating the merits of the US healthcare system vs. RoW is has nothing to do with skiing and really isn't relevant to the subject at hand.



The cost associated with the US Healthcare system—particularly funding high-cost, good-coverage, union-negotiated plans that most of us are (or should be) jealous of—is one of the big drivers in the cost of living in Vermont. The state is a huge employer on a per-capita basis (c.f. https://www.governing.com/gov-data/...ent-workers-public-employees-by-job-type.html for an unvetted list), and a lot of that cost is associated with employee healthcare for VSEA members and for education employees (and, I believe, retirees). It's magnified in Vermont because—like other low-population states—there are fewer non-governmental employees to spread the cost around, plus a lot of governmental functions (policing, roads, education) get more expensive per capita as population density goes down.


----------



## EPB (Jan 8, 2020)

Edd said:


> Comparing post 143 to 157 and suggesting that they’re similar in tone and anger is a false equivalency. I suspect you know that.


The fact that 143 was over the line of what I'd consider "fired up" doesn't mean that 157 wasn't also fired up. They lost the credibility to throw stones. I trust you understand the logical consistency there, too. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 8, 2020)

We need some new snow. Taking deep breaths is much easier after a spirited run through trees or carving up some nice turns on an open slope


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

"Greece wanted to be prosperous without being competitive. It wanted to run a five-star welfare state with a two-star economy. It wanted modernity without efficiency or transparency, and wealth without work. It wanted control over its own destiny—while someone else picked up the check."

-- Bret Stephens, WSJ, 6 July 2015

Remind you of Vermont today?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 8, 2020)

Orca said:


> "Greece wanted to be prosperous without being competitive. It wanted to run a five-star welfare state with a two-star economy. It wanted modernity without efficiency or transparency, and wealth without work. It wanted control over its own destiny—while someone else picked up the check."
> 
> -- Bret Stephens, WSJ, 6 July 2015
> 
> Remind you of Vermont today?



A lot of old Vermonters would be ashamed of this reputation.  Vermont used to be a state where folks were very self-sufficient and did not want hand-outs.  Hard work was a virtue.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 8, 2020)

Method9455 said:


> Vermont is never going to be competitive for things like manufacturing, with or without changes in government policy.



FWIW Vermont used to be a leader in manufacturing.  We're talking many years (decades) ago actually.  Lots of mill towns with water power became manufacturing hubs.  Springfield is one.  My home town of Lyndon at one time had at least four or five companies manufacturing tools, aerospace items, automobile parts, electrical items, etc.  We're talking about several HUNDRED good paying jobs in a town of 5,000 people or so.  Many of my friends' parents worked these type of jobs and could afford their families a decent quality of life, and a lot of folks did not need more than a high school degree.  Today Lyndon has lost ALL of those manufacturers--the most recent being Vermont Tap and Die which was a staple in the town and had its large facility right downtown in plain sight.  It now is a rotting shell.  There are still a few smaller manufacturers here and there (we're talking 20 or so jobs each).  And Weidmann still is in St. Jay, but that is it.  

In the 1980's and 1990's two big things happened.  On the macro scale, globalization shifted those jobs to other countries or the south.  On the micro scale, the State was headed by a liberal governor who put people into power at ANR and other agencies that took a punitive approach on environmental regulations.  So these manufacturers who had been operating for many decades and had contamination on their sites suddenly found themselves in the crosshairs of aggressive enforcement actions and hefty fines, penalties, etc.  Some feel that the approach should have been more of a carrot approach in order to keep these jobs and employers in place.  A large number of these companies closed and/or moved as a result.  A lot of them would publicly say that it was global pressures, etc.  However, in private it was widely said that the State did a good job of pushing them out by being so punitive.  

And folks have talked about the landscape and how it is "preserved".  That is in part thanks to Act 250.  What folks DON'T realize is that when that was debated and enacted in 1970 or so ONLY the regulatory and punitive portions were implemented.  The scheme anticipated a "Statewide" plan as to where development could occur and what it would look like.  As is typical this more "positive" side of the plan never got implemented.  So when folks grumble about the negative aspects of Act 250 it is because the positive portions never got implemented.


----------



## mikec142 (Jan 8, 2020)

I'll admit to not having explored the issue of "state economic health" that closely.  However, I would think that there aren't many states that would qualify as in great shape. 

It seems that folks want good opportunity, clean air, low taxes, good healthcare, good education, etc. etc.  Is there a state where all boxes are checked?  I can't think of one.


----------



## abc (Jan 8, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> FWIW Vermont used to be a leader in manufacturing.  We're talking many years (decades) ago actually.  Lots of mill towns with water power became manufacturing hubs.  Springfield is one.  My home town of Lyndon at one time had at least four or five companies manufacturing tools, aerospace items, automobile parts, electrical items, etc.  We're talking about several HUNDRED good paying jobs in a town of 5,000 people or so.  Many of my friends' parents worked these type of jobs and could afford their families a decent quality of life, and *a lot of folks did not need more than a high school degree*.


I do wonder if something is missing there. 

Would those jobs requiring "no more than a high school degree" be done as well by worker having only elementary school degree? 

Or, would what was "no more than a high school degree" 20 years ago is maybe a college degree today? 

There're jobs unfilled today, albeit in the cities. But those jobs requires MORE THAN high school degrees. Many of those "city" job can indeed be done out in the middle of nowhere, as long as the workers are "skilled".


----------



## tumbler (Jan 8, 2020)

See #2 on the list

https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/best-cities-for-jobs-list-2020-wallethub


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 8, 2020)

mikec142 said:


> I'll admit to not having explored the issue of "state economic health" that closely.  However, I would think that there aren't many states that would qualify as in great shape.



The states in worst shape generally have massive unfunded government pension liabilities.   

If you're state avoided that idiocy, they're probably okay.


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

tumbler said:


> See #2 on the list
> 
> https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/best-cities-for-jobs-list-2020-wallethub



Vermont has dangerously low unemployment: jobs are going unfilled because of an _absence _of workers. This condition has been caused by working age people leaving the state for greener pastures and too few working age people moving into the state. Just because a job opportunity exists doesn't mean that it is an economically good choice for an individual choose to live in the vicinity and take it.


----------



## smac75 (Jan 8, 2020)

"...-the most recent being Vermont Tap and Die..."

The MTB trail of the same name also recently "lost". Not the same but still heartbreaking:x


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

*"It wanted to run a five-star welfare state with a two-star economy."*

This one line sticks in my head. I can't think of a better, more pithy description of the Vermont governmental approach.


----------



## 1dog (Jan 8, 2020)

Agree on the lack of transparency of pricing in healthcare. On the system we utilize we have to pay cash 1st then get reimbursed. Generally it is 40-50% less expensive. We are out of cash for 60-90 days.

I  assume they  ( hospital/Dr./pharmacy) are not getting MSRP either. It's worse than buying a car, but there we have choices. Ability to shop and compare isn't the same in a rigged system - regulated by government officials, most of whom are not schooled in economics or medical practice. I'm merely suggesting that government apply same laws to all businesses and those laws should be few and far between.

A lot of those pricing schemes are fraud.  Last time I will mention this, but effective governance consists of those who govern being held to the same systems they impose on the populace they represent. They do not in federal government and many states ( NH wins in this case - its one of the best forms of representation)

No, never lived outside the US - just have a lot of family/friends and customers who have/do/did. And if we are so behind why are so many people still wanting to come here? If I lived in some of those places ( central America/part of Mexico, middle east - so would I - I get that.)



No anger in that post, just things as I see them. Of course we have poor and lower middle class. They have the best ability of any country in the world of climbing out with a free and open system. Its never going to be perfect but US of A is the closest any country has ever come. 


Fine to ease up too. I'd just rather hear from people I don't see eye to eye with than echo chambers, so I appreciate the differences of opinions. 

For anyone living in the UK - here is where I believe they have an advantage over US - if this is true - because I believe it adds trememdously to the cost of living, especially healthcare. If you sue someone and loose, you must pay for your legal costs as well as the party you are litigating against. That true? If so, some of the tv ads might go away real fast. 

Weather is depressing but I'm hopeful Sunday is a lot more of the frozen type to start building back - we may lose a lot of base and woods will be out of the question if the pattern they claim is coming holds true.


----------



## abc (Jan 8, 2020)

tumbler said:


> See #2 on the list
> 
> https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/best-cities-for-jobs-list-2020-wallethub


Where exactly is South Burlington, Virginia?


----------



## mikec142 (Jan 8, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> The states in worst shape generally have massive unfunded government pension liabilities.
> 
> If you're state avoided that idiocy, they're probably okay.



NJ here...

But again...I can't think of one state that checks all the "good" boxes.  So in NJ, we have good access to healthcare, good education, good access to jobs and opportunity.  But we have terrible property taxes, income taxes, and tons of underfunded pension liabilities.  We can debate the clean air/environment but I lean towards the negative side of that one.


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 8, 2020)

mikec142 said:


> NJ here...
> 
> But again...I can't think of one state that checks all the "good" boxes.  So in NJ, we have good access to healthcare, good education, good access to jobs and opportunity.  But we have terrible property taxes, income taxes, and tons of underfunded pension liabilities.  We can debate the clean air/environment but I lean towards the negative side of that one.



It’s also extremely crowded and the traffic is a nightmare.

I left that behind 26 years ago and I’ve never looked back. It’s a different world all together where people have a completely different focus.


----------



## mikec142 (Jan 8, 2020)

raisingarizona said:


> It’s also extremely crowded and the traffic is a nightmare.



No argument from me on those issues.

As I was saying, I can't think of any state that only checks the good boxes.  Most are a mix of good and bad.  Some are predominately bad.


----------



## abc (Jan 8, 2020)

raisingarizona said:


> It’s a different world all together where people have a completely different focus.


That's important. 

Even the definition of "good box" or "bad box" doesn't need to be the same for every state. How do you have low tax and good infrastructure? How about good education and low tax? 

Everyone complain about the health care "situation" in this country. But you know how much employment the drug companies provide? The biotech industry employs? And the portion of GDP they make up? Sure, the health care "system" is broken. But take care not to throw the baby out with the bath water! (Which seems Vermont did exactly THAT!)


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 8, 2020)

smac75 said:


> "...-the most recent being Vermont Tap and Die..."
> 
> The MTB trail of the same name also recently "lost". Not the same but still heartbreaking:x



Wow.  What a sad coincidence.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 8, 2020)

Orca said:


> Vermont has dangerously low unemployment: jobs are going unfilled because of an _absence _of workers. This condition has been caused by working age people leaving the state for greener pastures and too few working age people moving into the state. Just because a job opportunity exists doesn't mean that it is an economically good choice for an individual choose to live in the vicinity and take it.



Bingo


----------



## Killingtime (Jan 8, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> FWIW Vermont used to be a leader in manufacturing.
> In the 1980's and 1990's two big things happened.  On the micro scale, the State was headed by a liberal governor who put people into power at ANR and other agencies that took a punitive approach on environmental regulations. .



Yep, from 1985 regarding the ski industry: "The conflict over resort development was further exacerbated by an article in November's issue of the magazine Ski, which declared that Vermont was in a state of ''civil war'' between Governor Kunin and the resort owners. The ruling also effectively halts expansion at most of Vermont's other ski areas and has brought to a climax a long dispute over whether the resorts' growth in recent years benefits the state's economy or threatens its main attraction, the Green Mountains."

35 years ago they didn't want any new development and were worried about "Wealthy Flatlanders buying up second homes and driving up real estate prices". Here we are now and Vermont is offering $10,000 to anyone who is willing to move to the state. Pretty freaking funny. BTW just sold my second home in VT and will be looking at CO or UT next year.


----------



## EPB (Jan 8, 2020)

mikec142 said:


> No argument from me on those issues.
> 
> As I was saying, I can't think of any state that only checks the good boxes.  Most are a mix of good and bad.  Some are predominately bad.


Like most things in life, checking all boxes is a tough task. Texas is probably the closest I can think of. If you're into tech, San Antonio/Austin area seems booming and the state generally has its act together. Not my cup of tea though.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Hawk (Jan 8, 2020)

Wow.  Lots of good opinions.  Some educated some not.  I did not grow up here, and as such my perspective is one of a second home owner.  I pay high property taxes in Warren.  I think if you want to make it in VT you have to work really hard and earn it.  It's not going to come cheap or free.  I think the best post on here is Flakey Dogs post.  Of course he is the exception and not the rule.  Whatever his niche is it sounds like it works very well.  I envy him.  But for me I think I have the best of both worlds.  I commute up here to bike, ski, hike and enjoy everything that VT has to offer with people just like him.  Back home north of Boston, I fish, boat, mountain bike out my door on some of the best terrain anywhere and generally enjoy culture, fine food, good pay and OK taxes.  Unless something changes I can never see myself retiring there.


----------



## HowieT2 (Jan 8, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> Like most things in life, checking all boxes is a tough task. Texas is probably the closest I can think of. If you're into tech, San Antonio/Austin area seems booming and the state generally has its act together. Not my cup of tea though.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app



Its much easier for a state to have its "act together" when it reaps massive revenue from natural resources as is the case with texas.  and furthermore, is growing.  By that I mean, the northern states have legacy expenses (pensions, infrastructure, work force) commensurate with their size and populations from 50 years ago.  The populations have shrunk considerably since then and so you have a smaller population paying taxes to cover the expenses.  If the population is growing then you have more people dividing up the tax burden which is lower to begin with because there were fewer government employees/costs in the past because the population was smaller.  Not sure I'm explaining myself clearly


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

HowieT2 said:


> Its much easier for a state to have its "act together" when it reaps massive revenue from natural resources as is the case with texas.  and furthermore, is growing.  By that I mean, the northern states have legacy expenses (pensions, infrastructure, work force) commensurate with their size and populations from 50 years ago.  The populations have shrunk considerably since then and so you have a smaller population paying taxes to cover the expenses.  If the population is growing then you have more people dividing up the tax burden which is lower to begin with because there were fewer government employees/costs in the past because the population was smaller.  Not sure I'm explaining myself clearly



The problem is that Vermont is very effectively minimizing the number of taxpayers by driving them elsewhere and maximizing the tax burden on everyone left. It wants a first-rate welfare state funded by a third-rate economy. Reality doesn't permit that.


----------



## 1dog (Jan 8, 2020)

Legacy costs - thats the killer Howie. Whats changed dramatically is the size and cost of government. 

in the 60's and even the 70's if you had a government job it didn't pay well, but you were relatively secure. Still secure, more so now because nothing gets you fired. But now, you get paid well, and you get 70-80% of your last three years pay for life ( which is a lot longer than 30 years ago - despite our terrible healthcare) and paid healthcare for that time period as well.  Of course these are generalizations, but if you're not buying in, the three or four wealthiest counties are no longer in metro NY - they are in and around DC. Thats where the $$ is. 

I have a number of family and friends in various government positions, some are teachers, some are admin and some in IT. 

Its a great gig. And those private companies that offered too-good-to-be-true retirement packages failed or their pensions went bust ( think Polaroid or GM) - not state or federal government - they have the power to tax. 


I am not saying if I was a teacher at $75K a year that I wouldn't coach a couple teams, get on this project or that one in my last couple years to increase my income - I would. Who wouldn't? Its just that its a long term unaffordable legacy cost.


I wouldn't move to Texas either. Like our 4 seasons. Like our oceans and mountains and lakes. Like everything about it. And we pay more for it, thats all. 

Wanted to retire in Portsmouth NH - can't afford it. Wifes likes beaches and I can get to hills in 2 hours or less. I keep telling her a double-wide allows us to travel anywhere anytime, and we can keep the heat as high as she wants in winter. .  .she ain't buying it. It would be in NH though.

And that seems to be slipping into higher costs eventually too.


----------



## HowieT2 (Jan 8, 2020)

1dog said:


> Legacy costs - thats the killer Howie. Whats changed dramatically is the size and cost of government.
> 
> in the 60's and even the 70's if you had a government job it didn't pay well, but you were relatively secure. Still secure, more so now because nothing gets you fired. But now, you get paid well, and you get 70-80% of your last three years pay for life ( which is a lot longer than 30 years ago - despite our terrible healthcare) and paid healthcare for that time period as well.  Of course these are generalizations, but if you're not buying in, the three or four wealthiest counties are no longer in metro NY - they are in and around DC. Thats where the $$ is.
> 
> ...



I'm not disagreeing with you, but I dont think teachers or govt workers in Texas or Utah make any less than their counterparts in VT.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd bet they have similar pension benefits as well.  I think they are simply costing less because they didnt have as many teachers police officers firefighters clerks who are now collecting benefits because their populations were so much smaller in the past.


----------



## EPB (Jan 8, 2020)

HowieT2 said:


> Its much easier for a state to have its "act together" when it reaps massive revenue from natural resources as is the case with texas.  and furthermore, is growing.  By that I mean, the northern states have legacy expenses (pensions, infrastructure, work force) commensurate with their size and populations from 50 years ago.  The populations have shrunk considerably since then and so you have a smaller population paying taxes to cover the expenses.  If the population is growing then you have more people dividing up the tax burden which is lower to begin with because there were fewer government employees/costs in the past because the population was smaller.  Not sure I'm explaining myself clearly


You've hit on why population growth is so important. Just ask the Detroit city fire fighters. On the flip side, Texas needs to build lots of schools and other municipal buildings as it grows, so it has its own challenges.

Oil is very volatile, so you can't just count on it for the next X years to be around a certain level. It's also not that large a part of the budget. TX generated $5bn of royalties and 4.1% of sales tax revenue ($1.2bn) from oil and natural resources in 2018. The state took in $165.8bn and spent $140.3bn per it's annual report. Oil related tariffs comprised 3.7% of revenue. Nice to have, but not great. I suspect they'd prefer to continue to poach more tech companies from CA than hope for more oil revenue.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (Jan 8, 2020)

Hawk said:


> Back home north of Boston, I fish, boat, mountain bike out my door on some of the best terrain anywhere and generally *enjoy culture, fine food*, good pay and OK taxes.  Unless something changes I can never see myself retiring there.


Some things are location specific. Beaches are by the ocean, ski mountains in the north, cold part of the country. 

Cities are for jobs and "culture, fine food". Though once retired, only "culture, fine food" remains. For many, that's important enough they stay. Others, they move to the warm part of the country. Maybe by the beaches. 

What does Vermont attracts? People who like the cold. Skiers. Beach lovers? Not so much. Only a much smaller percentage of retirees move NORTH to the colder, snowier part of the country.

You can pretty much mountain bike most places. NJ, for example, has some kick ass trails. You can fish there too. 

So, Vermont is at a disadvantage in terms of attracting people for the sake of its location, with the exception of skiers. As for jobs, I guess that's covered for now. Until that changes, VT is in a losing battle in keeping its population number.


----------



## HowieT2 (Jan 8, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> You've hit on why population growth is so important. Just ask the Detroit city fire fighters. On the flip side, Texas needs to build lots of schools and other municipal buildings as it grows, so it has its own challenges.
> 
> Oil is very volatile, so you can't just count on it for the next X years to be around a certain level. It's also not that large a part of the budget. TX generated $5bn of royalties and 4.1% of sales tax revenue ($1.2bn) from oil and natural resources in 2018. The state took in $165.8bn and spent $140.3bn per it's annual report. Oil related tariffs comprised 3.7% of revenue. Nice to have, but not great. I suspect they'd prefer to continue to poach more tech companies from CA than hope for more oil revenue.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app



so they get 6.2b a year directly from oil and that doesnt include all the industry jobs paying taxes and employees spending, the secondary and tertiary benefits to the economy.  Its a big advantage.


----------



## HowieT2 (Jan 8, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> You've hit on why population growth is so important. Just ask the Detroit city fire fighters. On the flip side, Texas needs to build lots of schools and other municipal buildings as it grows, so it has its own challenges.
> 
> Oil is very volatile, so you can't just count on it for the next X years to be around a certain level. It's also not that large a part of the budget. TX generated $5bn of royalties and 4.1% of sales tax revenue ($1.2bn) from oil and natural resources in 2018. The state took in $165.8bn and spent $140.3bn per it's annual report. Oil related tariffs comprised 3.7% of revenue. Nice to have, but not great. I suspect they'd prefer to continue to poach more tech companies from CA than hope for more oil revenue.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app




also, the people building those schools and municipal infrastructure get paid and pay taxes from that.  When population is declining, you dont have that, but you still have the maintenance costs of the infrastructure.


----------



## EPB (Jan 8, 2020)

HowieT2 said:


> so they get 6.2b a year directly from oil and that doesnt include all the industry jobs paying taxes and employees spending, the secondary and tertiary benefits to the economy.  Its a big advantage.


TX is trying to diversify away from oil. You can read what I've written in this earlier. Of course, people work in the industry, but I isolated the extra money TX gets from natural resource activites above and beyond what it would charge other industries. It's a fair representation. Not nearly as much as you'd think. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## EPB (Jan 8, 2020)

HowieT2 said:


> also, the people building those schools and municipal infrastructure get paid and pay taxes from that.  When population is declining, you dont have that, but you still have the maintenance costs of the infrastructure.


This is not a good argument. Pay $100 and get a small fraction of it back in taxes is a losing strategy. Don't over think it.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## HowieT2 (Jan 8, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> This is not a good argument. Pay $100 and get a small fraction of it back in taxes is a losing strategy. Don't over think it.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app



my only point was that the state of texas makes significant revenue from the oil industry.  Unless you are arguing that 6b/year in direct revenues is insignificant, I'd say we agree.  Ya know, 6b here, 6b there and all of a sudden, we're talking about real money.


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

HowieT2 said:


> my only point was that the state of texas makes significant revenue from the oil industry.  Unless you are arguing that 6b/year in direct revenues is insignificant, I'd say we agree.  Ya know, 6b here, 6b there and all of a sudden, we're talking about real money.



And even more so Alaska and Norway and Saudi Arabia. But, most economies are not propped up by oil or any other mineral extraction. So there's not much point in contrasting the exceptional cases with Vermont. A better comparison is, say, New Hampshire.


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

Vermont's government simply spends too much and the resulting tax burden is directly harming its economy in almost countless ways. (Though we've been been doing a semi-credible counting the ways in this forum!)


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 8, 2020)

Orca said:


> The problem is that Vermont is very effectively minimizing the number of taxpayers by driving them elsewhere and maximizing the tax burden on everyone left. It wants a first-rate welfare state funded by a third-rate economy. Reality doesn't permit that.



Exactly


----------



## EPB (Jan 8, 2020)

HowieT2 said:


> my only point was that the state of texas makes significant revenue from the oil industry.  Unless you are arguing that 6b/year in direct revenues is insignificant, I'd say we agree.  Ya know, 6b here, 6b there and all of a sudden, we're talking about real money.


This is also silly. Percentages of the budget are what really matter, which is why I presented them. TX splits the $6bn over a population of 29mm. That's ~$200 a head. Is it nice to have, sure? But the state took in $25.5 billion more than it spent in 2018.

The story is much bigger than oil. As I mentioned earlier, nobody is envious of resource based economies in the developed world. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## HowieT2 (Jan 8, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> This is also silly. Percentages of the budget are what really matter, which is why I presented them. TX splits the $6bn over a population of 29mm. That's ~$200 a head. Is it nice to have, sure? But the state took in $25.5 billion more than it spent in 2018.
> 
> The story is much bigger than oil. As I mentioned earlier, nobody is envious of resource based economies in the developed world.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app



not sure why youre trying to make an argument here where there isnt any. like you said, its sure nice to have. 
where do you get that they had a 25.5b surplus last year?


----------



## EPB (Jan 8, 2020)

HowieT2 said:


> not sure why youre trying to make an argument here where there isnt any. like you said, its sure nice to have.
> where do you get that they had a 25.5b surplus last year?


I took exception with the notion that $6bn is a lot of money when it's spread out so many ways. Would you rather $6bn cut 29mm ways, or $1000 split in half? Using a blanket "$6bn is a lot of money" claim isn't always instructive. That's all. 

$25.5bn comes directly from their annual report - chart on page 23. Search Texas CAFR 2018 in Google if you want to check it out. It should show right up.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## EPB (Jan 8, 2020)

Duplicate


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

Of Vermont: "Businesses pay an effective property tax rate of 5.27%, the third highest in the country."

-- CNN Business


----------



## prsboogie (Jan 8, 2020)

I would like to point out an aspect of the healthcare system I have not seen addressed here yet (appologies if I missed it) 

 Our ERs are inundated with people who do not have enough sense to call their physicians for there stomach aches that they have had for two months. Drunks coming in daily because they are drunk, again,band leave before they can be offered help with their drinking problems. COPDers coming in weekly short of breath and in distress after smoking their 10th cigarette of the day, heart failure patients in with 10 pound weight gains because the won't stop eating TV dinners and fast foods. We see about 5-6 people who come in for STD testing or pregnancy tests. 

People who have been given every opportunity to make changes in their lives time and time again continually choose not to. Social welfare comes with unlimited access to these services at the cost of taxes to the Commonwealth. And the state reimbursements to our little facility and all local facilities are on a steep downward trajectory. Despite the cuts in funding all these frevelous services need to be seen and largely go unfunded. How long do people expect healthcare facilities to stay solvent? Small local hospitals will start to shutter and push the burden onto larger urban facilities to absourb the patient flow and cost burden. 

An unpopular view extended to elective vs emergent surgeries. We regularly (daily) preform procedures on a population of people who if someone objectively, would never be allowed to have surgeries. I have lost count of the pacemaker/defibrillators that have be put into patients who cannot even tell you their names because their irrational family members refuse to allow nature to run its course. Many other surgeries are allowed to happen because physicians are afraid to tell families no. 

For Universal Healthcare to happen there will need to be tremendous amount of regulation on who when and where things will happen and that goes against everything American. We want everything and we want it now (que Veruca voice - I want the goose who lays the golden eggs daddy). The way people access healthcare needs to change as well as the expectations of what healthcare is and can deliver. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (Jan 8, 2020)

> Many other surgeries are allowed to happen because physicians are afraid to tell families no.


No, it's because the physicians will get paid. 

(It's not a Vermont issue though. It's nationwide)

Yes, it's a systemic problem. As long as physicians get paid for procedures "fit" for the illness but totally inappropriate to the general situation of the PERSON, this problem will continue. 

My Mom used to work in hospital, mostly dealing with the poor (and largely under-educated) patients. Expensive AND PAINFUL surgeries were "recommended" to the patients, with total disregard to the overall well being of the patients! The poor patients, where do they get better information to refute the "recommendation" of the surgeons? They ended up being treated like meat on the butcher's table.  

There're good doctors, when working with well educated and well informed patients and their family, result in more human care and without wasting resources. (example, my uncle passed away recently, by refusing treatment that would only prolong his suffering) But those are often exceptions to the rule. Our "system" doesn't encourage that nor rewards it.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 8, 2020)

abc said:


> There're good doctors, when working with well educated and well informed patients and their family, result in more human care and without wasting resources. (example, my uncle passed away recently, by refusing treatment that would only prolong his suffering) But those are often exceptions to the rule. Our "system" doesn't encourage that nor rewards it.



I truly respect your uncle's decision.

And the system discourages personal awareness; it wants to keep you alive until it can suck away all of your resources.


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

"In Vermont, many people — both medical providers and the population at large — are beginning to see OneCare as something akin to the European Union. The University of Vermont Medical Center and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center clearly run the show. They have bought up most of the independent practices and hospitals in the state and the decisions made for those practices are now made in OneCare’s corporate boardrooms by very highly paid executives, few of whom have any clinical experience. Medical providers in the field are inundated by computerized paperwork and spend over half their time on non-medical clerical work. The medical practices have been homogenized by required algorithms for patient care and practices have become franchises — similar to McDonalds."

-- Louis Meyers, VTDigger, 2 January 2020


----------



## JimG. (Jan 8, 2020)

Totally true here in NY also. Horrifying if you think about it.


----------



## kingslug (Jan 8, 2020)

I'm..pretty scared of our health care system...go to a specialist..see how many minutes they spend with you..then see what they proscribe as a fix....
I stopped going to an orthopedist for my shoulders because it seemed like a joke...5 minutes..


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 8, 2020)

kingslug said:


> ..
> I stopped going to an orthopedist for my shoulders because it seemed like a joke...5 minutes..



Reminds of of a George Carlin skit . Somewhere practicing in in the country is the worst doctor ....Audience laughter....
Carlin..."What are you laughing about you might be his patient." There are lots of good doctors out there as well don't give up. 

Single payer is what scares me the most ! Putting faith in a government  that thinks you're stupid!!! You can keep your plan?
You can keep your doctor ? It was designed to fail from the start!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6wljfbRaDM

If you have a number of uninsured focus on them don't blowup the system !!!! I have to wonder if some states plan to bankrupt their budgets so the Federal government will bail them out ? Before that happens they'll declare bankruptcy to screw all the pensioners. If the economy is good now and the state has issues what happens when no one can afford to ski VT?


----------



## abc (Jan 8, 2020)

JimG. said:


> I truly respect your uncle's decision.
> 
> And the system discourages personal awareness; it wants to keep you alive until it can suck away all of your resources.


It took a lot of ground work prior. 

With help from a decent doctor, yes. He gave the family a realistic expectation. No cure, just more and worse suffering. 

He also offer a long list of “treatment” he could potentially do, had the family choose the opposite. 

That’s how a doctor should be. Many doctors are good. 

But sadly, plenty others are not so good. My Mom had seen a few such doctors. They only offer the long list of painful treatment, which may in fact took care of the issue temporarily but only left the patient worse off. Worse than dead. 

Truth being, having seen many of those, my Mom is terrified of similar thing happening to her. She reminds me of her wish every so often. Her wish for a quality life and a dignified end. 

She was the one who initiated a similar conversation with my cousin (son of my said uncle) only a few years back. At first, my cousin wasn’t sure how to broach the subject with his parents. But his Mom, my aunt, is actually a retired medical school professor (retired 30 years ago) So he talk to her first, then his family had an open discussion, which made clear everyone’s wishes. That, made the actual decision much easier when the time came.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2020)

Orca said:


> "In Vermont, many people — both medical providers and the population at large — are beginning to see OneCare as something akin to the European Union. The University of Vermont Medical Center and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center clearly run the show. They have bought up most of the independent practices and hospitals in the state and the decisions made for those practices are now made in OneCare’s corporate boardrooms by very highly paid executives, few of whom have any clinical experience. Medical providers in the field are inundated by computerized paperwork and spend over half their time on non-medical clerical work. The medical practices have been homogenized by required algorithms for patient care and practices have become franchises — similar to McDonalds."
> 
> -- Louis Meyers, VTDigger, 2 January 2020


UVM Health is in the process of going live right now with a new EMR software from Epic at a cost of $200M.  Epic is the Mercedes of EMRs, which might make sense in Burlington, but hardly does in Berlin or Middlebury whose hospitals and local networks will hardly see the benefits and don't have the need for the features Epic provides.  Both could have gone with a lower cost EMR product.  And those products and patient records can be accessed remotely from the Big House when patients need the advanced care that facility provides.  The resulting manual charting required to do this would be infrequent and minimal work.  

You see the same thing with OR and Radiology equipment.  The big house mandates the community hospitals use the same high cost equipment and it's totally unnecessary.  UVM, Dartmouth and MaineHealth (the three big players in Northern New England) are all guilty of this.  I've seen $90k Anesthesia systems in Critical Access Hospitals in their networks (which only exist because of government subsidies) who would never use all the features available for patient care on even a $25k system. Essentially, there is a massive lack of fiduciary responsibility in the capital planning of our hospitals in this country.  

And to be honest, that article is WAY off base pointing the fingers at Hospital Admins for much of the wasteful spending.  The physicians demand the Mercedes no matter where they work. They have a ton of power over these choices.  They typically work four days a week at the Big House and then one at the East Bumbfuck Medical Centers in the networks and demand the same equipment.  

The problem with this is what you end up seeing is EBF hospitals having no money for new equipment and end up holding onto 15 year old Mercedes that are expensive to maintain, instead of buying a Honda every 7/8 years and actually end up having newer, more reliable and more useful tech.  Some of those EBF hospitals end up failing and close because of this and the low income communities they serve get screwed.  The lower income patient populations relying on these facilities now have to drive hours to receive care in more urban areas.  Those communities get doubly screwed because often times that hospital is the largest employer with the highest wages in town.  Best case scenario for these places is the network flagship hospitals at least maintain a 24 hour ED at the former full service hospital. 

So, to circle back on the argument that US "capitalism" approach is better than government run healthcare, let's at least become educated first that under our current system, US hospitals don't have to run like an actual business.  They're run HORRIBLY because they can.  They get bailed out for their inefficiances.  If they had to run like a real business, say a ski resort? 75% of hospitals would fold. That's not an exaggeration.  And it's not capitalism.  

But, you know who does run healthcare more like a business?  All those other Commi nations in the developed world who have more government control over their healthcare industries.  They have more bargaining power with the drug manufacturers and tech companies like mine because they're the only customer.  They're also often ultimately the only customer paying the providers, so they have maximum leverage over what the providers can charge their patients.  It's a massively effective and efficient monopoly that sees these Commis spending only around 10-12% of their GDP on healthcare vs our 18%.  And the results are often as good or better for 99.9% of the population.

But F it! If Mick Jagger gets his heart surgery in the USA, we must have the best way of doing things AMIRIGHT?!?!!!!



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## JimG. (Jan 8, 2020)

abc said:


> Truth being, having seen many of those, my Mom is terrified of similar thing happening to her. She reminds me of her wish every so often. Her wish for a quality life and a dignified end.



Most families do not discuss these issues and that is a big part of the problem.

All 3 of my boys are used to me reminding them of the same thing your mom fears.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 8, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> So, to circle back on the argument that US "capitalism" approach is better than government run healthcare, let's at least become educated first that under our current system, US hospitals don't have to run like an actual business.  They're run HORRIBLY because they can.  They get bailed out for their inefficiances.  If they had to run like a real business, say a ski resort? 75% of hospitals would fold. That's not an exaggeration.  And it's not capitalism.
> 
> But, you know who does run healthcare more like a business?  All those other Commi nations in the developed world who have more government control over their healthcare industries.  They have more bargaining power with the drug manufacturers and tech companies like mine because they're the only customer.  They're also often ultimately the only customer paying the providers, so they have maximum leverage over what the providers can charge their patients.  It's a massively effective and efficient monopoly that sees these Commis spending only around 10-12% of their GDP on healthcare vs our 18%.  And the results are often as good or better for 99.9% of the population.
> 
> But F it! If Mick Jagger gets his heart surgery in the USA, we must have the best way of doing things AMIRIGHT?!?!!!!



Fact is US spends the most on healthcare yet is 28th or so in the world for positive outcomes. Our system is a joke.


----------



## EPB (Jan 8, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> You see the same thing with OR and Radiology equipment.  The big house mandates the community hospitals use the same high cost equipment and it's totally unnecessary.  UVM, Dartmouth and MaineHealth (the three big players in Northern New England) are all guilty of this.  I've seen $90k Anesthesia systems in Critical Access Hospitals in their networks (which only exist because of government subsidies) who would never use all the features available for patient care on even a $25k system. Essentially, there is a massive lack of fiduciary responsibility in the capital planning of our hospitals in this country.
> 
> 
> So, to circle back on the argument that US "capitalism" approach is better than government run healthcare, let's at least become educated first that under our current system, US hospitals don't have to run like an actual business.  They're run HORRIBLY because they can.  They get bailed out for their inefficiances.  If they had to run like a real business, say a ski resort? 75% of hospitals would fold. That's not an exaggeration.  And it's not capitalism.
> ...



Let's talk about capitalism a minute because I don't think our healthcare system is particularly capitalistic. As the guy with the flowery language about hitting trees mentioned, the consumer has no idea how much their healthcare will cost before they get it. Therefore, they have no way to determine which provider offers the best value. Clinics seem to be helping to break this mold, but we're far from a price transparent system. Without price transparency, it's very difficult to argue you're dealing with a functioning capitalist industry. Fixing prices is rarely the answer; enabling competition is a much more efficient solution.

Before we go assuming that more government is the answer, I wanted to highlight that medicine and education costs are rising the fastest of just about any industry I can think of (I could genuinely be missing one though). Government has its hands all over these - medicine is well documented here, and the advent of government baked student debt has fueled skyrocketing education costs. My generation was sold a load of nonsense when we were told it didn't matter what we majored because our education was priceless. Just sign on the dotted line. I notice you cited that government subsidises these smaller offices that run perpetual losses. I have a feeling they've given hospitals perverse inventives to over spend, but that's just a hunch from reading the tea leaves of what you wrote.

Pharma is a huge issue, too. 100% agree. We subsidize the rest of the world's pharma costs. I don't know how it can get fixed the way our patent laws are set up. I'm no lawyer. Still, I don't see why nationalizing medicine is necessary to achieve pharma remuneration changes.

Regarding people who point to foreigners coming to America for care. Actions speak louder than words. It's the same concept I brought up about Vail not being bought in on catastrophic climate change. There's a reason why people come to the US for treatment: universality ultimately leads to rationing. It's plenty noble to want care for everyone, but it's not wise to dismiss this simple fact as the misguided utterances of toothless fact-hating conservatives.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 8, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> But F it! If Mick Jagger gets his heart surgery in the USA, we must have the best way of doing things AMIRIGHT?!?!!!!



Yes.   America has led the world in heart for many decades.  

Specifically,  Denton Cooley & Michael Debakey were & still are legends in the field, & their multi-generation padawans have fanned-out across America to the major hospitals in most of the big cities (L.A., Chicago, Boston, NYC, etc...).

I realize the cool kids bitch about medicine in America, but in general we are at the top or near the top in virtually all disciplines.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 8, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yes.   America has led the world in heart for many decades.
> 
> Specifically,  Denton Cooley & Michael Debakey were & still are legends in the field, & their multi-generation padawans have fanned-out across America to the major hospitals in most of the big cities (L.A., Chicago, Boston, NYC, etc...).
> 
> I realize the cool kids bitch about medicine in America, but in general we are at the top or near the top in virtually all disciplines.



It's a good thing because Americans sure need a lot of heart surgery.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2020)

Yes, the Lamborghini docs reside here

We're obviously the best!  USA!!!! (spoken with Italian accent)



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Jan 8, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> Pharma is a huge issue, too. 100% agree. We subsidize the rest of the world's pharma costs. I don't know how it can get fixed the way our patent laws are set up. I'm no lawyer. Still, I don't see why nationalizing medicine is necessary to achieve pharma remuneration changes.



If patent laws didn't exist, why would pharma companies bother to invest millions in finding a new drug just so some other company could come along and simply copy it with minimal investment and effort?

You could apply this same logic if we force pharma companies to charge low rates for drugs. I think the average person has absolutely no idea how much time, money, and effort goes into creating a single new drug. People are quick to say "well it only costs $1 to manufacture drug xyz so why do they charge $100 for it". Meanwhile they completely ignore the cost of the R&D and clinical trials and paperwork to get it discovered and approved in the first place. Who pays for that if we demand lower drug costs? Do we then rely on government grants to fund research? In which case we're now back to everyone paying for the R&D anyway (albeit indirectly so the cost is just part of that big black hole where taxes go).


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2020)

BG.....apologies for deleting your post and glad Jim quoted it to preserve it.  I was meaning to edit my response and accidentally screwed up deleting both


In response to your post

Yes, we have the best Lamborghini docs!

That's a fair judgment of what's best yes?  

USA!!?!!! (spoken with Italian accent)

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

I have a question for those who'd like universal, government-run healthcare for all. Who exactly, and I mean _exactly_, is "all"? Would that be citizens only? Would it include illegal aliens? Vermont is far from it, but what might you imagine would be the effect of our porous border with Mexico?

I ask this because the source of funding for such healthcare (taxes) is finite in a practical sense, whereas needs could be imagined to multiply without end. All systems must have boundaries. Is the left willing to bound the problem in a serious way?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 8, 2020)

cdskier said:


> *I think the average person has absolutely no idea how much time, money, and effort goes into creating a single new drug. People are quick to say "well it only costs $1 to manufacture drug xyz so why do they charge $100 for it". *Meanwhile they completely ignore the cost of the R&D and clinical trials and paperwork to get it discovered and approved in the first place. Who pays for that if we demand lower drug costs? Do we then rely on government grants to fund research? In which case we're now back to everyone paying for the R&D anyway (albeit indirectly so the cost is just part of that big black hole where taxes go).



Oh, lord, THIS.   

People are completely clueless about how much it costs to bring a new medication to market.  And clueless is the polite word.  You also have the real morons of society out there who think cancer would be cured, but if pharma cured cancer then it couldn't profit from it.  Those people are so stupid they shouldn't be allowed to slice a bagel unsupervised.

That said, I do think pharma as an industry should have a marketing campaign to educate the masses, and shame on pharma for not doing so.  Given most people have "absolutely no idea" what it costs to bring a new therapy to market as you say, it makes it simple for lying politicians to demonize the entire pharma industry as "greedy", or to try to take one evil pharma example (opioid misuse, etc..) and make it seem like every company is doing this to tar-and-feather all pharma & biotech companies.



deadheadskier said:


> BG.....apologies for deleting your post



I still see it.


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

"But the lack of primary care providers in Vermont is a looming crisis. In rural Vermont, some practices have been unsuccessfully recruiting new physicians for more than six years. Recent workforce data shows that there is a need for 69 new primary care providers in Vermont right now.  With 36% of Vermont’s primary care doctors over age 60, this need will only escalate."

-- Fay Homan, VTDigger, 8 January 2020 (today)


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

"The tax commissioner is forecasting a 6% hike in education taxes next year. Nearly 40% of the projected rise in school spending is tied to healthcare."

-- VTDigger, 10 December 2019


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> Let's talk about capitalism a minute because I don't think our healthcare system is particularly capitalistic. As the guy with the flowery language about hitting trees mentioned, the consumer has no idea how much their healthcare will cost before they get it. Therefore, they have no way to determine which provider offers the best value. Clinics seem to be helping to break this mold, but we're far from a price transparent system. Without price transparency, it's very difficult to argue you're dealing with a functioning capitalist industry. Fixing prices is rarely the answer; enabling competition is a much more efficient solution.
> 
> Before we go assuming that more government is the answer, I wanted to highlight that medicine and education costs are rising the fastest of just about any industry I can think of (I could genuinely be missing one though). Government has its hands all over these - medicine is well documented here, and the advent of government baked student debt has fueled skyrocketing education costs. My generation was sold a load of nonsense when we were told it didn't matter what we majored because our education was priceless. Just sign on the dotted line. I notice you cited that government subsidises these smaller offices that run perpetual losses. I have a feeling they've given hospitals perverse inventives to over spend, but that's just a hunch from reading the tea leaves of what you wrote.
> 
> ...



Yep, the healthcare unicorn is out there. Damn trying to even replicate proven, better performance standards achieved elsewhere around the world. Waste of time.  Go for the unproven ideology or bust!  

All them capitalist docs are going to run to the ski hills, set up shop and offer two for one transparently priced colonoscopies.  May the doc who drives the scope for the cheapest price win!

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 8, 2020)

Orca said:


> "But the lack of primary care providers in Vermont is a looming crisis. In rural Vermont, some practices have been unsuccessfully recruiting new physicians for more than six years. Recent workforce data shows that there is a need for 69 new primary care providers in Vermont right now.  With 36% of Vermont’s primary care doctors over age 60, this need will only escalate."
> 
> -- Fay Homan, VTDigger, 8 January 2020 (today)



True story.  I attended the UVM College of medicine graduation in 2011. The keynote speaker raved about how awesome Vermont was in trying to put together a single-payer system. You could hear an audible grown from the medical graduates. Nearly all of them were packed up and leaving the state because of this. With a good size amount of student debt no one could afford to work in Vermont.  Did folks want to stay? You bet.

And that single payer healthcare plan? Well Shumlin scrapped that literally days after he got the supporters to vote for him for his last term.  Even he realized the cost was simply too ridiculously high and not sustainable. But hell, he played to the supporters to get their votes and then ditched them.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Orca (Jan 8, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> Yep, the healthcare unicorn is out there. Damn trying to even replicate proven, better performance standards achieved elsewhere around the world. Waste of time.  Go for the unproven ideology or bust!
> 
> All them capitalist docs are going to run to the ski hills, set up shop and offer two for one transparently priced colonoscopies.  May the doc who drives the scope for the cheapest price win!



Healthcare is complex and any healthcare system is extremely complex. Does any system on Earth really have it figured out?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2020)

Orca said:


> "But the lack of primary care providers in Vermont is a looming crisis. In rural Vermont, some practices have been unsuccessfully recruiting new physicians for more than six years. Recent workforce data shows that there is a need for 69 new primary care providers in Vermont right now.  With 36% of Vermont’s primary care doctors over age 60, this need will only escalate."
> 
> -- Fay Homan, VTDigger, 8 January 2020 (today)


It's a HUGE investment and debt load to go to med school + enrollment is limited due to lack of residency programs.  So kids are bowing out of that track.  

I'd argue we need to realign our medical training focus though and suggest the bigger problem with care accessibility and affordability is due to a lack of NPs and PAs more so than docs.  We've got 1.1M physicians in the US.  About 400k NPs and PAs, yet those professionals can do 90% of what a Physician can do. 

We should be working to more than flip those numbers.  Drop down to 400K docs and increase the number of PAs and NPs to 2 million workers?  Quality of care would go up, costs would go down.  





Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2020)

Orca said:


> Healthcare is complex and any healthcare system is extremely complex. Does any system on Earth really have it figured out?


Cost/Outcome (meaning length of natural life)

 would be the best formula right?







Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## EPB (Jan 9, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> Yep, the healthcare unicorn is out there. Damn trying to even replicate proven, better performance standards achieved elsewhere around the world. Waste of time.  Go for the unproven ideology or bust!
> 
> All them capitalist docs are going to run to the ski hills, set up shop and offer two for one transparently priced colonoscopies.  May the doc who drives the scope for the cheapest price win!
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


We actually have evidence of capitalism driving costs down in areas like Lasik surgery. Freestanding ORs have also become cheaper ways to take your kids in for a broken arm down here in the NJ suburbs. So, if you're paying attention, this is about much more than class warfare sloganeering. Taking your kid to see a professional for half the cost of the hospital is a wonderful thing for everyone.

I'm decidedly not saying our system is prefect - even satisfactory. It's certainly missing key elements of capitalism, so I really don't think it's correct to call it capitalistic without heavy caveats. 

If you think socialized anything is the best option, I'd suggest examining the issue again. Even the smartest and best intentioned planning boards are not capable of figuring out what individuals want better than the individuals do when left to their own devices. That's a major reason why freer societies are more prosperous. Individual decision-making is like the using big data (billions of transactions) to planning boards' broad brush model. 

You're clearly more involved in medicine than I am. Can you even address my basic question of why pharma reform and socializing medicine are necessarily related? If you take over healthcare and don't change patent law, aren't we in the exact same place regarding pharma prices? Conversely, if we reform patent law on it's own, we'd see the benefits of lower drug pieces unless I'm missing something.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 9, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> We actually have evidence of capitalism driving costs down in areas like Lasik surgery. Freestanding ORs have also become cheaper ways to take your kids in for a broken arm down here in the NJ suburbs. So, if you're paying attention, this is about much more than class warfare sloganeering. Taking your kid to see a professional for half the cost of the hospital is a wonderful thing for everyone.
> 
> I'm decidedly not saying our system is prefect - even satisfactory. It's certainly missing key elements of capitalism, so I really don't think it's correct to call it capitalistic without heavy caveats.
> 
> ...


I can't speak to drugs / patent laws as it's not my wheelhouse.  I'd have to think about it.

As for surgery centers?  Sure, great lower cost option and a good business to be in....in high population density areas.  Timely that you brought it up in a thread about VT.   Know how many Ambulatory Surgery Centers exist in VT?  1!  I helped open it last year.   I don't anticipate seeing a major influx of them up there though. They simply lack the population density for it to make business sense for most docs to open a practice. 

The other factor there is in rural areas, surgical services are literally the only reason hospitals can keep their doors open.  They lose money in every other department.  Do you think communities are going to want to give up a close ED and Extended Care option when Gramma gets the flu just so little Jimmy can get a cheaper fix for a broken arm?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Hawk (Jan 9, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Oh, lord, THIS.
> 
> People are completely clueless about how much it costs to bring a new medication to market.  And clueless is the polite word.  You also have the real morons of society out there who think cancer would be cured, but if pharma cured cancer then it couldn't profit from it.  Those people are so stupid they shouldn't be allowed to slice a bagel unsupervised.
> 
> ...



BG, Pharma certainly needs to recoup the monies spent for research and the approval process of new drugs.  They also need to recoup moneys spent for drugs that do not get approved.  The FDA is a total bitch I understand.  But did you ever look at the earnings of these companies?  Unless they totally F-up like Purdue Pharma they all do very well.  Some of the most successful companies in america.  They are inflation proof, recession proof and a very good investment in general.  I guess what I am saying is how much is enough for those guys.  Drugs are far less expensive in other country's so what is the difference here?


----------



## mister moose (Jan 9, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> cdskier said:
> 
> 
> > I think the average person has absolutely no idea how much time, money, and effort goes into creating a single new drug. People are quick to say "well it only costs $1 to manufacture drug xyz so why do they charge $100 for it". Meanwhile they completely ignore the cost of the R&D and clinical trials and paperwork to get it discovered and approved in the first place. Who pays for that if we demand lower drug costs? Do we then rely on government grants to fund research? In which case we're now back to everyone paying for the R&D anyway (albeit indirectly so the cost is just part of that big black hole where taxes go).
> ...


Yes, but you left out risk.  The cost of trying a new drug and it doesn't work as expected, the side effects are too risky, or it's just plain ineffective.  The cost of lawsuits.  The cost of attracting investment capital.

That said, it is an extremely complex web of worldwide markets and different regulatory rules that drug companies sell to.  I have trouble holding out Canada's lower drug costs and thinking the very source, the producer nation's rules of those drugs cost/pricing system can be modeled on one or a few consumer nations.  It's more complicated than that.

One of the many ways we vote is with our wallet.  Socialized medicine takes that vote away, and places it in the hands of a committee.  A committee can't possibly make the best decisions for all the unanticipated individual concerns and situations.   Ideally that committee is benevolent, but we see all the time how government is affected by graft.

Individual choice is not perfect, but it is a better form of imperfection.


----------



## machski (Jan 9, 2020)

1dog said:


> Legacy costs - thats the killer Howie. Whats changed dramatically is the size and cost of government.
> 
> in the 60's and even the 70's if you had a government job it didn't pay well, but you were relatively secure. Still secure, more so now because nothing gets you fired. But now, you get paid well, and you get 70-80% of your last three years pay for life ( which is a lot longer than 30 years ago - despite our terrible healthcare) and paid healthcare for that time period as well.  Of course these are generalizations, but if you're not buying in, the three or four wealthiest counties are no longer in metro NY - they are in and around DC. Thats where the $$ is.
> 
> ...


I have to tell you NH has a much different take on State pensions.  Now public safety workers (firefighters/police) and teacher pensions are a bit different from each other in NH.  I know the teacher side as that is what my wife does.  NH pays pensions based on your last 5 years of BASE SALARY only.  Any stipend pay for coaching, etc DOES NOT count towards pension.  Accordingly, NH teacher pensions are some of the lowest in the country.  Oh yeah, and bother teachers and safety workers have mandatory contributions they have to pay into the system as they work!

The flip side to this is, all pension systems are rated on a scale of how likely they are to meet their obligations to retirees.  Guess what, NH's system rates tops in the Nation.  Give and takes to everything.  And don't try to tell me a government can just tax its way out.  There have been some big cities that have gone bankrupt in this country due to pensions among other financial failures.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## EPB (Jan 9, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> I can't speak to drugs / patent laws as it's not my wheelhouse.  I'd have to think about it.
> 
> As for surgery centers?  Sure, great lower cost option and a good business to be in....in high population density areas.  Timely that you brought it up in a thread about VT.   Know how many Ambulatory Surgery Centers exist in VT?  1!  I helped open it last year.   I don't anticipate seeing a major influx of them up there though. They simply lack the population density for it to make business sense for most docs to open a practice.
> 
> ...



I'm totally with you that rural areas create structural challenges to getting the cost of care down (vis-a-vis more dessert densely populated European countries). I highly doubt letting places close is a socially-viable solution, but would probably make sense from a dollars and cents perspective. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Jan 9, 2020)

Hawk said:


> BG, Pharma certainly needs to recoup the monies spent for research and the approval process of new drugs.  They also need to recoup moneys spent for drugs that do not get approved.  The FDA is a total bitch I understand.  But did you ever look at the earnings of these companies?  Unless they totally F-up like Purdue Pharma they all do very well.  Some of the most successful companies in america.  They are inflation proof, recession proof and a very good investment in general.  I guess what I am saying is how much is enough for those guys.  Drugs are far less expensive in other country's so what is the difference here?



Only 5 of the top 100 most profitable companies in the world last year were Pharma companies (and the first wasn't until J&J at #25). Why is it ok for some companies to make profits but if a Pharma company does it, it is considered "greedy" and "evil"? Shouldn't their innovation and work be rewarded? Apple is the 2nd most profitable company in the world (with profits nearly 4x that of the highest ranking Pharma company). Yet I don't see anyone forcing or demanding that Apple lower their prices.

Don't get me wrong, there are certainly situations where I think some Pharmas get greedy and overprice things (raising prices on a drug that has been in the market for a while would be one example of a practice that I don't agree with). But overall I think Pharma companies get an undeserved bad reputation.


----------



## EPB (Jan 9, 2020)

machski said:


> I have to tell you NH has a much different take on State pensions.  Now public safety workers (firefighters/police) and teacher pensions are a bit different from each other in NH.  I know the teacher side as that is what my wife does.  NH pays pensions based on your last 5 years of BASE SALARY only.  Any stipend pay for coaching, etc DOES NOT count towards pension.  Accordingly, NH teacher pensions are some of the lowest in the country.  Oh yeah, and bother teachers and safety workers have mandatory contributions they have to pay into the system as they work!
> 
> The flip side to this is, all pension systems are rated on a scale of how likely they are to meet their obligations to retirees.  Guess what, NH's system rates tops in the Nation.  Give and takes to everything.  And don't try to tell me a government can just tax its way out.  There have been some big cities that have gone bankrupt in this country due to pensions among other financial failures.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


We should really do away with public pensions for incoming employees. Just pay workers the approximate amount it costs to pay into the pension system today and stop guaranteeing retirement payment levels. It's an outrageous ask for public employees to just trust their retirements will be there for them as promised up to 50 years down the road. Who here would want to lend money to their state or local government for that long? The pensioners you mention lend their entire retirements to their state and or local governments. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 9, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> I'm totally with you that rural areas create structural challenges to getting the cost of care down (vis-a-vis more dessert densely populated European countries). I highly doubt letting places close is a socially-viable solution, but would probably make sense from a dollars and cents perspective.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


Yes and no.  In the spirit of this thread, I'm going to assume VT is getting very few takers on the 10k stipend to move there.  Remove access to healthcare and that sell becomes even more challenging.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## EPB (Jan 9, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> Yes and no.  In the spirit of this thread, I'm going to assume VT is getting very few takers on the 10k stipend to move there.  Remove access to healthcare and that sell becomes even more challenging.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


Agreed

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## drjeff (Jan 9, 2020)

The reality is that modern medicine is being pushed into more of a data driven model than an actual individual model.

There are pro's and cons.

If your own personal data "fits" the essential algorithm that "big data medicine" has determined is the "best" way to manage things, then great, the system will work for you. If the data that the provider enters into the tablet for your medical record doesn't fully align with an exact diagnosis code, the code that determines your treatment course more often than not in today's medicine, then it becomes the role of the patient and the provider to try and work with the medical "system" to explain why a course of treatment that doesn't follow the one generated based on the diagnosis code is proper in your instance. That can, and is, a very frustrating things for all parties involved.

The more and more the push for "single payer" progresses, the less and less the actual diagnostic skills and treatment management skills that the medical provider spent years acquiring, mater anymore, and the autonomy that the provider has, which is often one of the appealing things that gets folks into the medical profession, decreases, and instead of being a clinician, the medical provider becomes more and more like a data entry person. If that's a good or a bad thing, I suppose has plenty to do with one's view and actual understanding of the medical system, something which not very many people actually have a grasp of what that entails, but have often been told by the media "costs too much" and/or "isn't as 'good' as such and such a different countries system" etc...  

This thread may very well end up going on for 100's of pages, with lots of really good points


----------



## Orca (Jan 9, 2020)

"Vermont is projected to exceed targets for health care spending in 2020, indicating the state’s reform efforts may not be working as planned. 
...
According to Lindberg, much of the projected 2020 increase for care across the health system comes from Medicare, publicly funded insurance for disabled patients and people over age 65. That portion of the population, which is often the sickest and requires costly end of life care, is the most expensive."

-- VTDigger, 13 December 2019

This is problematic with the aging demographics of the state, and younger workers choosing elsewhere.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 9, 2020)

Orca said:


> "Vermont is projected to exceed targets for health care spending in 2020, indicating the state’s reform efforts may not be working as planned.
> ...
> According to Lindberg, much of the projected 2020 increase for care across the health system comes from Medicare, publicly funded insurance for disabled patients and people over age 65. That portion of the population, which is often the sickest and requires costly end of life care, is the most expensive."
> 
> ...



Exactly.  The huge problem is the demographics.  You can't offer very large public benefits to a needy population WITHOUT a sustainable way to pay for it.  In other words, you need a LARGER number of people paying into the system than drawing it down.  10 years ago I was telling people that the ONLY way to keep these programs was to have MORE younger working people come into the state.  That advice was ignored and now they are feeling the repercussions.  It is way easier to just kick the can down the road and to just nudge up the tax rate every year.  And just like the last 10 or 15 years the legislature is off to the races talking about stuff that DOES NOT address this problem.


----------



## 1dog (Jan 9, 2020)

prsboogie said:


> I would like to point out an aspect of the healthcare system I have not seen addressed here yet (appologies if I missed it)
> 
> Our ERs are inundated with people who do not have enough sense to call their physicians for there stomach aches that they have had for two months. Drunks coming in daily because they are drunk, again,band leave before they can be offered help with their drinking problems. COPDers coming in weekly short of breath and in distress after smoking their 10th cigarette of the day, heart failure patients in with 10 pound weight gains because the won't stop eating TV dinners and fast foods. We see about 5-6 people who come in for STD testing or pregnancy tests.
> 
> ...


----------



## mister moose (Jan 9, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> Yes and no.  In the spirit of this thread, I'm going to assume VT is getting very few takers on the 10k stipend to move there.  Remove access to healthcare and that sell becomes even more challenging.


Clarification: It isn't a 10k stipend, it's up to 10k in reimbursed moving costs.
"Grants can be used for relocation, computer software and hardware, broadband internet and access to a co-working space."  ​Nothing goes into your pocket directly. 

For the first 6 months:

"So far, the application for the Remote Worker Grant Program has been downloaded thousands of times, but no completed applications have been submitted."
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/10/vermont-will-pay-you-10000-to-move-there-and-work-remotely---.html

​


----------



## abc (Jan 9, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Oh, lord, THIS.
> 
> *People are completely clueless about how much it costs to bring a new medication to market.  And clueless is the polite word.*  You also have the real morons of society out there who think cancer would be cured, but if pharma cured cancer then it couldn't profit from it.  Those people are so stupid they shouldn't be allowed to slice a bagel unsupervised.


Less clueless than you think. 

People *DON'T WANT TO KNOW *the true cost of development of their life saving drugs. They know it's costly to develop it. So they'd rather not know the true cost. "The truth is too painful to know". They want the drugs, no matter the cost. They just want to get out of paying for it!

We do cure some cancer. At huge costs. Who pays? We all do. 

I'm not a selfless person. I want to have access to all the potential life saving drugs, in case *I* need it. So, any form of rationing by some government that restrict the pipeline for new drugs, I will not be in favor of. Not in theory at least. 

That said, I'm not rich. I can't realistically "afford" the true cost of the new drugs without others help paying for it. So when push comes to shove, I WILL support some form of universal care scheme.


----------



## abc (Jan 9, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> As for surgery centers?  Sure, great lower cost option and a good business to be in....in high population density areas.  Timely that you brought it up in a thread about VT.   Know how many Ambulatory Surgery Centers exist in VT?  1!  I helped open it last year.   I don't anticipate seeing a major influx of them up there though. They simply lack the population density for it to make business sense for most docs to open a practice.
> 
> The other factor there is in rural areas, surgical services are literally the only reason hospitals can keep their doors open.  They lose money in every other department.  Do you think communities are going to want to give up a close ED and Extended Care option when Gramma gets the flu just so little Jimmy can get a cheaper fix for a broken arm?


Not sure hospitals can stop the opening of surgical centers though. 

I don't know how VT compares with western PA. But I work as an occasional consultant for an enterprising doctor, who some years ago opened a few surgical center in the sparsely populated western PA successfully (financially successful). 

Of course the hospitals don't want to lose their surgeons to the surgical centers. But they can't exactly stop those centers opening. Surgeons can just move their surgeries to those centers, at a fraction of the cost. Some hospital though, responded, I might say correctly, by lowering their charges and operating more efficiently, JUST LIKE THE STANDALONE SURGICAL CENTERS! 

The said doctor had since gotten out of the surgical center business, due to competition. But that sounds like free market work at its best to me.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 9, 2020)

abc said:


> Not sure hospitals can stop the opening of surgical centers though.
> 
> I don't know how VT compares with western PA. But I work as an occasional consultant for an enterprising doctor, who some years ago opened a few surgical center in the sparsely populated western PA successfully (financially successful).
> 
> ...


They do via the state.  Hospital Associations have a lot of power and it's not uncommon to see moratoriums on new centers being built.  Massachusetts just ended a 40 year moratorium two years ago.  Any surgery center built in that timeframe had to be hospital owned. 

The other thing you frequently see is the docs open an independent practice, operate it for several years and then sell the center to a hospital when they want to cash out and retire.  With that reality, it's always good for patients to shop around. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 9, 2020)

mister moose said:


> Clarification: It isn't a 10k stipend, it's up to 10k in reimbursed moving costs.
> "Grants can be used for relocation, computer software and hardware, broadband internet and access to a co-working space."  ​Nothing goes into your pocket directly.
> 
> For the first 6 months:
> ...



Good point.  Stipends of UP TO $10,000.00.  I imagine that there will be many who don't get the full amount.  

And a bigger question that shows how screwed up this idea is:  why not simply REDUCE the cost of taxes and living by a proportional amount on the PEOPLE ALREADY THERE instead of just increasing the cost on everyone and hand out these stipends?  I get that it is a decision to entice a certain demographic and all, but think about that.  When the decision was made as to lowering costs or "adding a new program", they "added a new program."  That is the knee-jerk reaction.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 9, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> Good point.  Stipends of UP TO $10,000.00.  I imagine that there will be many who don't get the full amount.
> 
> And a bigger question that shows how screwed up this idea is:  why not simply REDUCE the cost of taxes and living by a proportional amount on the PEOPLE ALREADY THERE instead of just increasing the cost on everyone and hand out these stipends?  I get that it is a decision to entice a certain demographic and all, but think about that.  When the decision was made as to lowering costs or "adding a new program", they "added a new program."  That is the knee-jerk reaction.


well, in theory it's just a micro version of the same strategy states use to lure corporations.  Virginia has a $1B commitment to Amazon from winning the HQ2 bid.   Part of that is the state will kick back $22k to Amazon for every $150k job they bring to the state. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Orca (Jan 9, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> And a bigger question that shows how screwed up this idea is:  why not simply REDUCE the cost of taxes and living by a proportional amount on the PEOPLE ALREADY THERE instead of just increasing the cost on everyone and hand out these stipends?



And deny the left its proclivity to "fine tune" anything and everything through a cornucopia of special, targeted, and sometimes coercive programs? Heresy in Vermont! What would all those do-gooders in government do?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 9, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> well, in theory it's just a micro version of the same strategy states use to lure corporations.  Virginia has a $1B commitment to Amazon from winning the HQ2 bid.   Part of that is the state will kick back $22k to Amazon for every $150k job they bring to the state.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



Very true.  I was offering the response from a lot of Vermonters as to this program.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> And that single payer healthcare plan? Well Shumlin scrapped that literally days after he got the supporters to vote for him for his last term.  Even he realized the cost was simply too ridiculously high and not sustainable. But hell, *he played to the supporters to get their votes and then ditched them.*



That's how it's done.   Hell, lying to supporters is 100% what the Sanders & Warren campaigns are all about.  Financially impossible promises layered on top of more literally financially impossible promises.



eastern powder baby said:


> If you take over healthcare and don't change patent law, aren't we in the exact same place regarding pharma prices? Conversely,* if we reform patent law on it's own, we'd see the benefits of lower drug pieces *unless I'm missing something.



You keep saying this, but havent explained what you mean by it.

I have a feeling I know what you mean, and if so, it's a horrendous idea.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2020)

Hawk said:


> BG, Pharma certainly needs to recoup the monies spent for research and the approval process of new drugs.  They also need to recoup moneys spent for drugs that do not get approved.  The FDA is a total bitch I understand.  But *did you ever look at the earnings of these companies? * Unless they totally F-up like Purdue Pharma they all do very well.  Some of the most successful companies in america.  They are inflation proof, recession proof and a very good investment in general.  I guess what I am saying is how much is enough for those guys.  *Drugs are far less expensive in other country's so what is the difference here?*



Considering that is literally what I do for a living, yes, I have looked at & been involved with the earnings of those companies.  And no, not "all" are successful, some do go bankrupt and/or have lean or tough years depending on current portfolio performance, reimbursement changes, pipeline (i.e. new, but unapproved drugs in R&D) progress, and a host of other issues.  But you should be HAPPY when they do well & make lots of money.  It means people are benefiting from emergent & current therapies, more jobs are created, and there is new $$$ to invest in the pipeline for potential future lifesaving & quality-of-life improving therapies.  This is a good thing.  I'm always quite flabbergasted when I watch a Democrat debate or something, and the leftist on stage is angry that pharmaceutical & biotech companies are doing well.


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Jan 9, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> well, in theory it's just a micro version of the same strategy states use to lure corporations.  Virginia has a $1B commitment to Amazon from winning the HQ2 bid.   Part of that is the state will kick back $22k to Amazon for every $150k job they bring to the state.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



ell oh fucking ell

nice 'free market' ...and yet nobody screams 'WHERE WILL WE GET THE MONEY???211/????' so taxpayers can pay to lure a for-profit enterprise to plunk a building in their particular shithole province. (not to mention all the new roads, firemen, cops needed for this new population) and what does that get you? a transient workforce that can and will be used as a bargaining chip forevermore and contributes nothing to your particular shithole province beyond buying burritos at the local chipotle et al.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2020)

Hawk said:


> *Drugs are far less expensive in other country's so what is the difference here?*



You & I are subsidizing them.    Yes, it's a problem.

And I dont know what the solution is, short of with-holding critical medications from XYZ country unless they "pay up", which is an instant PR nightmare, and a big part of the reason why phama just bows down & takes what they can get.  That doesnt happen in America.  

Also, what are going to do, tell a 3rd-world nation that none of their thousands (literally) of suffering patients can have literally life-saving HIV medications because they obviously cant afford to pay for it?  Guess what, most HIV pills swallowed in Africa you're paying for here in America.  That's something you'll never here the pharma-hating politicians tell you.  Even the generic cost is more than many Africans will make in an entire year, and remember, there was a time when no generics existed.  Imagine the cost 15 years ago!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2020)

machski said:


> And don't try to tell me a government can just tax its way out. * There have been some big cities that have gone bankrupt in this country due to pensions among other financial failures.*



This is going to be the next major political fight in America, and it will make Obamacare seem like patty-cake.  Sometime in the next 10 years, a liberal state is going to try to declare bankruptcy.  Democrats will be for it, Republicans will be against it.

Like Obamacare, the fight will take several years go all the way to the Supreme Court.  If Democrats win, taxpayers in New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, Montana, etc... will be paying the expenses of a financially irresponsible liberal state like New Jersey or Illinois.

You heard it here first.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm always quite flabbergasted when I watch a Democrat debate or something, and the leftist on stage is angry that pharmaceutical & biotech companies are doing well.



Don't always make everything about politics.  The current republican President has been one the most vocal advocate against current pricing of  drugs in the US.  

Having a few friends in bio-pharma, I mostly agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2020)

cdskier said:


> Only 5 of the top 100 most profitable companies in the world last year were Pharma companies (and the first wasn't until J&J at #25). *Why is it ok for some companies to make profits but if a Pharma company does it, it is considered "greedy"* and "evil"? Shouldn't their innovation and work be rewarded? *Apple is the 2nd most profitable company in the world (with profits nearly 4x that of the highest ranking Pharma company). Yet I don't see anyone forcing or demanding that Apple lower their prices.*



Because Apple gives a lot of money to the political party which calls Pharmaceutical companies "evil" & "greedy".


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> nice 'free market' ...and yet nobody screams 'WHERE WILL WE GET THE MONEY???211/????' so taxpayers can pay to lure a for-profit enterprise to plunk a building in their particular shithole province. (not to mention all the new roads, firemen, cops needed for this new population) and what does that get you? a transient workforce that can and will be used as a bargaining chip forevermore and contributes nothing to your particular shithole province beyond buying burritos at the local chipotle et al.



Your post is virtually fully incorrect.

Ever been to North Carolina or South Carolina (or numerous other town, city, and state examples I could provide)? 

 How do you think they've completely revitalized their economies from the sorrow of 30 years ago.  By luring big companies to them, yes, (GASP) with tax advantages, usually coming to their locality from a liberal state.  

And increasingly, some liberal states have paid attention, playing defense by keeping their jobs at home by providing those same tax breaks that those Democrat politicians claim dont help.  State of New York is a perfect recent example of this.  Bausch & Lomb is still in Rochester, New York, because Chuck Shumer gave them the tax breaks that he publicly tells his Democrat voters are wasteful, corrupt, and bad.

By the way, Chipotle is a $25 BILLION company, which employs over 80,000 people, and provides health insurance to its' workforce.


----------



## NYDB (Jan 9, 2020)

Quick question for the experts here.  

Why can't Medicare and Medicaid use the VA formulary for drug prices?  VA pays 40% less.  that seems wacky to me.  Seems like an easy political fix.  I wonder who would hold that up?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> The current republican President has been one the most vocal advocate against current pricing of  drugs in the US.



Yes, he does.  And I'm no great fan of the "current Republican president", who by doing so is just (wisely unfortunately) playing to ignorant populism who knows nothing about the industry, which ABC already alluded to.  

That said, in America, he is generally an exception in his party.  It is our other party that typically demonizes pharma & biotech in a routine fashion.


----------



## abc (Jan 9, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> If Democrats win, taxpayers in New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, Montana, etc... will be paying the expenses of a financially irresponsible liberal state like New Jersey or Illinois.


New Jersey or Illinois, instead of Vermont?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2020)

abc said:


> *New Jersey or Illinois, instead of Vermont?*



Vermont has only recently (in a relative use of the word) adopted financially destructive policies.  States like New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, etc... have been practicing them for decades.  But yes, Vermont will eventually achieve economic ruin, but there are other states which will get there first.


----------



## abc (Jan 9, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Vermont has only recently (in a relative use of the word) adopted financially destructive policies.  States like New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, etc... have been practicing them for decades.  But yes, Vermont will eventually achieve economic ruin, but there are other states which will get there first.


If Michigan hasn't, New Jersey is long way down that list.

Besides, why not New York and California?


----------



## EPB (Jan 9, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> That's how it's done.   Hell, lying to supporters is 100% what the Sanders & Warren campaigns are all about.  Financially impossible promises layered on top of more literally financially impossible promises.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





BenedictGomez said:


> You keep saying this, but havent explained what you mean by it.
> 
> I have a feeling I know what you mean, and if so, it's a horrendous idea.



There are a few potential solutions I've considered that might not suck as much as what we've got. Not sure if/how they'd be possible though: EITHER set up a more utility-like pre-negotiated remuneration structure; OR figure out a way to negotiate "best pricing" clauses into contacts whereby the US automatically gets dragged along into a better deal negotiated by another country. The latter is my preferred solution. Would help keep RoW from freeloading. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 9, 2020)

abc said:


> If Michigan hasn't, New Jersey is long way down that list.
> 
> Besides, why not New York and California?



California (and I imagine NY to some extent) is an interesting situation.  When I was there a few years back I was talking with an expert on a project and his observation was quite simple:  in CA with the tech industry and Hollywood, when the economy is good, things are REALLY good there.  The State then has tons of money.  When things go south, the State goes broke.  Ideally, you'd want the State to be saving funds to use on infrastructure projects, spending, whatever when the economy is bad because of lower costs and employing people.


----------



## ghughes20 (Jan 9, 2020)

machski said:


> I have to tell you NH has a much different take on State pensions.  Now public safety workers (firefighters/police) and teacher pensions are a bit different from each other in NH.  I know the teacher side as that is what my wife does.  NH pays pensions based on your last 5 years of BASE SALARY only.  Any stipend pay for coaching, etc DOES NOT count towards pension.  Accordingly, NH teacher pensions are some of the lowest in the country.  Oh yeah, and bother teachers and safety workers have mandatory contributions they have to pay into the system as they work!
> 
> The flip side to this is, all pension systems are rated on a scale of how likely they are to meet their obligations to retirees.  Guess what, NH's system rates tops in the Nation.  Give and takes to everything.  And don't try to tell me a government can just tax its way out.  There have been some big cities that have gone bankrupt in this country due to pensions among other financial failures.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app



What you've described, ...pension based on your last 5 years BASE salary..., is know as a "defined benefit plan".  The private sector has ditched those over 30 years ago, and replaced them with "defined contribution plans"; aka 401k with company match.  

Whenever governments try to pull back defined benefit plans and have employees contribute to their own retirement, the unions explode in an uproar and government usually doesn't have the backbone to stand up to the unions.  

There is a reason why the private sector has switched to defined contribution plans.  It also puts skin in the game for employees to manage their retirement.

I'm 51 years old and have worked for 8 private sector employees and have never been eligible for a defined bene plan.  My wife did, but 8 years ago they cashed her out of that plan and her had roll over the lump sum payment into a 401k or IRA.

Things that can't go on forever, wont.  Defined benefit plans can't go on forever.  There's just too much uncertainty as to the ultimate obligation.  The private sector learned this decades ago.  Government is always slow to react.

On the bright side, looks like rain again this weekend.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 9, 2020)

ghughes20 said:


> Things that can't go on forever, wont.  Defined benefit plans can't go on forever.  There's just too much uncertainty as to the ultimate obligation.  The private sector learned this decades ago.  Government is always slow to react.


Here in CT they not only did the last 3 years top salary thing (with friendly overtime), and the full defined benefit with premium health care, _they didn't fund it for the last 30 years or so._  There is a huge reckoning coming, large deficits are the norm in a state that constitutionally requires a balanced budget, and the only solution being discussed so far is tolls on interstates.


----------



## abc (Jan 9, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> You & I are subsidizing them.    Yes, it's a problem.
> 
> And I dont know what the solution is, short of with-holding critical medications from XYZ country unless they "pay up", which is an instant PR nightmare, and a big part of the reason why phama just bows down & takes what they can get.  That doesnt happen in America.
> 
> Also, what are going to do, tell a 3rd-world nation that none of their thousands (literally) of suffering patients can have literally life-saving HIV medications because they obviously cant afford to pay for it?  Guess what, most HIV pills swallowed in Africa you're paying for here in America.  That's something you'll never here the pharma-hating politicians tell you.  Even the generic cost is more than many Africans will make in an entire year, and remember, there was a time when no generics existed.  Imagine the cost 15 years ago!


Drugs, are to some degree like computer software, books, music, movies. Once it's "created", making copies are DIRT CHEAP!

So people always screams why are the "creators" continue to receive payment well above the reproduction cost! 

Bootleg DVD/CD/books abound. People don't feel guilty making illegal copies because of that believe. 

Unlike DVD & books, drugs and computer software are often essential. So people scream the loudest on those. 

Bottom line is, the TOTAL reward, worldwide, need to be attractive for anyone to "create" a product, be it drugs or movie! 

When a drug is developed in the US, it become available to American first. When it's developed in Canada, it become available in Canada first. Lots of drugs NEVER got approved in the US because the cost of getting a drug, even though it's widely used in Canada or Europe, approved in the US is too high. (I've had to, in multiple instances, get drugs from Canada that's "not approved by FDA").  

Once the drug company kind of sort of recoup its development cost, they would sell it to African country for a song. It's a song that they otherwise won't get if they want to keep a high price worldwide. I don't see what good it would do by NOT selling at low price to poor country.


----------



## NYDB (Jan 9, 2020)

abc said:


> If Michigan hasn't, New Jersey is long way down that list.
> 
> Besides, why not New York and California?



I can't don't know about California, but NY is actually one of the best at fully funding their pension obligations.  They play games, but not as bad as some of our other neighboring states.  It is one of the reasons our property taxes are so (relatively) high.  They actually pay the bills for that.  

Kentucky actually is the worst at that by % of obligation, but Ct, Il and NJ are right up there.  NH ain't doing a great job either.


----------



## machski (Jan 9, 2020)

ghughes20 said:


> What you've described, ...pension based on your last 5 years BASE salary..., is know as a "defined benefit plan".  The private sector has ditched those over 30 years ago, and replaced them with "defined contribution plans"; aka 401k with company match.
> 
> Whenever governments try to pull back defined benefit plans and have employees contribute to their own retirement, the unions explode in an uproar and government usually doesn't have the backbone to stand up to the unions.
> 
> ...


I agree but unlike many states, NH has reduced it's guarantees in the past decade (teachers used to get pensions based off the final 3 years TOTAL compensation including stipends) and they upped the mandatory contribution by employee from IIRC 4% to 7% of pay.  I would still much rather have the state match into her 403b account, but very happy NH's pension system is the highest rated to actually meet it's obligations without that option.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## x10003q (Jan 9, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> This is going to be the next major political fight in America, and it will make Obamacare seem like patty-cake.  Sometime in the next 10 years, a liberal state is going to try to declare bankruptcy.  Democrats will be for it, Republicans will be against it.
> 
> Like Obamacare, the fight will take several years go all the way to the Supreme Court.  If Democrats win, taxpayers in New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, Montana, etc... will be paying the expenses of a financially irresponsible liberal state like New Jersey or Illinois.
> 
> You heard it here first.


Iowa, Florida, Montana are all takers and have been long Federal government takers. NJ has been one of the largest donor states for years. If NJ got some kind of equal return from the Federal govt, it would not be in such horrible financial shape. 

"The ten donor states with the largest negative balance of payments per capita (the biggest givers) are:

    Connecticut (- $4,000)
    New Jersey (- $2,368 )
    Massachusetts (- $2,343)
    New York (- $1,792)
    North Dakota (- $720)
    Illinois (- $364)
    New Hampshire (- $234)
    Washington (- $184)
    Nebraska (- $164)
    Colorado (- $95)

The ten states with the largest positive balance of payments per capita (the biggest takers) are:

    Virginia ($10,301)
    Kentucky ($9,145)
    New Mexico ($8,692)
    West Virginia ($7,283)
    Alaska ($7,048 )
    Mississippi ($6,880)
    Alabama ($6,694)
    Maryland ($6,035)
    Maine ($5,572)
    Hawaii ($5,270)"
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/donor-states/


----------



## Orca (Jan 9, 2020)




----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2020)

x10003q said:


> Iowa, Florida, Montana are all takers and have been long Federal government takers. NJ has been one of the largest donor states for years. If NJ got some kind of equal return from the Federal govt, it would not be in such horrible financial shape.



You are confusing State fiscal policy with Federal Income taxation.  It's like comparing a Ford F-150 to a Black Forest Cake.   One has little to do with the other, and the conclusion you are drawing is not correct.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2020)

abc said:


> If Michigan hasn't, New Jersey is long way down that list. Besides, why not New York and California?



AFAIK, unless things have changed for the worse recently, Michigan is pretty far down the list.  

In better financial shape than NJ, NY, CA, CT, IL, etc....


----------



## Edd (Jan 9, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> Don't always make everything about politics.



He literally seems incapable of that.


----------



## Orca (Jan 9, 2020)

"The Vermont Legislature returns in January with a long list of daunting challenges, all with potentially astronomical price tags for Vermonters, who are already some of the most highly taxed people in the United States.
...
There are only about 320,000 taxpayers in Vermont. This ever-growing burden on so few shoulders is crushing. It has to stop. It would be one thing if we were getting our money’s worth out of all this, but the existing programs outlined above, apart from being wastefully expensive, are all examples of gross mismanagement. Can we realistically expect any better from the proposed programs?"

-- Rob Roper, VTDigger, 5 January 2020


----------



## x10003q (Jan 10, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> You are confusing State fiscal policy with Federal Income taxation.  It's like comparing a Ford F-150 to a Black Forest Cake.   One has little to do with the other, and the conclusion you are drawing is not correct.



Right. Like having $2368 per capita coming back to NJ from the Federal govt would not help NJ.:-o


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 10, 2020)

Orca said:


> "The Vermont Legislature returns in January with a long list of daunting challenges, all with potentially astronomical price tags for Vermonters, who are already some of the most highly taxed people in the United States.
> ...
> There are only about 320,000 taxpayers in Vermont. This ever-growing burden on so few shoulders is crushing. It has to stop. It would be one thing if we were getting our money’s worth out of all this, but the existing programs outlined above, apart from being wastefully expensive, are all examples of gross mismanagement. Can we realistically expect any better from the proposed programs?"
> 
> -- Rob Roper, VTDigger, 5 January 2020



320,000 taxpayers.  Wow.  That is a medium-sized city at best.


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 10, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> 320,000 taxpayers.  Wow.  That is a medium-sized city at best.



That's a least a slight understatement.

There are 335-336 thousand *employed* people in Vermont according to the federal stats (https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.vt.htm). While some of them are presumably working poor and getting back their income taxes, I think it's safe to say they're all paying taxes of some sort (whether that be sales tax, property tax via rent, etc). I'd guess that retired folks are probably paying taxes, too; some will still have taxable income, and almost all of them are probably paying other-than-income taxes in some form or another.

According to Google, the state population is about 630k. 335k employed people out of 630k does sound like a lot of non-working folks, but the ratio isn't particularly different nationwide (327 million employees with a workforce about about 160 million).


----------



## Orca (Jan 10, 2020)

kbroderick said:


> That's a least a slight understatement.
> 
> There are 335-336 thousand *employed* people in Vermont according to the federal stats (https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.vt.htm). While some of them are presumably working poor and getting back their income taxes, I think it's safe to say they're all paying taxes of some sort (whether that be sales tax, property tax via rent, etc). I'd guess that retired folks are probably paying taxes, too; some will still have taxable income, and almost all of them are probably paying other-than-income taxes in some form or another.
> 
> According to Google, the state population is about 630k. 335k employed people out of 630k does sound like a lot of non-working folks, but the ratio isn't particularly different nationwide (327 million employees with a workforce about about 160 million).



2017: 318,674 Vermont personal income tax returns filed with 64,333 of them owing no tax. (Additionally, 52,047 out-of-state returns filed with 8,047 owing no tax.)

https://tax.vermont.gov/research-and-reports/statistical-data/income-tax


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 10, 2020)

Orca said:


> 2017: 318,674 Vermont personal income tax returns filed with 64,333 of them owing no tax. (Additionally, 52,047 out-of-state returns filed with 8,047 owing no tax.)
> 
> https://tax.vermont.gov/research-and-reports/statistical-data/income-tax



So about 300k people paying income tax, plus 64k people who live in Vermont and have income but do not pay any state income taxes (who presumably are participating in the economy with the untaxed income and paying other taxes). By my math, that's 364k taxpayers, which isn't quite as many as I'd expect (I do wonder how many are paying non-income taxes without filing a return), but it's still 11% more than 320k. It's still not a lot of shoulders to spread the burden for 14k miles of roads, 255 municipalities, and however many school districts.

I feel like there is more interesting info in that filing data, but I don't have the time to look at it right now.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 10, 2020)

x10003q said:


> Right. Like having $2368 per capita coming back to NJ from the Federal govt would not help NJ.:-o



Your figure could be eleventy-billion, and it still wouldn't change the fact that your conflating completely disparate issues.


----------



## Orca (Jan 10, 2020)

kbroderick said:


> By my math, that's 364k taxpayers, which isn't quite as many as I'd expect (I do wonder how many are paying non-income taxes without filing a return), but it's still 11% more than 320k..



Vermont taxpayers:     318,674 - 64,333 = 254,342
Non-Vermont taxpayers: 52,047 -  8,047 =  44,000

Total taxpayers = 298,341, not 364k.


----------



## Orca (Jan 10, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Your figure could be eleventy-billion, and it still wouldn't change the fact that your conflating completely disparate issues.







Exactly the same


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 10, 2020)

And now a bill has been introduced to lower the speed limit on 89 and 91 to 55 miles per hour.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/BILLS/H-0627/H-0627 As Introduced.pdf


----------



## Orca (Jan 10, 2020)

VTKilarney said:


> And now a bill has been introduced to lower the speed limit on 89 and 91 to 55 miles per hour.
> 
> https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/BILLS/H-0627/H-0627 As Introduced.pdf



Aimed at carbon emissions and climate change. This would have an effect on climate change too small to even attempt to quantify. Yet, Vermont's legislature voted to close the 620 megawatt Vermont Yankee nuclear plant that had zero carbon emission.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 10, 2020)

Orca said:


> Aimed at carbon emissions and climate change. This would have an effect on climate change too small to even attempt to quantify. Yet, Vermont's legislature voted to close the 620 megawatt Vermont Yankee nuclear plant that had zero carbon emission.





Silly person, they've trained drivers to drive 75mph ....Speeding ticket revenue $$$$$ !!!!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 11, 2020)

Orca said:


> Aimed at carbon emissions and climate change. This would have an effect on climate change too small to even attempt to quantify.



It's not about quantifiable mathematical reality with these people, it's about showy, public displays to demonstrate to like-minded people how wonderful they are.  

Meanwhile, with history as a guide, these hypocrites probably have huge carbon footprints.


----------



## Orca (Jan 11, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's not about quantifiable mathematical reality with these people, it's about showy, public displays to demonstrate to like-minded people how wonderful they are.
> 
> Meanwhile, with history as a guide, these hypocrites probably have huge carbon footprints.



 Agree. Virtue signaling and grandstanding.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 11, 2020)

VTKilarney said:


> And now a bill has been introduced to lower the speed limit on 89 and 91 to 55 miles per hour.
> 
> https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/BILLS/H-0627/H-0627 As Introduced.pdf



And on the WCAX FB page everyone hates the idea.  So much for making real change to improve safety and improve gas efficiency.  :lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 11, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's not about quantifiable mathematical reality with these people, it's about showy, public displays to demonstrate to like-minded people how wonderful they are.
> 
> Meanwhile, with history as a guide, these hypocrites probably have huge carbon footprints.



Bingo


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 11, 2020)

> Vermont taxpayers: 318,674 - 64,333 = 254,342
> Non-Vermont taxpayers: 52,047 - 8,047 = 44,000
> 
> Total taxpayers = 298,341, not 364k.



Just call it legislative math 

I would object to "non-Vermont taxpayers", though, as they clearly are paying taxes to Vermont. "Non-resident" is more accurate.



thetrailboss said:


> And on the WCAX FB page everyone hates the idea.  So much for making real change to improve safety and improve gas efficiency.  :lol:



You can have one or the other. Raise the limit to the 80 MPH it should be (or better yet go to no daytime limit) if you want better safety.

Of course, 80 MPH is really, really crummy for gas mileage, and "no daytime limit" is worse.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 11, 2020)

I am glad that the bill was introduced. It shows that people love to tell others that they need to change their behavior to save the planet, but they aren’t willing to make any changes to their own behavior. If anything, this bill has shown that the climate emperors have no clothes.

The solution to climate change is to evolve and adapt, just as mankind has done since the dawn of history. This fanciful idea that people will be willing to go back to the pre-industrial age is ridiculous.


----------



## Orca (Jan 11, 2020)

VTKilarney said:


> I am glad that the bill was introduced. It shows that people love to tell others that they need to change their behavior to save the planet, but they aren’t willing to make any changes to their own behavior. If anything, this bill has shown that the climate emperors have no clothes.
> 
> The solution to climate change is to evolve and adapt, just as mankind has done since the dawn of history. This fanciful idea that people will be willing to go back to the pre-industrial age is ridiculous.



Spot on.


----------



## kancamagus (Jan 11, 2020)

If they really wanted to help the environment, they’d pass a law exempting electric cars from all state and local speeding tickets.

After 12, maybe 18 month tops, there wouldn’t be a single gasoline car traveling through Bridgewater or Plymouth. Bonus points for screwing over Maplefields.


----------



## Orca (Jan 12, 2020)

I want to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I've rarely seen such quality discourse in an open forum like this. I appreciate the candid, well-considered, and very educated viewpoints that have been so thoughtfully put in to words here. Thank you for your contributions. Each voice matters. Keep articulating your good sense in any and all forums and, please, influence politics as you can. You are the voices of reason, and it falls to each individual the responsibility to advocate for better paths forward. Thank you all.


----------



## 1dog (Jan 13, 2020)

Orca said:


> I want to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I've rarely seen such quality discourse in an open forum like this. I appreciate the candid, well-considered, and very educated viewpoints that have been so thoughtfully put in to words here. Thank you for your contributions. Each voice matters. Keep articulating your good sense in any and all forums and, please, influence politics as you can. You are the voices of reason, and it falls to each individual the responsibility to advocate for better paths forward. Thank you all.



Agree Orca, just really well-thought out responses to a multi-tiered subject. And respectful diagreement is a welcome ( and much needed) attribute. 

Doing my morning due diligence to stay abreast of the news I came across these questions and thought many of you would agree with Cal Thomas:

Politicians, including the president, should be asked serious questions during this year's election campaign, instead of the media's fixation on impeachment, polls and the horse race. Here are a few that come to mind:

1. Government is bigger than ever, far larger and more intrusive than our Founders anticipated and warned us about. Nonpartisan organizations have come up with proposals to rid government of programs that have outlived their usefulness, or don't work, or never worked. Would you be willing to identify them and if elected (or re-elected) terminate them?

2. The national debt is $23 trillion and the deficit is at record highs. Everyone knows Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs are mainly responsible. There have been serious reform proposals, but politicians won't touch them for fear they will be smeared as anti-senior citizen. Do you have the courage to lead on this issue?

You can find the entire column here: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas011420.php3


----------



## NYDB (Jan 13, 2020)

1dog said:


> Agree Orca, just really well-thought out responses to a multi-tiered subject. And respectful diagreement is a welcome ( and much needed) attribute.
> 
> Doing my morning due diligence to stay abreast of the news I came across these questions and thought many of you would agree with Cal Thomas:
> 
> ...



I thought everyone knew it was because of our bloated military, endless unfunded wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and corps.

Of course, I agree medicare needs to be dealt with, but Social Security is not a problem.  Just needs a few minor tweaks to remain viable for 100's of years.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 13, 2020)

NY DirtBag said:


> I thought everyone knew it was because of our bloated military, endless unfunded wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and corps.


Bloated military?  Maybe, but they are coming off a recent period of severe austerity,(sequestration)  so much so I was reading articles on how the Airforce was scavenging engine parts from boneyards.  No doubt there's a few $10,000 hammers out there.  Wars haven't exactly been endless, although Afghanistan is an outlier.  But I'm here for that last comment.

Tax breaks,  especially those for corporations, are designed for a reason.  It isn't dollars from heaven.  It's to be competitive with other countries, so jobs don't go to Ireland or so investment and risk taking is encouraged and taxes are deferred, not eliminated.  I read a FB post recently that asked why Chevron, among other companies, didn't pay any taxes in 2018.   So I looked up their annual report, and listed as the prime reason was accelerated depreciation on exploration expenses.  That means that with the high risk of looking for oil, (because frequently you don't find it where you drill) you can deduct those costs faster than other capital assets that need to be expensed over 5 to 20 years.  This encourages more exploration, increases production, and gets you a dependable flow of 87 octane so you can drive north to go skiing on the weekend.  You benefit.  Chevron will still pay taxes on their profits, they just get to recognize and deduct the huge checks they wrote for drill rigs in 2018 - that's hard cash that went out of their checkbook.  You would rather we had much less drilling, much less oil, more dependency on the Middle East, $5.00/gal gas and less profits down the road by domestic oil production to provide tax revenue?

It's easy to demonize an evil corporation for making money, for taking advantage of incentives, especially when big companies measure profits in Billions.  They also provide huge output.  Look at profit per gallon, or profit per share.  It isn't very much.

Sure, I question some high salaries and bonuses.  I question "too big to fail".  I question the lack of anti-trust regulation in many industries.  But you can't demonize success.  You can't demonize risk taking.   You can't encourage investment  through tax policy, and then demonize the tax deferred results.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 13, 2020)

Our military spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than average, but far from the highest.  We are roughly 25th.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 13, 2020)

NY DirtBag said:


> I thought everyone knew it was because of our bloated military, endless unfunded wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and corps.



I like the current policy of getting people off entitlement programs and avoiding/withdrawing from conflicts, meanwhile moving toward full spectrum dominance (ie Space Force) and energy independence.

Nobody wants to see the military buying $100,000 toilets but I think handing Iran $150,000,000,000 [and other wasteful aid to corrupt foreign gov and NGOs] might have been even a bigger problem.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 13, 2020)

NY DirtBag said:


> I thought everyone knew it was *because of our bloated military, endless unfunded wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and corps.*



LOL.     And so much of what you apparently "know" is propaganda.  

Military spending?   Yes, it's high.   But it's not largely responsible for our debt.

Tax breaks for the wealthy (pure propaganda you've swallowed) & corporations? Allowing people & entities to keep more of the money *THEY EARNED* has never contributed 1 penny to the national debt.

The debt we have is because America has a spending problem, not because America has a, _"we didnt take enough of people's lawful  money" _problem.  And the single largest driver of American debt is healthcare expense, so yes, he's correct & you are wrong.

EDIT:

Oh, and Social Security is the most financially destructive program in the history of America. Just a total nightmare.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 13, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> LOL.     And so much of what you apparently "know" is propaganda.
> 
> Military spending?   Yes, it's high.   But it's not largely responsible for our debt.
> 
> ...



As a Canadian, I find your arguments utterly fascinating.  You must think of Canada as an absolute failure since we obviously got it all wrong.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 13, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> As a Canadian, I find your arguments utterly fascinating.  You must think of Canada as an absolute failure since we obviously got it all wrong.



Well, you guys love electing leaders who think that blackface is cool.


----------



## 1dog (Jan 14, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> As a Canadian, I find your arguments utterly fascinating.  You must think of Canada as an absolute failure since we obviously got it all wrong.


  Not a failure - you get to do it the way you think is right - but your country did make a change to healthcare laws 20 or so years ago because a lot of Canadians ' got ill' in NY state or Florida just by chance. . . .  last count there were 38 million Canadians. . . . 90% or so living within 100 miles of the US border. . .  .is that just because of rivers, lakes and access to commerce? Maybe. We welcome great neighbors like you. . . .  not better friends in WWII and other conflicts. . . .  we just have 10X the people, far more diverse, and have a somewhat more free market, with slightly less taxation.

As for military spending - its actually one thing the Framers wanted and expected government to do -protect us, defend us against all enemies, foreign and domestic -  not become a broken pension fund for the masses. . . . . one ( once again) that the goverment officials. . . .  do not partake in. Why is that?


----------



## EPB (Jan 14, 2020)

VTKilarney said:


> Well, you guys love electing leaders who think that blackface is cool.


Ha - I knew that was coming eventually. I'm sure the Arabian Nights parties are WAY better in Canada. What a sanctimonious hypocrite Trudeau is. 

I love Canada, don't get me wrong. I've been about 30 times all over the place. The US is a freer more prosperous country than Canada. We also stole less land and oil per capita from the indigenous population than Canada did, so they must really be doing something wrong economically. They should be at least a decade ahead of us in terms of GDP/capita.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## EPB (Jan 14, 2020)

Also, I know this really shouldn't matter, but what type of p-word country has another country's Queen on their forget currency? 

Totally happy you guys are up there doing things the way you want to do them. Don't envy you in the sightest.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 14, 2020)

VTKilarney said:


> Well, you guys love electing leaders who think that blackface is cool.



I'm no big fan of our insignificant prime Minister, but dressing as Aladin for an 'oriental nights' themed party hardly qualifies as blackface.  Blame it on extreme political correctness.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 14, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> Ha - I knew that was coming eventually. I'm sure the Arabian Nights parties are WAY better in Canada. What a sanctimonious hypocrite Trudeau is.
> 
> I love Canada, don't get me wrong. I've been about 30 times all over the place. The US is a freer more prosperous country than Canada. We also stole less land and oil per capita from the indigenous population than Canada did, so they must really be doing something wrong economically. They should be at least a decade ahead of us in terms of GDP/capita.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app



Just for the record, I'm not implying that Canada got it all right (it certainly does not).  What I find fascinating is the polarization of ideas in the US.   In Canada, we have a centrist party, a centrist party slightly to the right and a centrist party slightly to the left.  There is no widespread debate on military spending and entitlement programs.


----------



## EPB (Jan 14, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> Just for the record, I'm not implying that Canada got it all right (it certainly does not).  What I find fascinating is the polarization of ideas in the US.   In Canada, we have a centrist party, a centrist party slightly to the right and a centrist party slightly to the left.  There is no widespread debate on military spending and entitlement programs.


I hear you. In full disclosure, I'd be much happier with less oscillation between poles than what we have. Give me a rotation of Bloomberg and Romney types any day. There are a number of factors that go into it here. 

The primary system encourages policians to focus on their bases which pull conversations further to the left/right than necessary. 

Our third parties are either farther away from center (Green), or getting way too theoretical and losing the forest through the trees (Libertarian). Both run D-level candidates because that's likely the best they can do. 

The media doesn't help. Fox cracked the code that you make more money if you keep your viewers riled up and watching longer. MSNBC and CNN followed suit. Those "newsrooms" are rife with hacks and Americans are right not to trust them.

Social media has certainly made it worse. I assume that can be said everywhere though.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 14, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> I hear you. In full disclosure, I'd be much happier with less oscillation between poles than what we have. Give me a rotation of Bloomberg and Romney types any day. There are a number of factors that go into it here.
> 
> The primary system encourages policians to focus on their bases which pull conversations further to the left/right than necessary.
> 
> ...




Part of my fascination is with the absence of a third 'middle-ground' party.   It's not clear to me why the emergence of a third credible is so complex in the US.   The polarization is so great that it's also my understanding that most US citizen will vote GOP or Democrats for their entire life.  In Canada, most people I know have at one point voted Conservative, Liberals and NDP.  Heck, it's not uncommon to vote Conservative at the Federal level and Liberal at the Provincial elections a fw months later.

As to medias, I do watch CNN and FOX but exclusively for entertainment purposes.  They are both covering alternate realities.  Really fascinating.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 14, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> Part of my fascination is with the absence of a third 'middle-ground' party.   It's not clear to me why the emergence of a third credible is so complex in the US.   The polarization is so great that it's also my understanding that most US citizen will vote GOP or Democrats for their entire life.  In Canada, most people I know have at one point voted Conservative, Liberals and NDP.  Heck, it's not uncommon to vote Conservative at the Federal level and Liberal at the Provincial elections a fw months later.
> 
> As to medias, I do watch CNN and FOX but exclusively for entertainment purposes.  They are both covering alternate realities.  Really fascinating.



I fail to understand either how we have yet to come up with a "centrist" party of some sort (actually the real answer on why is probably too much money involved from both the far left and far right to let it happen). I guarantee there are many people (including myself) that would be right there voting for that party a good chunk of the time.


----------



## machski (Jan 14, 2020)

Count me in on the centrist ideal.  I hate the choices I have to make.  Fiscal concerns are my top priority and alignment to Republican ideals in this topic currently seals me into this side.  I hate it though because when it comes to social issues (personal liberty type things, not entitlement programs), I am diametrically opposed to the GOO religious conservatism ways (I take the NH motto to heart!).  I'd like a party that blends these two ideals but that just doesn't exist as yet.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (Jan 14, 2020)

cdskier said:


> I fail to understand either how we have yet to come up with a "centrist" party of some sort (actually the real answer on why is probably too much money involved from both the far left and far right to let it happen). I guarantee there are many people (including myself) that would be right there voting for that party a good chunk of the time.


Bloomberg? His NYC mayor record is a fiscal conservative and social liberal.

(but he chose to run as a D  )


----------



## cdskier (Jan 14, 2020)

I find the "isidewith.com" website always interesting. Based on your answer to various issues, it will show you how well you align with different candidates and show you where you fall on the overall ideological spectrum (I'm a "right leaning libertarian centrist"). Not uncommon for the "top" candidate that most closely aligns to my values to only be at around 60-65% or so in common with me.


----------



## EPB (Jan 14, 2020)

cdskier said:


> I find the "isidewith.com" website always interesting. Based on your answer to various issues, it will show you how well you align with different candidates and show you where you fall on the overall ideological spectrum (I'm a "right leaning libertarian centrist"). Not uncommon for the "top" candidate that most closely aligns to my values to only be at around 60-65% or so in common with me.



I presume I would come out similarly. Will need to check this out.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 14, 2020)

https://www.politicalcompass.org/   is another good one which IMO shows more relevant political polarities, "Economic Left vs Economic Right" and also "Authoritarian vs Libertarian" tendencies on the Left and Right.

on this test I place just slightly right and slightly libertarian, but for all practical purposes a bullseye on being a "moderate".

Which makes sense as I'm an Independent and generally find partisanship annoying.

That said I'm a pretty big fan of Trump and the policies of his administration. I think Trump and MAGA populism already represents a "3rd party". At least this is leading to a reform of the Republican party, which is no longer controlled by Neocons.

So the political re-alignment is happening. Leaving us with 3 primary groups:

NeoCons and NeoLiberals: Now finding they agree with each other in continuing to sabotage the country for the sake of globalism and criminality.

Socialists/Anarchists: Fortunately the smallest group, but large enough to screw over the Dems and cause a party split

MAGA Populists: Anti-globalist conservatives, libertarians, moderates and classical liberals tired of the excesses of recent "liberalism" and now joined together in the largest coalition


----------



## EPB (Jan 14, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> https://www.politicalcompass.org/   is another good one which IMO shows more relevant political polarities, "Economic Left vs Economic Right" and also "Authoritarian vs Libertarian" tendencies on the Left and Right.
> 
> on this test I place just slightly right and slightly libertarian, but for all practical purposes a bullseye on being a "moderate".
> 
> ...


Way adrift if the topic, but he doesn't fit well into the classical US buckets despite the desire to label him as far right and overtly Republican. He's much more interventionalist in the economy than the Romney/Ryan archetypes. Also, he can't seem to figure out if he's isolationist or not. Same can be said for criminal justice. On one hand, he's "law and order" in others, he's working to shorten sentences with the Kardashians. I guess that's what we get when we don't have idealogues in office. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (Jan 14, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> Way adrift if the topic, but he doesn't fit well into the classical US buckets despite the desire to label him as far right and overtly Republican. He's much more interventionalist in the economy than the Romney/Ryan archetypes. Also, *he can't seem to figure out* if he's isolationist or not. Same can be said for criminal justice. On one hand, he's "law and order" in others, he's working to shorten sentences with the Kardashians. I guess that's what we get when we don't have idealogues in office.


Trump isn't any 'ism' because he doesn't know what he's doing. 

He does what makes the biggest headline. 

Whether it's good or bad for the country, now or down the road, doesn't appear to concern him.

He's not that bad. If you read all the comments right here in this thread, you see a lot of people who can point out what's wrong with our current situation (economical or social), but their solution wouldn't work. That's Trump. 

The fact people want to elect such a know-nothing guy to be the president is a lot more worrisome to me than Donald Trump the guy getting a second term.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 14, 2020)

abc said:


> Trump isn't any 'ism' because he doesn't know what he's doing.



Transparently false statement to say a man with a life of high success, now President, with economy way up, no new wars, and looking likely to wipe the floor with any opponent in 2020 "doesn't know what he's doing".



abc said:


> The fact people want to elect such a know-nothing guy to be the  president is a lot more worrisome to me than Donald Trump the guy  getting a second term.



oh, boo hoo


----------



## EPB (Jan 14, 2020)

abc said:


> Trump isn't any 'ism' because he doesn't know what he's doing.
> 
> He does what makes the biggest headline.
> 
> Whether it's good or bad for the country, now or down the road, doesn't appear to concern him.


There are two types of vehement anti-Trumpers: those that think he's an idiot and those who think he's a conniving Machiavellian genius (see: Russia/Ukraine conspiracies). Clearly you fall in the former camp.

There are a lot of things he does that are out of my wheelhouse, but he's been consistently correct on China since before I was born. Chuck Schumer and Andrew Yang (at the very least) agree although they'd never say it bluntly because that's not how our politics work.

He's also clearly a marketing mind first, and even if you hate him, it would be silly not to acknowledge he played the press masterfully in 2015/2016. That's not an endorsement, but it's the truth.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (Jan 14, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> a man with a life of high success


So why doesn't he want his tax return published? 

Because he isn't really a "success"! 

That's without counting how that not-so-high "success" is build on. The very thing many people thought are the cause of the problem this country faces. Ironic.


----------



## abc (Jan 14, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> There are two types of vehement anti-Trumpers: those that think he's an idiot and those who think he's a conniving Machiavellian genius (see: Russia/Ukraine conspiracies). Clearly you fall in the former camp.


I wouldn't use the word "idiot". 

All presidents came into their job _not _knowing everything they need to know to run the country. But all of them will learn by choosing the right support people and listening to them. Trump choose a collection of idiots as his "team". And the few who actually have the skill, he ignore their advice. 

He's not an "idiot". He can be smart when he wants to. My problem with him is he's putting his smart on being popular and boasting his ego. AND NOTHING ELSE.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 14, 2020)

abc said:


> So why doesn't he want his tax return published?



because not enough people care for it to matter and it makes his opponents look petty and irrational to always harass the President over one thing or another when the country is doing well

Also it would be pretty funny when they do get released and it turns out he wasn't a actually secret fake-billionaire as the liberal conspiracy theory goes from my understanding of it.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 14, 2020)

abc said:


> So why doesn't he want his tax return published?
> 
> Because he isn't really a "success"!
> 
> That's without counting how that not-so-high "success" is build on. The very thing many people thought are the cause of the problem this country faces. Ironic.



Because there is no upside.  No doubt he has taken advantage of various deductions and has some grey areas he is in negotiation with the IRS over.  How much he donates would be fodder for criticism no matter what the amount.  Or who he donated to.  Or how this foundation got more than that one.  It's all grist for his opponents with no upside.

The guy has his own personal 757.  What kind of airplane do you have to have to be able to call yourself a success?  (Not that that matters much to me, but it does to you for some reason.)


----------



## abc (Jan 14, 2020)

mister moose said:


> Because there is no upside.


There's no upside FOR HIM, of course. 

There's never any upside for ANY president. But they all did. Why? Because people demands it. 

But hey, according to tuna, "not enough people care about it"! Heha. How many is "enough"? Perhaps all those who didn't elect him (which is over 50%) is still "not enough"?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 14, 2020)

abc said:


> But hey, according to tuna, "not enough people care about it"! Heha.



Not enough to change the upcoming election results. Certainly exactly zero people who voted for him or will vote for him in 2020 care about his tax returns. Unless your TDS is so strong you think he won't win again by a larger margin this time around.

When your greatest hope is Hillary Clinton jumping in during a brokered convention, tough situation!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 14, 2020)

abc said:


> So why doesn't he want his tax return published?   Because he isn't really a "success"!



To claim Donald Trump hasn't been a "success" in life belies an illogical hatred for the man.


----------



## EPB (Jan 14, 2020)

abc said:


> There's no upside FOR HIM, of course.
> 
> There's never any upside for ANY president. But they all did. Why? Because people demands it.
> 
> But hey, according to tuna, "not enough people care about it"! Heha. How many is "enough"? Perhaps all those who didn't elect him (which is over 50%) is still "not enough"?


I think a better way of putting it is that it's something the lefty media will try to turn into a scandal (making asinine claims about how he's deeply compromised by XYZ entity because he owes them money and he sold therefore be investigated and impeached). 

Half the country will buy it, half won't, we really be no better informed for it (I bet he's very rich, but about half as rich as he says - surely he makes aggressive use of deductions, too. That wouldn't surprise anyone.), and it will waste everyone's time and energy. 

Seriously, what good is it for besides providing fodder? You're totally rational as a lefty to want it, but I'm highly dubious it will do anything but drive negative news coverage that half the country will ignore.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Jan 14, 2020)

abc said:


> There's no upside FOR HIM, of course.
> 
> There's never any upside for ANY president. But they all did. Why? Because people demands it.



Not quite sure I understand why people get to "demand" something that is private. His tax returns are none of my business. I have absolutely nothing to hide yet wouldn't release mine either. Just because others were foolish enough to release private details of their personal life does not mean everyone going forward should as well.

The expectation that just because someone runs for a public office means they should be forced to open up all aspects of their private lift is just bizarre.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Jan 14, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Transparently false statement to say a man with a life of high success, now President, with economy way up, no new wars, and looking likely to wipe the floor with any opponent in 2020 "doesn't know what he's doing".


  Anyone who's taken even the most basic political science classes knows that the success or failure of the first term of any president is carryover from the policies of his predecessor.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 14, 2020)

ThinkSnow said:


> Anyone who's taken even the most basic political science classes knows that the success or failure of the first term of any president is carryover from the policies of his predecessor.



That's too simplistic to be correct as a general rule, and as a concept it's also a recent invention by liberals trying to deny Trump credit. I never heard any such thing in even mid-level Poli Sci classes taught by leftists. Even if it was this would be an exception. Since Trump's 1st term has largely been about undoing and reversing Obama policies (starting with incredibly unpopular policies like giving Iran $150,000,000,000 so they could build nukes , or making people pay a tax penalty for not purchasing health insurance, or giving money to foreign countries to pay for their abortions), it's pretty clear Trump isn't riding anyone's coat tails. Foreign policy likewise has been completely reversed in many ways, and despite the cries of those claiming Trump is starting WW3, it does appear to be the opposite case.


----------



## EPB (Jan 14, 2020)

ThinkSnow said:


> Anyone who's taken even the most basic political science classes knows that the success or failure of the first term of any president is carryover from the policies of his predecessor.


You've got a lot to learn if you can't put this together:

Anti-business policy leads to very slow recoveries (see 1930s and 2009-2016). 

Everyone becomes more optimistic when pro-business policies are pursued creating a virtuous cycle whereby people invest more (in capex), employ more and the economy grows more quickly (see 1980s and present).

Trying to ignore this by hiding behind nebulous claims your political science 101 professor made is leading you to miss the forest though the trees. This isn't that complicated.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 14, 2020)

ThinkSnow said:


> Anyone who's taken even the most basic political science classes knows that *the success or failure of the first term of any president is carryover from the policies of his predecessor.*




First TERM?!?!?!   

 The oft-repeated political claim you've heard (and bumbled), which holds some truth, is the first "year", not the entire first term.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 14, 2020)

What was this thread originally about again?


----------



## mister moose (Jan 14, 2020)

ThinkSnow said:


> Anyone who's taken even the most basic political science classes knows that the success or failure of the first term of any president is carryover from the policies of his predecessor.



Gerald Ford.
Jimmy Carter.

I don't see any redemption in your Poly Sci 101 course.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 14, 2020)

cdskier said:


> What was this thread originally about again?



Failed liberal economic policy in Vermont

This really isn't much of a tangent..


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 14, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> You've got a lot to learn if you can't put this together:
> 
> Anti-business policy leads to very slow recoveries (see 1930s and 2009-2016).
> 
> ...



Ultimately, Presidents have limited control on the economy.   Trump's economy is pretty much following the trends of Obama's economy so suggesting that 2009-2016 was a period of slow-growth compared to Trump's first mandate is just not supported by numbers.

See for example:

https://www.businessinsider.com/9-c...-has-gotten-larger-in-the-last-couple-years-9


----------



## EPB (Jan 14, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> Ultimately, Presidents have limited control on the economy.   Trump's economy is pretty much following the trends of Obama's economy so suggesting that 2009-2016 was a period of slow-growth compared to Trump's first mandate is just not supported by numbers.
> 
> See for example:
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/9-c...-has-gotten-larger-in-the-last-couple-years-9



Agree on the point about presidents having limited impact, which is why I oversimplify to pro or anti business. Technology is the biggest driver of increased GDP per capita, not who's president.

This article is a bit of a red herring. I agree with them that Trump's trade imbalance mumbo jumbo is all wrong, but the economy has grown faster than anyone expected - especially this late in the cycle. While there are some dubious reasons for this (low rates, high government spend), we saw private capital pour into the economy after his election, higher growth than Obama thought possible, and more employment.

We should really be paying down federal debt right now, not that anyone should care what I have to say about it.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 14, 2020)

Federal Debt could be paid off via asset forfeiture of everyone involved with Jeffery Epstein.


----------



## abc (Jan 14, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> Technology is the biggest driver of increased GDP per capita, not who's president.


Agree. 



> We should really be paying down federal debt right now, not that anyone should care what I have to say about it.


So with such "good" economy, there should be good tax revenue. Why aren't the federal debt not going down? Like during the Clinton years? (Regan also preside over an expanding economy, but somehow he managed to left office with a huge deficit :roll


----------



## EPB (Jan 14, 2020)

abc said:


> Agree.
> 
> 
> So with such "good" economy, there should be good tax revenue. Why aren't the federal debt not going down? Like during the Clinton years? (Regan also preside over an expanding economy, but somehow he managed to left office with a huge deficit :roll


It's a spending problem. It's easier to rubber stamp more spending than shut down the government. This is my biggest complaint about him. I'd figure a true world class negotiator would do better. He seems perfectly fine to keep the spending going, too because it adds more sugar to the economy in the short run, too. That speaks to bigger issues with leaders prioritizing the short run over the long run though.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 14, 2020)

Clintonomics was great unless you work in manufacturing sector or owned a retail establishment. Another example of Trump policies being a reversal rather than a continuation of previous policy. The alternative would have been TPP which looked like NAFTA on steroids.


----------



## abc (Jan 14, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> It's a spending problem. It's easier to rubber stamp more spending than shut down the government. This is my biggest complaint about him. I'd figure a true world class negotiator would do better. He seems perfectly fine to keep the spending going, too because it adds more sugar to the economy in the short run, too. That speaks to bigger issues with leaders prioritizing the short run over the long run though.


Not making tough choices. Not looking at the long term. 

You and I could do that! :roll: Heck, even the neighborhood drug addict can do that!


----------



## abc (Jan 14, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Clintonomics was great unless you work in manufacturing sector or owned a retail establishment.


Give it 10-20 years, you'll be saying that about Trump: "unless you work in high-tech, export, renewable energy..."


----------



## 1dog (Jan 14, 2020)

abc said:


> Agree.
> 
> 
> So with such "good" economy, there should be good tax revenue. Why aren't the federal debt not going down? Like during the Clinton years? (Regan also preside over an expanding economy, but somehow he managed to left office with a huge deficit :roll



Too much to follow but so entertaining.

In no specific order - we had a 3rd party and that was the ONLY reason Billary got elected - Perot took 19% then 12% and HW Bush would have won the '92 election - Thats  one reason why the third party doesn't get traction.
Bill was the only Pres to get elected without a majority - until Trump I believe.

Clinton had the spending part of our government - the only pnes charged with spending  - House of Reps - after Clinton hiked taxes - after he lied about  ( place his sorry-ass voice in here: I ; I didn;t know the economy was so bad until, until I got into office - its much worse - we need to get back on track.') So he raised them on everyone - luxury tax too - putting amongh others boat builders out of business with a 30% luxury tax that had to be recinded) Newt and company were the 1st fiscally conservative House elected in FORTY YEARS - and THEY controlled spending - and like a good pol - He took credit - he also sook credit for the 1st large entitlement reform w welfare. . . after he vetoed it  twice, then realized they had override votes, signed it, it was a huge success then he took credit. Obamanation btw - gutted the work requirement w executive order soon as he got in - hence more on dole w no accoutability to get off the dole.

Reagan, over doubled the income to the country with his two tax cuts - '82 and '86- and congress passed it out like candy - was  - get this - in 1980 - $900 million - came close to $2.something B by time he left office - and yes the next admin did benefit from that booming economy - he screwed it by 'read my lips' and when the Dems promised to  cut spending if he gave them the cuts - of course they never followed thru.

Reagan alos won the cold war without a shot - ( that we know if anyway) he outspent the USSR and actually had to rebuild the military anyway from the 70's cuts, same with Trump. I hate excess spending - disagree w Trump that it is going on - but thats the one areas we need national action. All others are not part of a small, govvernment of the people.  

Said before since 2014 every quarter has seen record income to the federal govermnent - its a spending problem not an income problem.



Bet most of us here believe - left or right - each of us are better at deciding how to appropriate our own earned income than state or federal  governments are. Its just truth. If you don't believe so - there is a place on the 1040 form that allows extra contributions to the Treasury. 

Tax returns are private - its been well-documented the people who  lean  right have more charitable  giving than left side - recall Gore or Biden or Clinton used  underwear listed on tax returns.


If you are a true conservative, you try to keep spending low and make your job less and less important ( if a pol). On the other side the largest employer in the world - filled with Dems and Repubs - is the federal government. Central planning doesn't work well nor can it be efficient in its allocation of capital.


He;s not coming to Thanksgiving Dinner, but almost all aspects of life are better and staying that way - I didn't support him in primaries but will now and as mentioned before - Donald Duck will be a better choice that any on the left ( If Doomberg is so moderate, why is he promising to throw his money to anyone opposing Trump?) Not conservative or moderate.



Low unemployment, getting out of  middle east ( the biggest reason is Energy Dept who came up with fracking has made us not need that oil or gas) energy independent! How comforting. ( No  one on earth is going to pump oil or gas as clean as we are doing it either)

I don't get the criminal thing - pot sellers - sure - look at NYC and the $1500 bail? Oh boy!


I'll take deregulation of banks too - let them loose money and we won't bail them out. 

Its hard to believe how  consequential he has been. Who knew? Framers had this thing right - good or bad - 4 or 8 years. Thats what China is waiting for. . . . . . . . meanwhile he's exactly right on them as well. 

He is not conservative so much as common sense. And every president should want the best 1st for their  country. Call me a deplorable.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 14, 2020)

1dog said:


> Too much to follow but so entertaining.
> Bill was the only Pres to get elected without a majority - until Trump I believe.



Dubya did not win his first popular vote.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 14, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> Dubya did not win his first popular vote.



You could say he did with voters that have a pulse . Total votes no . 

These two electoral victories in the last 2 decades can be seen as proof that there is a god and he has a sense of humor.


----------



## Edd (Jan 14, 2020)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> You could say he did with voters that have a pulse . Total votes no.



Popular vote, he lost. Not sure what you mean.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 14, 2020)

Edd said:


> Popular vote, he lost. Not sure what you mean.



Lots of people who vote Republican all there lives manage to vote Democrat after they die . It was a tongue and cheek attempt at humor . Big cities are where you find voter fraud problems.


----------



## Edd (Jan 14, 2020)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Lots of people who vote Republican all there lives manage to vote Democrat after they die . It was a tongue and cheek attempt at humor . Big cities are where you find voter fraud problems.



From what credible source did you hear this?


----------



## EPB (Jan 14, 2020)

Edd said:


> From what credible source did you hear this?



Probably from the polar opposite of the sources that claim voters who look a certain way are being surpressed because they don't have ID and are wage earners that work 12+ hours straight when the polls are open. Our election procedures could certainly use improvement to raise confidence. The process is secretive and decentralized to the extent that there is reason to wonder if thumbs are on the scales in both directions. 

It's rife for conspiracies, which have run rampant in both directions. 



Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Jan 14, 2020)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Lots of people who vote Republican all there lives manage to vote Democrat after they die . It was a tongue and cheek attempt at humor . Big cities are where you find voter fraud problems.





Edd said:


> From what credible source did you hear this?



It absolutely happens. Does it happen a lot? Maybe. Maybe not. The problem is we have no idea whether it is a legitimate problem or not because some people are so resistant to any sort of voting reform or checks. Doesn't even have to be dead people voting. It would be insanely easy in my town to vote as someone else since there's no ID required. All you would have to do is know a registered voter's name and what polling location they would be assigned. The book of registered voters simply has a name and a signature. In theory the signature I sign with should match what is in the book (although mine today looks nothing like what they have on file in the book so obviously they don't care or look).

There was also a case in the news in NJ recently where some developer was actually caught paying people for their ballots (or for them to vote for whoever he told them to): https://www.nj.com/hudson/2019/06/jury-finds-hoboken-developer-guilty-in-cash-for-votes-scheme.html

And just because this particular example happens to be of Dems doing it doesn't mean I think it never happens on the other side. I'm sure Repubs are guilty as well. Bottom line is our system has no where near enough integrity.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 14, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> Probably from the polar opposite of the sources that claim voters who look a certain way are being surpressed because they don't have ID and are wage earners that work 12+ hours straight when the polls are open. Our election procedures could certainly use improvement to raise confidence. The process is secretive and decentralized to the extent that there is reason to wonder if thumbs are on the scales in both directions.
> 
> It's rife for conspiracies, which have run rampant in both directions.
> 
> ...



Well said ! Paper ballots with a printed receipt when you leave !!!!

Video of Bernie getting the shaft from the most honest City in the US  .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y30EUNvrIjU


----------



## Orca (Jan 14, 2020)

Holy crap! Watching the Democratic debate and it's just like an SNL parody. Doubt anyone but Klobuchar could win the general election.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 14, 2020)

There is no perfect voting system.  There will always be fraud whether it be illegitimate votes or the capacity to vote being surpressed.  

Voter fraud happens everywhere in the world.  

Knowing there is some problem in the USA; I ask, do you really believe this fraud has a major impact on our country's direction today? How about 30 years ago? Or 50?  Are we better now or back then?

I'd also be curious to hear from people with  voter fraud concerns, examples of countries they think have better election integrity than the US and why?  




Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Jan 14, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> There is no perfect voting system.  There will always be fraud whether it be illegitimate votes or the capacity to vote being surpressed.
> 
> Voter fraud happens everywhere in the world.
> 
> ...



Even if there is no perfect system, that doesn’t mean you don’t look for opportunities to improve what you have.

Do I believe fraud has an impact? No idea. and that’s the problem. 

To be blunt, I don’t care about voting around the world. Don’t know enough about others to know whether it is better or not. But that is irrelevant. Even if ours is the best, that doesn’t mean we should leave it at that when we know it has flaws. Even the best system can still always be better. Let’s use something else as an example. If the best drug in the world for treating some particular diseases is only mediocre and only helps partially, does that mean the company producing that drug should stop additional research into treatments for that disease since they already have the best one? No. They should continue to research to find something better. Even if they only beat their own drug, it is still absolutely worth it. What other companies are doing is irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Edd (Jan 14, 2020)

cdskier said:


> Even if there is no perfect system, that doesn’t mean you don’t look for opportunities to improve what you have.
> 
> Do I believe fraud has an impact? No idea. and that’s the problem.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



Are you similarly concerned about voter suppression?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 15, 2020)

cdskier said:


> Even if there is no perfect system, that doesn’t mean you don’t look for opportunities to improve what you have.
> 
> Do I believe fraud has an impact? No idea. and that’s the problem.
> 
> ...


Well, you've kind of made my point.  If you don't know the impact of voter fraud, how do you know that the changes you implement will result in more free, open and accurate elections?   If you don't know of systems that are better than ours, what do you model these improvements after?

I'm not saying don't look for opportunities to improve, but if you can't accurately quantify the problem, then you can't accurately define what an improvement would look like. 



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Jan 15, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm not saying don't look for opportunities to improve, but if you can't accurately quantify the problem, then you can't accurately define what an improvement would look like.



How do you accurately quantify a problem that people refuse to put any effort into determining how widespread it is? The numerous examples of voter fraud should be sufficient to say that there IS a problem that needs further investigation.

It also isn't my job or responsibility to determine HOW to fix it.

I do however think simply requiring some form of ID is a very simple solution that would at least somewhat help eliminate basic fraud. And no, I don't think a requirement for an ID should suppress any legitimate votes.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 15, 2020)

Re: Trump releasing his tax returns.



abc said:


> There's no upside FOR HIM, of course.
> 
> There's never any upside for ANY president. But they all did. *Why? Because people demands it.*



Trump has proven your statement to be patently false.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 15, 2020)

cdskier said:


> I do however think simply requiring some form of ID is a very simple solution that would at least somewhat help eliminate basic fraud. And no, I don't think a requirement for an ID should suppress any legitimate votes.








Voter ID ...Who's the racist ????


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 15, 2020)

cdskier said:


> How do you accurately quantify a problem that people refuse to put any effort into determining how widespread it is? The numerous examples of voter fraud should be sufficient to say that there IS a problem that needs further investigation.
> 
> It also isn't my job or responsibility to determine HOW to fix it.
> 
> I do however think simply requiring some form of ID is a very simple solution that would at least somewhat help eliminate basic fraud. And no, I don't think a requirement for an ID should suppress any legitimate votes.



Well, there's been ample opportunity for leaders of any political persuasion over the years to investigate these things.  The current President claims he only lost California and New York because of fraud.   That's a HUGE claim.  Why hasn't this been investigated thoroughly?  

What's worse, the actual problem or politicians planting the seed in people's heads that we have this great problem and doing so creates voter apathy? They no longer bother voting because they don't believe their vote counts.   Personally, I'd say we have a bigger problem with lack of voter turnout than actual fraud. 


Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## EPB (Jan 15, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> There is no perfect voting system.  There will always be fraud whether it be illegitimate votes or the capacity to vote being surpressed.
> 
> Voter fraud happens everywhere in the world.
> 
> ...


No. I should have mentioned that earlier. You'd be crazy to think it hasn't happened with the volume of elections and officials that have worked them. On the flip side, I'd be surprised if true needle-moving fraud has happened and gone totally undetected. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Jan 15, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> Well, there's been ample opportunity for leaders of any political persuasion over the years to investigate these things.


Agreed. I think all parties know it happens and are afraid to fully expose this, hence they just claim fraud but do nothing to investigate it



> The current President claims he only lost California and New York because of fraud.   That's a HUGE claim.  Why hasn't this been investigated thoroughly?



No idea, although he says a lot of crazy things so people are quick to brush it off and ignore it. Even if there was fraud in those 2 places, highly unlikely it would make a difference in his election with how deep blue those 2 states are.



> What's worse, the actual problem or politicians planting the seed in people's heads that we have this great problem and doing so creates voter apathy? They no longer bother voting because they don't believe their vote counts.   Personally, I'd say we have a bigger problem with lack of voter turnout than actual fraud.



I also agree that voter turnout is unfortunately low and a bigger problem. Doesn't mean we can't work to address both issues though.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 15, 2020)

I am in the school of thought that every last individual should have a government administered ID that has some form of chip that contains a persons confirmed identity via eye scan, fingerprint or whatever type of technology that can securely prove that you are actually you.  This would solve a ton of issues.  You need to have this to vote, collect any type of benefits, prove citizenship, collect pay, enter airports, enter government builds, etc.  Everything.  This will then stop all the BS of people bitching about fraud or tampered election results or people getting some benefit they are not deserved.  I have nothing to hide and will be the first to sign up.  I am sure that there will be a ton of people with that Big Brother watching us paranoia that will hate this.  I say those people have something to hide.


----------



## Edd (Jan 15, 2020)

Hawk said:


> I am sure that there will be a ton of people with that Big Brother watching us paranoia that will hate this.  I say those people have something to hide.



I’ve met a couple of people who won’t even get an EZ Pass due to privacy concerns, which I found hilarious. Yes, what you describe would be a tough sell, to put it mildly.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 15, 2020)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Voter ID ...Who's the racist ????



Yup. Nothing at all surprising in that video. Just shows how much some people who have no clue like to think they know what problems other people have or what other people think. 

Also agree with Hawk on his ID plan.

And agree with Edd that it would be a tough sell (I also know people that are anti-EZ Pass for the same reasons he mentioned)


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

It's pretty likely that voter fraud flipped New Hampshire to Hillary in 2016. It was a 2,732 vote margin (for Hillary) but there were found to be about 5,300 out of state votes.

Hopefully Hawk's "eye-scan chip ID" program fails the 4th Amendment test. Why don't we just start with normal voter ID and no hackable polling systems.


----------



## EPB (Jan 15, 2020)

Edd said:


> I’ve met a couple of people who won’t even get an EZ Pass due to privacy concerns, which I found hilarious. Yes, what you describe would be a tough sell, to put it mildly.


Haha I work with a guy like this. When I try to follow the paranoid logic, I come back to idea that the government could probably get way more valuable information from my phone anyway. It's hard to imagine a middle ground where the EZ pass gets you in trouble unless you like to drive 100mph between toll readers.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 15, 2020)

I have no problem with the concept that, if you want to participate in the government, you need some sort of identification.  For example, if you want to vote, receive public assistance, drive on the roads, etc.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

I think part of the logic for EZ Pass was that you could always take alternate roads if you didn't want to use it. So nobody was "forced" to participate in the program.

Same would not be said for microchip ID's with retina scanners, and really what would be the need for such an intrusive form of ID straight out of a dystopian sci-fi novel? Back to Voter ID issue I believe any form of government-issued ID should be accepted. Ultimately that's the best moderate solution for those who are concerned about voter access (on the other hand).


----------



## Hawk (Jan 15, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> It's pretty likely that voter fraud flipped New Hampshire to Hillary in 2016. It was a 2,732 vote margin (for Hillary) but there were found to be about 5,300 out of state votes.
> 
> Hopefully Hawk's "eye-scan chip ID" program fails the 4th Amendment test. Why don't we just start with normal voter ID and no hackable polling systems.



Why would you hope it fails?  It would solve everything including illegal immigration.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 15, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> It's pretty likely that voter fraud flipped New Hampshire to Hillary in 2016. It was a 2,732 vote margin (for Hillary) but there were found to be about 5,300 out of state votes.
> 
> Hopefully Hawk's "eye-scan chip ID" program fails the 4th Amendment test. Why don't we just start with normal voter ID and no hackable polling systems.


5300 people were prosecuted for voter fraud in NH from the 2016 election?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> 5300 people were prosecuted for voter fraud in NH from the 2016 election?
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



Yeah right. This is the most unbiased report I could find on it though. I guess the number was more like 6,540 out of staters.

https://www.wmur.com/article/new-vo...ut-of-state-drivers-licenses-as-ids/12196129#



Hawk said:


> Why would you hope it fails?  It would solve everything including illegal immigration.



No other way to fix immigration besides biometric IDs with retinal scanners? I guess I prefer our society to take a different approach to population management than say, China or even cities like London.

There are legitimate reasons for privacy other than paranoia, which is why it's considered a natural/God-given right in the USA.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 15, 2020)

I don't necessarily think voter ID laws are good or bad really. I have more of a problem with mail in and notably "ballot harvesting", where people just get to round up as many ballots as they want and turn them in, just trust us, they are all legit. Please, I'm sorry, but ballot harvesting is pure fraud, plain and simple, and it is right out in the open. There is no doubt in my mind this played a role in several SoCal house seats turning blue during the past midterms. 

You want to vote, show up and vote. You can't get fired and I have yet to see a polling place that wasn't open for less than 10 hours, aka work isn't an excuse. 

But holy hell, no way am I signing up for mandatory ID with retina scans and whatever else you guys are suggesting. No way that couldn't be used for far more nefarious purposes than voter fraud.....

In terms of VT, my wife and I looked at a couple farms last fall near Middlebury. We've been lucky to do well in real estate out here and think it would be a great way to move onto the next chapter of our lives. They were admittantly decent sized places in the upper six figures (which they have to be to make a living today), but the taxes were insane. Even with ag exemptions the taxes ranged from 16 to 39k! Forty freaking grand literally makes it impossible for that farm to be profitable.


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 15, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Yeah right. This is the most unbiased report I could find on it though. I guess the number was more like 6,540 out of staters.
> 
> https://www.wmur.com/article/new-vo...ut-of-state-drivers-licenses-as-ids/12196129#



The number was 6,540 people *with out-of-state licenses*, which doesn't equate to not living in New Hampshire at the time. College students—a perennial source of Republican angst, as they tend to tilt liberal—can (generally) vote where they attend school, but often don't switch driver's licenses immediately (if at all), given that the cost to do so is non-trivial when you have textbooks and beer to buy. Over 1,000 of those 6,540 people had switched licenses by the time the article was written, and another 213 had registered vehicles (but apparently not switched their licenses). Having the state follow up on the other 5,200 names and seek to determine if they actually resided in New Hampshire at the time of registration seems like a worthwhile effort (starting with a cross-reference against university enrollment records), but nothing reported there supports a claim that there was needle-moving fraud. 

They did flag 200 possible cases of voting in two states, which is both (a) more problematic if it happened in significant numbers and (b) statistically insignificant.

I will readily agree that the systems for notifying your previous place of voting should be improved, as I've received notifications years after moving that I'm being removed from the rolls in my previous locale, but nothing in that article suggests there's any actual needle-moving fraud going on.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 15, 2020)

But what about the dozens of busses worth of Mass residents that were brought here to vote on George Soros's dime?



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

If you want a clear case of "needle-moving" voter fraud, just take a look at Philadelphia. Most of the fraud happens in liberal stronghold cities involving bussing / repeat voting and corrupt ballot handling. Go search the web, Philly can't even hold a minor election without officials getting arrested.

Then we have Broward County, Florida which can't ever seem to properly count votes, another swing state put in jeopardy

And in a state that's such a battleground it certainly can tip the balance.

California doesn't even try to hide it
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...nted-immigrants-vote-school-elections-n893221

13% of Illegal Aliens in California admit they vote? 13% of ~4 million is a LOT. Even if the number is half this it would be shocking. Seems like something most people wouldn't admit too.

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/


----------



## abc (Jan 15, 2020)

Hawk said:


> I have nothing to hide


...from the CURRENT government. 

The concept of limiting the power of government, designed by our founding fathers, was for in case of a rogue government with a dictator as the president took hold. Like Germany in the 30's, or Russia, or China, (hmmm... Hong Kong to be exact). 

Literally, the founding fathers wanted to leave plenty of room for "the people" to rise up against such rogue government. Well, given the constitution was conceived right after we overthrown the British overlord, it made perfect sense then. Perhaps some might argue that concept is outdated?:roll: We should let our government know everything about us? 

We trust the government will have all our best interest in mind, don't we? Nothing to hide.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 15, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> Knowing there is some problem in the USA; I ask, do you really believe this fraud has a major impact on our country's direction today? How about 30 years ago? Or 50?  Are we better now or back then?



I don't think voter fraud is a major problem, but there have been some high profile elections that were or almost certainly were stolen. So it really does happen, as much as we want to not believe that's true.  A few recent examples that instantly come to mind:

  1) Al Franken's 2008  Senate win in Minnesota, whereby he lost on election night & only won when the "correct" number of ballots were later "found" in a Democrat election worker's car trunk (really, I'm not making that up), as well as the fact that it was found a few hundred convicted felons illegally voted for Franken.  Of course the Republican who won on election night sued, but from top to bottom all the legal & government power in Minny was Dem controlled, and they handed Franken the victory.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud

2) Washington 2004 gov race, the Republican won close on election night, so there was a recount, which the Republican also won.  Similarly to MN, Dems control the machinery in WA and a 2nd recount was ordered!!!! In the 2nd recount, the Democrat finally had enough votes to "win" the election by finding "misplaced" ballots that were heavily Democrat.  Amazingly (sarcasm), that ended the recounts!

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4662278


----------



## skiur (Jan 15, 2020)

cdskier said:


> Yup. Nothing at all surprising in that video. Just shows how much some people who have no clue like to think they know what problems other people have or what other people think.
> 
> Also agree with Hawk on his ID plan.
> 
> And agree with Edd that it would be a tough sell (I also know people that are anti-EZ Pass for the same reasons he mentioned)



Do these people not carry a cell phone with them?  They are worried about ezpass tracking them when they have the ultimate tracking device in there pocket!  This is the world we live in.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 15, 2020)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> *Voter ID ...Who's the racist ????*



The GOP should pay for that video & turn it into a campaign commercial in urban areas.   This bogus, "voter suppression" nonsense is a white liberal canard that is (as the video demonstrates) ironically, racist.   

It doesn't shock me, having grown up & lived in liberal areas almost my entire life, white liberals are about the most racist people that I know. I would classify these Caucasian liberals as, "accidentally racist" in the fact that they're wholly & completely unaware that their beliefs are in fact racist, but their belief that black people are helpless & cant tie their shoes without government aid is about as racist as it gets.   This video is a phenomenal example of that general belief.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 15, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> white liberals are about the most racist people that I know.



Wow.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 15, 2020)

always blows my mind that this northeastern ski board is basically a klan rally half the time.


----------



## flakeydog (Jan 15, 2020)

Hmmm- will try to keep this brief and somewhat apolitical...

Voter Fraud: there are 2 key things keep this issue a non-issue

1) the desire to cheat the system is not partisan, (human nature and statistics show) there is, and will be, fraud on both sides of an election.  It is a reasonable assumption that much of the fraud that occurs will largely offset by this phenomenon.  If you believe that voter fraud is significantly skewed to one side or the other than you can stop reading- you will not understand the rest of this.

2) the nature of an election makes cheating inherently inefficient and quite difficult to pull off effectively.  Voting happens at the individual level (one vote at a time) across multiple towns, counties, states, etc.  To pull something off that actually would move the needle, you would have to have an incredibly large and sophisticated network that would also remain undetected.  Getting the roughly 50% of people that can vote (but don't) to actually vote is a much better (and less risky) use of those resources.

Voting should be made easier, not harder.  Look at our Constitution and our laws since our founding.  We have consistently expanded voting rights and fought against voter suppression efforts, why stop now?


On the subject of identification- this country was founded on the principle of freedom.  I am not some paranoid doomsday prepper living in a bunker somewhere but I do believe that our right to move freely in this country is sacred, for everybody (that means everybody).  I should be able to go about my business without being stopped or asked to produce ID by any government entity without just cause, period. Things like national ID and any other form of tracking may appear to solve some problems, but be careful what you wish for.  We cannot selectively enforce the Bill of Rights (example- many of those who are rabid supporters of the 2nd amendment see no issue in turning a blind eye to the 4th, and vice versa). The price of freedom means yes, even the bad guys get it too.  It has been said in so many iterations over the centuries that it is better to let 10 (or 40 or 100) guilty go free than to let one innocent man suffer.  Messy, inconvenient, frustrating?  yes, but sacred.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> white liberals are about the most racist people that I know



That's what happens when you toss the "color-blind" aspirations out the window in favor of intersectional oppression theory. This is how some people arrive at the idea that whites are born racist and other races are incapable of racism. Anyone from a country where whites are a minority knows this is absurd. The vast majority of Americans still take a common sense approach to non-racism, unfortunately institutions controlled by the left (media, acedemia, mainstream news) have done everything they can to legitimize the in-fact racist (and sexist, classist, discriminatory by design) social justice model and decry the concept of simply looking at people's character over the content of their skin as somehow newly racist and regressive.

Fortunately Woke Culture is getting Cancelled pretty fast. Look at the dynamics of stand up comedy today for a bellwether on where American culture is headed.


----------



## EPB (Jan 15, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> Wow.


I don't know what it's like in Canada, but down here, the "accidentally racist" remark is accurate in my book. Whether it's creating frictions between people who look different though PC culture or though intersectionality, white American left elites have ensured that race is at the forefront of political discourse. Much of this had crept into the workforce, too. Apparently, people now think race relations have worsened since Obama was elected in 2008. It's pretty sad. 

The left leaning American media is a key driver behind why people feel this way - giving life to countless narratives about how racist this country is (police, prisons, the economy, voting laws, bad public schools ironically in liberal cities; you name it, they're all out to opress people who aren't white). The 1619 project at the New York Times is a particularly pathetic example of this.

As mentioned before, the underlying assumption that only white people can manage to show up and vote is completely grotesque. Yet this is heralded as the key reason why we should just send herds of supposedly well-meaning Democrats out to go fill out ballots for empoverished non-whites. 

I wouldn't go as far as BG, but he's not entirely off base.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> always blows my mind that this northeastern ski board is basically a klan rally half the time.



Really? I was starting to get the impression Democrats were a slight minority here.

Or do you need to go back and look at history?

:flame:


----------



## EPB (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> always blows my mind that this northeastern ski board is basically a klan rally half the time.


I get that ad hominem on the internet is a common way for people to feel good about themselves, but that's quite the assertion. Who do you think is in the klan? If you really believe this, why associate with a place that's half klan really? 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Jan 15, 2020)

skiur said:


> Do these people not carry a cell phone with them?  They are worried about ezpass tracking them when they have the ultimate tracking device in there pocket!  This is the world we live in.



Worried about EZ-Pass tracking? I guess the don't realize Law Enforcement now has access to fixed and mobile plate scanning cameras/technology, capable of scanning 60 plates PER SECOND! All traffic they pass and meet, and sitting parked on the side of the road and in parking lots, as they just routinely drive around on patrol.


----------



## NYDB (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> always blows my mind that this northeastern ski board is basically a klan rally half the time.



Too true.  The % of RWNJ's on this forum is crazy.  But I guess I shouldn't be suprised since I think this board skews 1. Old, 2. White, and 3. Relatively well off.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

NY DirtBag said:


> 1. Old, 2. White, and 3. Relatively well off.



I identify as young, black and broke, bigot. 

Which means I'm usually the best black skier on the mountain on any given day.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 15, 2020)

NY DirtBag said:


> Too true.  The % of RWNJ's on this forum is crazy.  But I guess I shouldn't be suprised since I think this board skews 1. Old, 2. White, and 3. Relatively well off.



yea, i mean skiing skews old(ish), white, and relatively well off, but skiing also tends to skew grateful dead, environment, cannabis, new england.


----------



## EPB (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> yea, i mean skiing skews old(ish), white, and relatively well off, but skiing also tends to skew grateful dead, environment, cannabis, new england.


Don't forget self-righteous.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 15, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> I don't think voter fraud is a major problem, but there have been some high profile elections that were or almost certainly were stolen. So it really does happen, as much as we want to not believe that's true.  A few recent examples that instantly come to mind:
> 
> 1) Al Franken's 2008  Senate win in Minnesota, whereby he lost on election night & only won when the "correct" number of ballots were later "found" in a Democrat election worker's car trunk (really, I'm not making that up), as well as the fact that it was found a few hundred convicted felons illegally voted for Franken.  Of course the Republican who won on election night sued, but from top to bottom all the legal & government power in Minny was Dem controlled, and they handed Franken the victory.
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud



Agreed that it looks fishy, but it's really hard to take seriously an article that consistently uses the wrong word when referring to a central aspect of the coverage (voter _"roles"_).



BenedictGomez said:


> 2) Washington 2004 gov race, the Republican won close on election night, so there was a recount, which the Republican also won.  Similarly to MN, Dems control the machinery in WA and a 2nd recount was ordered!!!! In the 2nd recount, the Democrat finally had enough votes to "win" the election by finding "misplaced" ballots that were heavily Democrat.  Amazingly (sarcasm), that ended the recounts!
> 
> https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4662278



So in a race with a *tiny* margin, they did a machine recount, and then a hand recount, and the process seems to have worked—it corrected a small (by percentage) number of errors, identified some other questionable results, and appears to have tried to get to a correct result, with most of the discrepancies explained and documented?

 That's fairly standard in a number of states (some form of basic recount at a relatively small but still significant margin, e.g. 1%, and a more time-consuming and detailed recount if requested and/or under a low difference, usually with the appellant posting bond to cover the cost and forfeiting it if he or she loses). And after a detailed look at 2.9 million votes, a bit less than 0.2% of those look potentially funky?

If you show me a retail establishment that has 99.8% happy customers with correctly handled transactions (not under- or overcharged, correctly entered into the POS, etc), I'd be damned impressed. I realize that elections should be more precise than buying gum at the corner store, but that particular example shines as an outlier primarily because of the tiny margin (0.005%) in the result.

I wasn't familiar with that case, and I don't have the time to dig into it right now, but is there anything in particular in the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Washington_gubernatorial_election#Initial_results) that's documented as inaccurate?


----------



## abc (Jan 15, 2020)

NY DirtBag said:


> I think this board skews 1. Old, 2. White, and 3. Relatively well off.


White, yes. 

I'm not sure about the others. Is the skiing population "old"? 

The "well off" part is probably more about online forum than anything else. I mean, anyone know of a poverty stricken forum regular?


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 15, 2020)

Being on a forum has nothing to do with it. Skiing is just expensive and the barriers to entry are huge. If anything I’d say the forum skews older than average. The shreddy youth are at newschoolers and tgr. I’d also suspect those boards to be more overtly liberal


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

abc said:


> I mean, anyone know of a poverty stricken forum regular?



I know some who've been through tough times. I wouldn't be surprised if many live paycheck to paycheck as I did until a couple years ago able to start putting some money aside. I've never bought a new car and have never owned a home, although the latter hopefully happening in the next year or so.

Just saying you can't see people on an internet forum. If someone doesn't post for a month, they could have been in Switzerland, or they could have had a hard time paying their bills, gone to jail/rehab/mental illness treatment, etc.


----------



## icecoast1 (Jan 15, 2020)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> Worried about EZ-Pass tracking? I guess the don't realize Law Enforcement now has access to fixed and mobile plate scanning cameras/technology, capable of scanning 60 plates PER SECOND! All traffic they pass and meet, and sitting parked on the side of the road and in parking lots, as they just routinely drive around on patrol.



New York is eliminating toll booth workers and just scanning your plate and sending you a bill if you dont have an EZ pass, so you're getting scanned and tracked regardless.  I'm not sure what these people think they're hiding from


----------



## Edd (Jan 15, 2020)

icecoast1 said:


> New York is eliminating toll booth workers and just scanning your plate and sending you a bill if you dont have an EZ pass, so you're getting scanned and tracked regardless.  I'm not sure what these people think they're hiding from



Conspiracy theorists never run out of boogey men.


----------



## abc (Jan 15, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> I know some who've been through tough times. I wouldn't be surprised if many live paycheck to paycheck as I did until a couple years ago able to start putting some money aside. I've never bought a new car and have never owned a home, although the latter hopefully happening in the next year or so.
> 
> Just saying you can't see people on an internet forum. If someone doesn't post for a month, they could have been in Switzerland, or they could have had a hard time paying their bills, gone to jail/rehab/mental illness treatment, etc.


Were you regularly posting on the forum when you were living pay check to pay check? 

I lived pay check to pay check at one point of my life. But I wasn't busy posting on forums. I was busy attending school and taking online courses to up my income!

But then, I wasn't skiing much either.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

Edd said:


> Conspiracy theorists never run out of boogey men.



For the last 3 years it's been almost exclusively Donald Trump as the primary target of conspiracy theories (not really rich / Russian collusion / charitable foundation / WW3 / secret white supremacist / Impeachment over Biden corruption, etc etc)

It's good to diversify your conspiracy theory portfolio. Not all eggs in one basket. That's why the other side is being vindicated on the corruption they've been calling out.



abc said:


> Were you regularly posting on the forum when you were living pay check to pay check?
> 
> I lived pay check to pay check at one point of my life. But I wasn't  busy posting on forums. I was busy attending school and taking online  courses to up my income!
> 
> But then, I wasn't skiing much either.



Yes literally until 3 years ago I never had more than $3,000 in the bank and usually much less. I'm still just saving up for down payment on a starter home with my wife.

My job is on the internet so online forums is no biggie, helps with the inevitable ADD that comes with programming. I'm also happy with my career and my job in particular, I make decent income but I had bills to pay and situations to deal with until my life got settled down.

Also I wouldn't give up skiing so easily just because it was hard to afford. That's probably why I have a habit of skiing all over the place for as cheap as possible. Worked out pretty good, and I married a Psy Doctor so we'll be able to have a nice life without too much extravagance.


----------



## EPB (Jan 15, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> For the last 3 years it's been almost exclusively Donald Trump as the primary target of conspiracy theories (not really rich / Russian collusion / charitable foundation / WW3 / secret white supremacist / Impeachment over Biden corruption, etc etc)
> 
> It's good to diversify your conspiracy theory portfolio. Not all eggs in one basket. That's why the other side is being vindicated on the corruption they've been calling out.


Ha - this thing has gone too far off the rails. I think I'm signing off for a while. As a consolation, at least most of the left did diversify away from the "we invaded Iraq to steal their oil" conspiracy.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## flakeydog (Jan 15, 2020)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> Worried about EZ-Pass tracking? I guess the don't realize Law Enforcement now has access to fixed and mobile plate scanning cameras/technology, capable of scanning 60 plates PER SECOND! All traffic they pass and meet, and sitting parked on the side of the road and in parking lots, as they just routinely drive around on patrol.



https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141027/17253728959/vermonts-automatic-license-plate-readers-79-million-plates-captured-five-crimes-solved.shtml
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2018/04/23/many-police-agencies-in-vermont-stop-using-license-plate-readers
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/WorkGroups/Senate%20Transportation/VTrans%20General%20Testimony/W~Shawn%20Loan~2018%20Automated%20License%20Plate%20Recognition%20Systems%20Report~1-16-2019.pdf

Another good reason to live here.  We are done with this crap in 2020.  Other states not so much.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Jan 15, 2020)

This is the arcticle on the plate readers, that set me off on a little reading project yesterday afternoon.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...uires-4-6m-license-plate-scans-from-the-cops/


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 15, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> don't forget self-righteous.



zing!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 15, 2020)

eastern powder baby said:


> at least most of the left did diversify away from the *"we invaded Iraq to steal their oil" conspiracy.
> *




No; there are still plenty of far-leftists who still actually believe that.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

^ Trump and his base also believe war in Iraq was stupid and based on lies


----------



## abc (Jan 15, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> ^ Trump and his base also believe war in Iraq was stupid and based on lies


Well, he also believe Obama was born outside of the US.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

abc said:


> Well, he also believe Obama was born outside of the US.



How about Obama spying on Trump via FISA abuse and foreign government collusion before/during and after campaign? One of those conspiracy theories now proven true. We'll see what happens when that sweater string begins to unravel.

These days you have to give real consideration to the likelihood that if mainstream media jumps on something as a conspiracy theory, they're engaged in a cover-up.

after all Epstein didn't kill himself


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> always blows my mind that this northeastern ski board is basically a klan rally half the time.



You’d think that a lawyer would be able to actually debate an issue rather than just toss out baseless, hyperbolic ad hominem attacks.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> always blows my mind that this northeastern ski board is basically a klan rally half the time.








Clayton Bigsby 2024!!!


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 15, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> The GOP should pay for that video & turn it into a campaign commercial in urban areas.   This bogus, "voter suppression" nonsense is a white liberal canard that is (as the video demonstrates) ironically, racist.
> 
> It doesn't shock me, having grown up & lived in liberal areas almost my entire life, white liberals are about the most racist people that I know. I would classify these Caucasian liberals as, "accidentally racist" in the fact that they're wholly & completely unaware that their beliefs are in fact racist, but their belief that black people are helpless & cant tie their shoes without government aid is about as racist as it gets.   This video is a phenomenal example of that general belief.



Sadly voter ID will be made irrelevant due to electronic voting . My local district uses Diebold machines ,I'm handed a card Vote and hand it back .....Recount ? Recount what ? 

I have no F ing idea if my vote was recorded . When I buy a dam hamburger at a fast food joint I leave with more proof !!!:blink:


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 15, 2020)

VTKilarney said:


> You’d think that a lawyer would be able to actually debate an issue rather than just toss out baseless, hyperbolic ad hominem attacks.


While not quoted, pretty sure Krustys comment was in response to another poster stating that White Liberals are the most racist people in the country.  Was that not a baseless, hyperbolic ad hominem attack as well?  How do you debate that issue with someone who carries such a belief?   It's pretty unlikely you'll convince them to see things differently. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 15, 2020)

VTKilarney said:


> You’d think that a lawyer would be able to actually debate an issue rather than just toss out baseless, hyperbolic ad hominem attacks.



It's how left-wing people tend to view the world (if they're being honest) & demonstrates political psychology in a nutshell.

Right-wing people tend to view left-wing people as naive or misinformed, but essentially normal upstanding people.
Left-wing people tend to view right-wing people as evil and bad and greedy, and not good people at all.

Thus liberals often bat away ideas, logic, policies etc...  which counter their world-view with ad hominem attacks and/or without even actually considering or pondering them.  Ironically, this gives the right an advantage in politics, as the right tends to understand its' foe better than the left.

There's a fantastic book on this and I cant remember the title, but I learned of it from watching Jon Stewart about 10 years ago.  The author was a hard-core, gay, urban, liberal, who forced himself to move to rural America to try to understand Conservatives.  At the end of the experience he remained socially liberal, but became more conservative with most all other issues & now considers himself a moderate, but left-of-center.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 15, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> While not quoted, pretty sure Krustys comment was in response to another poster stating that White Liberals are the most racist people in the country.  Was that not a baseless, hyperbolic ad hominem attack as well?  How do you debate that issue with someone who carries such a belief?   It's pretty unlikely you'll convince them to see things differently.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



It was that and the absurd Fox News man on the street segment. Acknowledging historical systemic racism and supporting government action to try and right those wrongs makes white liberals the racist ones? No.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> It was that and the absurd Fox News man on the street segment. Acknowledging historical systemic racism and supporting government action to try and right those wrongs makes white liberals the racist ones? No.



What makes the man on the street segment absurd? Times change racism is dying... let it die .


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 15, 2020)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> What makes the man on the street segment absurd? Times change racism is dying... let it die .



everything about it is absurd. its heavily edited snips. he targeted Berkeley college kids (and some of them are super cringey - i'm sure plenty of good takes from UC kids are on the cutting room floor). and then black people in harlem. nyc is not where voter ID and 'getting to the dmv' is a problem. its about rural places and states in the south that actively try to minimize minority voting. its cherry picked bullshit edited together to support a point he knew he wanted to make before he ever turned on the camera.

this is southern governments taking racially inspired action to suppress minority votes. reuters is no huffington post. this is just one example pulled in about 10 seconds of research.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...es-in-recent-years-rights-group-idUSKCN1VV09J


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> everything about it is absurd. its heavily edited snips. he targeted Berkeley college kids (and some of them are super cringey - i'm sure plenty of good takes from UC kids are on the cutting room floor). and then black people in harlem. nyc is not where voter ID and 'getting to the dmv' is a problem. its about rural places and states in the south that actively try to minimize minority voting. its cherry picked bullshit edited together to support a point he knew he wanted to make before he ever turned on the camera.


So you support voter ID in New York City?


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 15, 2020)

nope. tick your name off the list and vote.

"voter fraud" is a canard invented by the right to cling to power in the face of rapidly changing demographics, by engaging in outright voter suppression. i'm looking forward to when texas is so brown that it cannot be suppressed and all of a sudden its purple, then blue. let's throw puerto rico and DC statehood in the mix too. 

the blueing of america is inevitable. but these dirty dawgs will hold on as long and fiercely as they can.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> While not quoted, pretty sure Krustys comment was in response to another poster stating that White Liberals are the most racist people in the country.  Was that not a baseless, hyperbolic ad hominem attack as well?



The 5,000 current members of the actual KKK would be more racist, and also Black Supremacists ie BLM and Black Hebrew Israelites and also Islamists who hate Jews.

It's not an ad hominem attack because it's an evaluation more and more people are agreeing with as we see the destructive fallout of intersectional SWJ theory, and the circular firing squad mentality that ensues.

Yes, I would say the group in this country most constantly obsessed with race and looking for problems where they don't exist, and *openly* being racist against whites, are the most racist group in current society.

Candace Owens is the new MLK. Sorry Al Shapton!



KustyTheKlown said:


> the blueing of america is inevitable. but  these dirty dawgs will hold on as long and fiercely as they can.



Not when nearly half of hispanics are voting Trump and 1/3rd of blacks or more. I wouldn't underestimate the redpilling happening on a wide scale and objective persistent (D) party failures and consistent anti-American posturing.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 15, 2020)

jesus christ. "BLM" is not "Black Supremacy". its simply asking for police to stop killing black people in routine confrontations.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> jesus christ. "BLM" is not "Black Supremacy". its simply asking for police to stop killing black people in routine confrontations.



That's what the Baizou think

If I started a "White Lives Matter" or let's say "It's OK to Be White" group, you'd call me a white supremacist.

That's because you're a Baizou.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> nope. tick your name off the list and vote.
> 
> "voter fraud" is a canard invented by the right to cling to power in the face of rapidly changing demographics, by engaging in outright voter suppression.



Seems both parties have their issues.

It is painful to me to be called a racist by total strangers who want to make political points with whoever. I’m white my wife is as well my daughter in-law is Asian my other son is dating a black girl my best friend is Puerto rican . None of my friends are even remotely racist. 

When I see people on the other side demand a particular race vote Dem. I am reminded of a true racist “Lyndon Johnson “


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 15, 2020)

i'm not demanding anyone vote for anyone. i'm saying that the right has systemically suppressed minority votes because those votes are statistically more likely to be dem votes. and if demographics support more likely democrat voters becoming majorities in solidly red states, that's a bonus.

and i'm certainly not calling you, personally, a racist. most of you vote R because you care most about your money and that's your right to do. for myself, i cannot get past all the other shit that comes with R

and tuna, your "white lives matter" t-shirt disregards centuries of systemic racism. dont be obtuse.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

That's a bigoted and prejudiced view against people who don't agree with your philosophy: To assign motives of "systematic suppression against minorities" is plainly ignorant. As an Independent I can clearly see the GOP has a way better record on race equality than Dems, although Dems have a great record of pandering and ruining inner cities and telling blacks how bad whitey is.

Your dreams of demographic change are falling flat as well, as I said hispanics are waking up to the Democrat con. Last I checked the conventional wisdom was Dems needed 90% of blacks to sustain a majority. You're down to 70% and dropping fast.

RIP party of war, racism, division, & treason

I don't care about your imagined "centuries of history" you really know jack shit about and certainly have zero understanding of any subtleties in any given situation. My family came from Canada and Ireland, we had no slaves, one side was Catholic and the other side was Protestant, so I am completely righteous in opposing your mindset of reparations. Both sides of my family were treated with prejudice when they arrived in New England, more openly and accepted at the time than attitudes towards hispanics today in our more integrated society. This was back when ethnic slurs were tossed back and forth with impunity.

I realize we're pushing the limits of discussion on this forum here so I'll take a break for the sake of the thread continuing.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 15, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Not when nearly half of hispanics are voting Trump and 1/3rd of blacks or more. .



source?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 15, 2020)

lol. ok, because your ancestry is canadian and irish, america didn't import black people as slaves and treat them as second class citizens or less for most of american history. get a grip dude.

and if you really want to have a family oppression dick measuring contest, i'm an american jewish person and what was left of my family didn't show up in the good old US of A until the late 40s, after half of them were systemically murdered by a racist government.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> source



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/02/hispanics_rally_to_trump_boosting_his_2020_chances_139933.html



KustyTheKlown said:


> lol. ok, because your ancestry is canadian  and irish, america didn't import black people as slaves and treat them  as second class citizens or less for most of american history. get a  grip dude.



So what? Whites were slaves in different parts of the world at different times. Either way none of it involved me and not even indirectly.

Your only logic is I'm guilty by skin color, which makes you a racist. You know how long after slavery I was born? Members of my lineage were far more likely to be indentured servants than to ever have had slaves (0% chance there). I also typically side with Republicans who were anti-slavery during Civil War times. And I need to get a grip.. have fun with your white guilt for literally no reason


----------



## abc (Jan 15, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> These days you have to give real consideration to the likelihood that if mainstream media jumps on something as a conspiracy theory, they're engaged in a cover-up.
> 
> after all Epstein didn't kill himself


So, was Obama born outside the US?


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 15, 2020)

you're not guilty tuna, this isnt about you. but our government is, and continues to be when they engage in voter suppression.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> and if you really want to have a family  oppression dick measuring contest, i'm an american jewish person and  what was left of my family didn't show up in the good old US of A until  the late 40s, after half of them were systemically murdered by a racist  government.



I would think based on that you wouldn't throw around accusations of mass, systemic racism applying to half the population of the most peacefully integrated free society on the planet.

You're the one who called the forum a KKK rally so you're right about one thing, it's not about me.



abc said:


> So, was Obama born outside the US?


----------



## EPB (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> and i'm certainly not calling you, personally, a racist. most of you vote R because you care most about your money and that's your right to do. for myself, i cannot get past all the other shit that comes with R



Translation: "Now that I think about it, you're not a bad person because you're racist, you're a bad person because you're a selfish capitalist DB. My bad."

What a sanctimonious turd thing to say. 

Don't feel bad about anything he's said to you. Real repugnance comes from people who ascribe malice to those who share perfectly reasonable, but different world views.

Klown - If you want to debate whether high taxes are actually better for the economy, I'd gladly continue the discussion. If you're out here to just thump your chest about your perceived moral superiority, I'd suggest you get over yourself.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 15, 2020)

Uff


----------



## cdskier (Jan 15, 2020)

skiur said:


> Do these people not carry a cell phone with them?  They are worried about ezpass tracking them when they have the ultimate tracking device in there pocket!  This is the world we live in.



I'm sure they do. People are completely clueless about just how much data is tracked via cell phones. There's a fascinating article that was all about just how much you can track from "anonymous" cell phone data that was posted in our internal enterprise social network at work that people were discussing. I'll need to grab it tomorrow (don't feel like booting my work laptop up tonight). Very scary stuff that most people have absolutely no idea about.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> "voter fraud" is a canard invented by the right to cling to power in the face of rapidly changing demographics, by engaging in outright voter suppression.



How is something that has plenty of documented cases considered a myth? And it is done by both sides, so not sure how it could be "invented by the right" when they are guilty of fraud in cases as well.

There's also been studies done that conclude there is no measurable impact on voter turnout from voter ID laws even among minority groups that supposedly would be suppressed (i.e. voter ID laws do not suppress votes).


----------



## drjeff (Jan 15, 2020)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> What makes the man on the street segment absurd? Times change racism is dying... let it die .


But if the premise that racism is as bad, if not worse than it's ever been in the US right now "dies" then the left looses a MAJOR talking point, and one that they use over and over to raise serious campaign funds.

If that goes away, then not only would they loose that donation easy talking point, but also potentially explain why that talking point wasn't as factual as they have implied it is for a long time now. 

And that's a scary concept for a politician to face, that their donor base, and electorate as well, might question the statements that they're making.

If one just accepts that basically all politicians lie at times, and those lies are primarily done so to help stir up campaign donations and drive their base voters to the polls so they can either keep, or gain political power, so that they can control how to spend whatever budget they're in control of (local, state or federal) rather than necessarily doing what's "best" for their town/state/country even if it means agreeing with the "other caucus", then maybe this country can have an honest discussion about topics..

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## icecoast1 (Jan 15, 2020)

cdskier said:


> How is something that has plenty of documented cases considered a myth? And it is done by both sides, so not sure how it could be "invented by the right" when they are guilty of fraud in cases as well.
> 
> There's also been studies done that conclude there is no measurable impact on voter turnout from voter ID laws even among minority groups that supposedly would be suppressed (i.e. voter ID laws do not suppress votes).



How does expecting someone to prove who they are suppress the vote?  And considering all of the other things you need id for to function in society,  including government assistance programs these people who allegedly are suppressed are on, you pretty much have to have some form of it anyway


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 15, 2020)

cdskier said:


> How is something that has plenty of documented cases considered a myth? And it is done by both sides, so not sure how it could be "invented by the right" when they are guilty of fraud in cases as well.
> 
> There's also been studies done that conclude there is no measurable impact on voter turnout from voter ID laws even among minority groups that supposedly would be suppressed (i.e. voter ID laws do not suppress votes).



Whether or not it worked, the Fourth Circuit seems pretty convinced that North Carolina's voter ID law was intended to do just that:


			
				Fourth Circuit said:
			
		

> Although the new provisions targetAfrican Americans with almost surgical precision, theyconstitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifyingthem and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.
> ...
> Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the NorthCarolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions ofthe law with discriminatory intent.


(decision: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf)

Then there's the recent North Dakota law, which required a physical address on an ID for that ID to be valid for voting. Tribal IDs often lacked such things because physical addresses often weren't assigned on some (many? all? dunno) reservations. The law was upheld, but it did unquestionably make it harder for many native residents to vote, as they had to go replace otherwise valid tribal IDs first. I don't know if it actually changed the outcome, but the party responsible for changing the law did reclaim a Congressional seat.

Requiring a photo ID isn't a huge hurdle in most places.* Requiring one of a few very specific, state-issued or federally issued photo IDs with certain features, however, smells fishy, particularly when the state narrows an existing list of IDs to exclude those predominantly associated with certain voting habits (e.g. college IDs).

* on the original topic, though, it may be a hurdle for long-time Vermonters with non-photo licenses, as the DMV does still issue them to people who have them.

Of course, if you live in a small town in northern New England, ID requirements can seem pretty silly. "Hey, Bob, good to see you. Can I see your ID, please?"


----------



## JimG. (Jan 15, 2020)

This is what happens when we get spring in January! You guys all need to get out and ski.

Race has nothing to do with skin color or national origin. There is one race...human.

Maybe one day people will pull their heads out of their asses and stop arguing about these topics.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 15, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> *"voter fraud" is a canard invented by the right*



What is greatly amusing to me is he correctly identifies voter fraud as a right-wing canard (which is mostly true*), but he is completely incapable of realizing that voter suppression is a canard invented by the left.

Which so perfectly proves my point regarding political bias better than anything I could possibly pen.



 *There IS voter fraud in America, and it mostly helps Democrats, but it is nowhere near as significant or as material an issue that many on the right try to scare voters into believing.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 15, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> *Whites were slaves in different parts of the world at different times. *Either way none of it involved me and not even indirectly.



Interesting you bring this up, as I find almost nobody (and I literally mean that) is aware of this.  Historically speaking, there were far more European-ancestry white people enslaved in Africa than African-ancestry people enslaved in America.  Now, obviously ALL slavery is bad, but I find it intellectually interesting that so few people are aware of this historical fact. 

 My guess is MOST people here on AZ are wholly unaware of this and will probably have to GOOG what I'm talking about because they probably dont believe it.  Most probably will be too embarrassed after Googling to come back & post here & admit they had no clue, but whatever, I just think it's interesting that we hear SO much about how terrible slavery of blacks obviously was, but we hear nothing of the terrible nature of whites enslaved during literally the same time period.  It makes one wonder if at least some of the motivation behind the contemporary outcry > 150 years after the freeing of the slaves is truly righteous in nature, or if perhaps some of it is solely political in nature.  I suspect it's a bit of both.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 15, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Which so perfectly proves my point regarding political bias better than anything I could possibly pen.
> 
> [/SIZE]


 
Political bias?  You mean like stating that white liberals are the most racists people?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 15, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> *your perceived moral superiority*



Precisely what I wrote about regarding the author who's book I learned about via Jon Stewart's show. Kusty is not an outlier, he is the norm.

  The liberal voter typically views him/herself as morally superior to both independents and clearly to Conservatives, which they regard as "evil" or morally bankrupt.   This "moral superiority" makes it easy for them to dismiss anything from the other side, and more dangerously, makes them quite easily swallow anything "their side" tells them to believe.  If "they" are evil, obviously whatever we do is "just".


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Jan 15, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Precisely what I wrote about regarding the author who's book I learned about via Jon Stewart's show. Kusty is not an outlier, he is the norm.
> 
> The liberal voter typically views him/herself as morally superior to both independents and clearly to Conservatives, which they regard as "evil" or morally bankrupt.   This "moral superiority" makes it easy for them to dismiss anything from the other side, and more dangerously, makes them quite easily swallow anything "their side" tells them to believe.  If "they" are evil, obviously whatever we do is "just".



just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 15, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> *Political bias?  You mean like stating that white liberals are the most racists people?*



What you call "bias", I call an opinion based upon living a life almost entirely in very liberal jurisdictions.  

And it's not an opinion I share alone, this belief that white liberals view nearly every issue through a prism of racism. It's essentially an obsession, often characterized by the term,_ "white guilt"_.  And FWIW, I call it "accidental racism" in that white liberals are wholly unaware that their opinions & beliefs are racist; in fact, they likely believe they are the least racist people on the entire planet, while ironically simultaneously believing that black people cant walk & chew gum without government assistance.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 15, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> Political bias?  You mean like stating that white liberals are the most racists people?



In terms of popular mainstream groups in the USA. I'm a former Green/Progressive turned Conservative and now basically moderate/pro-MAGA but it was the blatant intolerance of the SJW crowd that really got me rethinking my values.

A lot of people are realizing this too which makes me think the "high horse" crowd is in for a rude awakening sooner or later.

My family is mixed race and the only ones who consider themselves victims of racial oppression are the socialists. That's not to minimize racism where it exists, but it reveals something about the lens through which we perceive our reality.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 15, 2020)

A good friend, who happens to be homosexual, summed it up nicely when he said that he lost none of his conservative friends after coming out as gay, but all of his liberal friends after coming out as conservative.


----------



## abc (Jan 15, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> The liberal voter typically...


How many “liberal voters” do you actually know to conclude that they represents “typical”? 2? 3? 5?


----------



## Orca (Jan 16, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> always blows my mind that this northeastern ski board is basically a klan rally half the time.



That is not an argument; that is a slur. It is a perfect exemplar of a disgusting form of discourse: call someone a racist in order to remove their standing in the debate. It is malicious and intellectually lazy.


----------



## Orca (Jan 16, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> The liberal voter typically views him/herself as morally superior to both independents and clearly to Conservatives, which they regard as "evil" or morally bankrupt.



Here is a specific example. Paul Krugman is a prominent liberal op-ed writer for the NY Times. This is the concluding sentence of his 26 November 2018 opinion piece: "Republicans don’t just have bad ideas; at this point, they are, necessarily, bad people." (Link)


----------



## Orca (Jan 16, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> What is greatly amusing to me is he correctly identifies voter fraud as a right-wing canard (which is mostly true*), but he is completely incapable of realizing that voter suppression is a canard invented by the left.



There is an incentive for lefties to exaggerate voter suppression and there is an incentive for righties to exaggerate voter fraud. Is it any surprise then that such allegations are casually made? It may be true that both fraud and suppression are both real and problematic. But it is surely true that there is a lot of motivation to assert that one is real and dismiss the other. Both sides demand evidence, but I doubt there is sufficient non-partisan effort made to even detect and quantify fraud and suppression.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 16, 2020)

Orca said:


> That is not an argument; that is a slur. It is a perfect exemplar of a disgusting form of discourse: call someone a racist in order to remove their standing in the debate. It is malicious and intellectually lazy.



i took it as a joke in response to BG's comments about white liberals being the most racists people.  Seems to me you're having a double standard here.

I have spent a bit more than two years of my life in the US, split between Houston and Vermont.   I have met lots of liberals and conservatives and had many political discussions and race was pretty much never a topic of discussion.  Based on this limited experience I am simply flabbergasted with the 'white liberal racist' blanket statement and, based on responses, that most people on this forum seem to be OK with it,


----------



## Edd (Jan 16, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> Based on this limited experience I am simply flabbergasted with the 'white liberal racist' blanket statement and, based on responses, that most people on this forum seem to be OK with it,



I wouldn’t draw that conclusion and I’m not ok with it. But diving into this already amped up thread about who’s the biggest racist has little appeal.


----------



## Orca (Jan 16, 2020)

fbrissette said:


> ...I am simply flabbergasted with the 'white liberal racist' blanket statement...



Same for the "white conservative racist" crap. Better that we drop the racist accusations altogether.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 16, 2020)

Liberals: "Conservatives are racist and therefore promote racist policies"

Conservatives: "I don't think liberals mean to be racist but that sure sounds racist to me"


----------



## EPB (Jan 16, 2020)

Edd said:


> I wouldn’t draw that conclusion and I’m not ok with it. But diving into this already amped up thread about who’s the biggest racist has little appeal.



Well said, Edd. I don't think there's a stranger pissing contest than trying to argue or proclaim one is less racist than someone else they don't know on the internet (short of pointing out obvious malfeasance).

M. Brissette, the bar for calling people racist in the US has gotten embarrassingly low. I wouldn't take offense, it's in vogue for people to throw out the term like candy. Most of it is like the boy who cried wolf. There's obviously a lot more to the story, but best not to get into it. This is decidedly not the place for it.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 16, 2020)

Snowing hard in Vermont today. Let’s agree to disagree and move on. I apologize for the klan jab, that was out of line hyperbole. Enjoy the snow, avoid the crowds.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 16, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> Snowing hard in Vermont today. Let’s agree to disagree and move on. I apologize for the klan jab, that was out of line hyperbole. Enjoy the snow, avoid the crowds.



   :beer:


----------



## EPB (Jan 16, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> Snowing hard in Vermont today. Let’s agree to disagree and move on. I apologize for the klan jab, that was out of line hyperbole. Enjoy the snow, avoid the crowds.



Have fun! I could have laid it on less thick, too.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 16, 2020)

I'm somewhat impressed.

We have been dancing at the edge of lockdown for over a day with this thread yet we have managed to pull back and check ourselves. There was even an apology given.

There is true hope for this group after all.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 16, 2020)

Do I think that liberals are racist?  No.  

Do I think that liberals engage in the soft bigotry of low expectations?  At times, yes.

I will give you an example.  My graduate school had a special program for African-Americans.  They started school two weeks early and were given specialized instruction and tutoring on how to do well academically.  This program was not made available to white students.

In my (small) program there were four African-American students.  Two of the four were from extremely wealthy families.  Yet they were told that they needed special help in order to succeed because, despite their life of privilege, they were... well... black.  White kids from the lowest socioeconomic rungs were given no assistance whatsoever.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 16, 2020)

JimG. said:


> There is true hope for this group after all.



Given the inevitable political discourse that stems from any number of topics, and given that at least some of the frequent posters here find these discussions worth participating in (for whatever reason), why not make an adjustment to the "no politics" rule?

It's kind of silly for a thread to be started on the basis of a political point (failed VT liberal economics) and then be "walking the edge" any time the discussion deviates even slightly. I imagine this seems silly from position of a moderator as well who has to keep checking the thread to see if anyone "stepped over the line" (although the line was crossed from the beginning officially).

What about a sandbox type situation for politics, where say a thread like this is deemed meant ultimately for that purpose and those participating can speak freely while those who don't like it can choose not to participate?


----------



## JimG. (Jan 16, 2020)

My children are mixed race. 

My middle son Peter was placed into an African American dorm/club/house his sophomore year because of a lottery system. Peter didn't list that dorm in his requests for housing. He was told he was chosen because of his racial background and that he would benefit from the experience. That didn't wash for him or me for that matter.

I got involved; I got the same speech that Peter got. And I responded that I had never in my life experienced a more racist and disgusting system. Putting all the black kids into one place and telling them that's where they stay. I threatened to bring legal action and that fixed everything. Peter got a single room in a dorm with the rest of his friends. The last thing racists want is publicity for their racism.

That kind of passive racism delivered in the guise of special treatment or social experience is a real problem in our country.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 16, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> What about a sandbox type situation for politics, where say a thread like this is deemed meant ultimately for that purpose and those participating can speak freely while those who don't like it can choose not to participate?



Tuna, you know as well as I do that those who should choose to not participate will be the ones who participate the most.

Your sandbox is nothing but a minefield.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 16, 2020)

JimG. said:


> That kind of passive racism delivered in the guise of special treatment or social experience is a real problem in our country.



yup



JimG. said:


> Your sandbox is nothing but a minefield.



well it already is except under vague threat of thread being closed. Makes no difference to me just trying to make yer job easier.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2020)

JimG. said:


> My middle son Peter was placed into an African American dorm/club/house his sophomore year because of a lottery system. Peter didn't list that dorm in his requests for housing. He was told he was chosen because of his racial background and that he would benefit from the experience. That didn't wash for him or me for that matter.
> 
> I got involved; I got the same speech that Peter got. And I responded that I had never in my life experienced a more racist and disgusting system. Putting all the black kids into one place and telling them that's where they stay. I threatened to bring legal action and that fixed everything. Peter got a single room in a dorm with the rest of his friends. The last thing racists want is publicity for their racism. That kind of passive racism delivered in the guise of special treatment or social experience is a real problem in our country.



This is revolting, and precisely what I aforementioned as "accidental racism".  

I would give you 10 to 1 odds that the people who created this program not only failed to see how it was racist, but they likely thought they were morally superior people for "helping" these black kids out, and were likely flabbergasted to find that someone thought their efforts were racist.


----------



## abc (Jan 16, 2020)

Come on. 

There's a difference between expressing a racist opinion vs BEING a racist 

People, many people, have at times racist reaction to situations. Or subconscious racist thoughts, whether it's low expectation or low opinion. I bet you and I occasionally had such thoughts! And sometimes those thoughts got expressed on a forum. 

Racists are people who consistently believe those thoughts and act on it to discriminate others based on race.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 16, 2020)

What do y'all think about this. Person arrested in CT under a unconstitutional law banning certain speech... 6 months probation, community service and re-education camp for saying N-word in public (not directed at anyone).

https://summit.news/2020/01/10/univ...nt-narrowly-avoids-jail-for-using-the-n-word/


----------



## Orca (Jan 16, 2020)

JimG. said:


> I'm somewhat impressed.
> 
> We have been dancing at the edge of lockdown for over a day with this thread yet we have managed to pull back and check ourselves. There was even an apology given.
> 
> There is true hope for this group after all.



This thread has been home to a wonderful discussion. First rate quality in the main. I've been impressed by the thoughtfully articulated disagreements that elucidate the subject of the moment. Sometimes rough and tumble, but with generally fact-based give and take, and admirable humility.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> What do y'all think about this.



Frightening.  

 The reality is free speech of the most vulgar kind or of the most unpopular opinion needs protection in a truly free society. In essence, real freedom means morons can be morons.  Nobody needs to "protect" opinions shared by 99% of the populace.  

And not shocking this took place on a college campus.


----------



## Orca (Jan 16, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> What do y'all think about this. Person arrested in CT under a unconstitutional law banning certain speech... 6 months probation, community service and re-education camp for saying N-word in public (not directed at anyone).
> 
> https://summit.news/2020/01/10/univ...nt-narrowly-avoids-jail-for-using-the-n-word/



Policing speech is a very slippery slope. I think it is necessary to tolerate rude and repugnant speech for the greater virtue of preserving the freedom of speech generally. Moreover, the people that most want to regulate speech are the people you least want to write the regulating laws.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 16, 2020)

fully agreed that that is an absurd story and a probably unconstitutional law. free speech is sacrosant so long as you arent presenting an immediate danger to others. guys an idiot and asshole, but it shouldnt be criminal.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 16, 2020)

If only the ACLU still believed in civil rights for all.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 16, 2020)

I'd be curious, honestly, if under that law black people are allowed to say N-word. Or maybe if they say "Cracker" they get arrested? What if a Hispanic person calls a white person a gringo?

Likewise does insulting Jesus and Muhammad carry the same penalty, or only Muhammad because Muslims tend to get more upset about that stuff?

The problem, besides being unconstitutional and a violation of natural rights, is selective enforcement and a one-sided view of who needs "protection" from speech.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 16, 2020)

Orca said:


> This thread has been home to a wonderful discussion. First rate quality in the main. I've been impressed by the thoughtfully articulated disagreements that elucidate the subject of the moment. Sometimes rough and tumble, but with generally fact-based give and take, and admirable humility.


I too would like to thank the moderators that opted to let this thread run.  The great volume of responses reflect the level of interest, and that is a good thing.  I'm actually surprised this happened in January, and not July. 

I often wonder how useful discussions like this are.  Did any learning occur?  Were any opinions changed?  I think mostly the answer is no, but therein lies the nugget.  Most of us get a window into another point of view in conversations like this.  We get some information we didn't have before.  We hopefully are a little bit more informed, and maybe that makes us ask a few more questions outside of this forum, and maybe we are reminded to be a little bit  more tolerant. 

​


Orca said:


> Policing speech is a very slippery slope. I think it is necessary to tolerate rude and repugnant speech for the greater virtue of preserving the freedom of speech generally. Moreover, the people that most want to regulate speech are the people you least want to write the regulating laws.


Why should it be a slippery slope?  Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is a crime only if it incites panic.  A stage actor could yell "Fire that worker!" in a crowded theater and not be prosecuted.  It is not the word, it is not the place, it is not the speech, it is the action of inciting panic that is criminal.  I wouldn't mind revisiting that over used and trite example, and realize that all speech should be protected.  It is inciting criminal behavior (Try threatening the President in a public venue with any words you might choose) that has been determined to be criminal.  All words should be protected.  All actions should not be.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 16, 2020)

In response to "at least most of the left did diversify away from the "we invaded Iraq to steal their oil" conspiracy."


BenedictGomez said:


> [/B]
> 
> No; there are still plenty of far-leftists who still actually believe that.



No we invaded Iraq because the Hawks said it was a good idea.(No Pun intended ;-))  We would have a larger military presence in an area of the world that houses a large chunk of our enemies.  The Whole idea of the WMD was a construct of the members of Bushes cabinet and Military consultants that knew we needed to get congressional approval to move forward and that was not going to come unless we had a good reason.  Sort of Ironic that these types of playing rules are now totally out the window with the current republican regime.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 16, 2020)

Hawk said:


> In response to "at least most of the left did diversify away from the "we invaded Iraq to steal their oil" conspiracy."
> 
> 
> No we invaded Iraq because the Hawks said it was a good idea.(No Pun intended ;-))  We would have a larger military presence in an area of the world that houses a large chunk of our enemies.  The Whole idea of the WMD was a construct of the members of Bushes cabinet and Military consultants that knew we needed to get congressional approval to move forward and that was not going to come unless we had a good reason.  Sort of Ironic that these types of playing rules are now totally out the window with the current republican regime.



Oh no an unexpected tangent and just when the racism part was getting good. After some thought I do remember working with a racist 25 years ago. The company I worked with hired a African American who would be working with him. I thought there was going to be a homicide one way or another. A week later they were fishing together LOL . Minds can change, never give up a dialogue because you never know!!!

 I hope it snows soon!!


----------



## JimG. (Jan 16, 2020)

mister moose said:


> I often wonder how useful discussions like this are.  Did any learning occur?  Were any opinions changed?  I think mostly the answer is no, but therein lies the nugget.  Most of us get a window into another point of view in conversations like this.  We get some information we didn't have before.  We hopefully are a little bit more informed, and maybe that makes us ask a few more questions outside of this forum, and maybe we are reminded to be a little bit  more tolerant.



Well we have to start somewhere. I agree with you, why not here?

Clearly we are not getting any help from our "leaders".


----------



## abc (Jan 16, 2020)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Oh no an unexpected tangent and just when the racism part was getting good. After some thought I do remember working with a racist 25 years ago. The company I worked with hired a African American who would be working with him. I thought there was going to be a homicide one way or another. A week later they were fishing together LOL . Minds can change, never give up a dialogue because you never know!!!


Try this: 

Some years ago (quite a few years, actually), I had this dear friend who said, in a party: "I think all black people are lazy". I was shocked but didn't really know what to say. 

About 1/2 hr later, we were talking about finding a good doctor. That very same person said "My doctor is really good. He's from Haiti".

Well, majority people from Haiti are black. So people were looking at each other and some tried to find a polite way to find out the said Haitian doctor's skin color. 

Turns out, he is black. More over, said friend also have a black financial adviser!

I suppose "lazy" doctor and financial adviser must be perfectly acceptable. :roll: 

I try not to use "label". Just see the action. 



> I hope it snows soon!!


It is snowing in VT/NH from what I heard.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 16, 2020)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Oh no an unexpected tangent and just when the racism part was getting good. After some thought I do remember working with a racist 25 years ago. The company I worked with hired a African American who would be working with him. I thought there was going to be a homicide one way or another. A week later they were fishing together LOL . Minds can change, never give up a dialogue because you never know!!!
> 
> I hope it snows soon!!



yay for perfect images.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 16, 2020)

JimG. said:


> Clearly we are not getting any help from our "leaders".



Candace Owens IMO is the foremost modern personality on race relations -- I call her the new MLK just because she's gone back to his original intention of looking beyond the color of each other's skin. She's spoken at the White House on at least a couple occasions and the President has given her numerous shout-outs.

Pretty clear to me as we went from 90's color-blind era into 2010's increasingly "woke" era, people are starting to get tired of the name calling and/or it falls on deaf ears. For example, I've listened to AM radio a few weeks ago driving around and the black host was discussing how the 70% fatherless rate in black homes was a much bigger issue than white oppression. I don't know what the Candance Owens movement will be seen as in the future but her goal seems to be breaking chains of mental slavery. This is very interesting stuff to me, as one of my great hopes is a future where everyone is able to concern themselves with more productive endeavors.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2020)

Hawk said:


> *The Whole idea of the WMD was a construct of the members of Bushes cabinet and Military consultants*



Again, this is entirely false. 

 It was not only the US intelligence that believed Saddam had WMD, it was the Brits, the French, the Italians, and some others I'm forgetting.  The belief that Saddam had WMD was widely held in the global intelligence community, probably at least in part because Saddam said he did.  A great miscalculation on his part thinking nobody would attack if we thought he possessed such weapons.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 16, 2020)

^ Brits and Italian intel colluded with Obama to spy on Trump campaign for one thing. The "intelligence community" also recently told us Russia hacked Hillary's emails and gave them to Wikileaks.

No way I'm on board with WMD's being a legit explanation. The Bush family is a just as clearly a crime family as the Clintons. Prescott Bush, actual Nazi major supporter and founded the CIA, which then went on to MKUltra and MKNaomi and God knows how many other black projects. George HW Bush spoke repeatedly and notably about a "New World Order". George W Bush served his purpose to get us entangled in the Middle East in as many ways as possible.

It's rare you come across someone of any political persuasion who still defends going into Iraq and the Bush family


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> It's rare you come across someone of either political persuasion who still defends going into Iraq and the Bush family



I'm not defending either, I"m merely stating that,_ "Bush used WMD as an excuse to start a war" _,is another form of dopey Iraq War conspiracy theories, along with, _"Bush invaded Iraq to steal oil" _and _"Bush started a war solely to get Halliburton contracts"_.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 16, 2020)

OK but didn't he invade Iraq because his daddy the NWO supporting Neocon already tried, and the policy to destabilize and "nation build" the Middle East remained the same when his son took office?

We know that's not where 9/11 was launched from even remotely. Not Afghanistan either (but those poppy fields sure do look good for some black op drug running... and what do you know now we got cheap heroin flooding the northeast in the 2000s-2010s, RIP to a few old friends on that note). Saudi Arabia would have been at least somewhat more accurate. Or just follow the money.


----------



## Dickc (Jan 16, 2020)

JimG. said:


> I'm somewhat impressed.
> 
> We have been dancing at the edge of lockdown for over a day with this thread yet we have managed to pull back and check ourselves. There was even an apology given.
> 
> There is true hope for this group after all.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krD4hdGvGHM&list=PLVZA3KzB_Db1U37aig0SRqMNQf2KSDuKi&index=3&t=0s

If you don't get the reference, "Get off my Lawn"!


----------



## Dickc (Jan 16, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Again, this is entirely false.
> 
> It was not only the US intelligence that believed Saddam had WMD, it was the Brits, the French, the Italians, and some others I'm forgetting.  The belief that Saddam had WMD was widely held in the global intelligence community, probably at least in part because Saddam said he did.  A great miscalculation on his part thinking nobody would attack if we thought he possessed such weapons.



You need to dig around as its not well reported, but the troops did find buried WMD's.  Saddam buried them in hopes they would just go away, which was not a really good idea as they started to leak and get into the environment.  The troops that did find them suffered quite a few ill effects in retrieving them for proper destruction.  The WMD's were completely unusable once found.


----------



## Orca (Jan 17, 2020)

_"The panel that sets Vermont’s official economic forecasts moved Thursday to increase the state’s projected tax revenue by $44 million over the next two years. 
...
Thursday’s update was not surprising; Vermont has seen as its revenue outpacing expectations in recent years, and the country has experienced the longest period of economic recovery on record."
-- VTDigger, 16 January 2020_

*So a rising tide raises all boats and Vermont's government benefits from the Trump economy. They get their share!*

_"Thank you to Sen Anthony Pollina for his proposal to tax well-off Vermonters to fund concrete steps to address climate change.
...
Pollina’s proposal taxes only the top 5% of Vermont taxpayers, and it does this by imposing only a relatively small surcharge to recoup some of the windfall these taxpayers have reaped from the Trump tax cuts."
-- Patrick Flood, VTDigger, 13 January 2020_

*And others benefit from the Trump economy. Vermont's government wants to take for itself other people's shares too!*

Truly have your cake and eat it.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 17, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Again, this is entirely false.
> 
> It was not only the US intelligence that believed Saddam had WMD, it was the Brits, the French, the Italians, and some others I'm forgetting.  The belief that Saddam had WMD was widely held in the global intelligence community, probably at least in part because Saddam said he did.  A great miscalculation on his part thinking nobody would attack if we thought he possessed such weapons.



BG, it was very much confirmed that the US intelligence and our leader and his cabinet were the major force in the decision.  Yes the other governments were saying the same thing but we were the train going down the tracks and it was discussed internally about the benefits of going over there.  They needed the case to get approved by congress so they use all means available to get it done.  What you don't think that Tony Blair and Bush were not talking behind the scenes about how this would benefit them later?


----------



## Orca (Jan 17, 2020)

*Trump Fans or Not, Business Owners Are Wary of Warren and Sanders*

"Wariness extends far beyond an elite financial fellowship, though, to many small and medium-size businesses whose executives are not reflexively Republican but worry that the ascendancy of a left-wing Democrat would create an anti-business climate. In their view, sweeping plans to remake the health care system or slash the cost of higher education will mean higher taxes for businesses and the middle class, no matter what candidates promise."

-- NT Times, 17 January 2020


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 17, 2020)

Hawk said:


> BG, it was very much confirmed that the US intelligence and our leader and his cabinet were the major force in the decision.  Yes the other governments were saying the same thing but we were the train going down the tracks and it was discussed internally about the benefits of going over there.  They needed the case to get approved by congress so they use all means available to get it done.  What you don't think that Tony Blair and Bush were not talking behind the scenes about how this would benefit them later?








History repeating ?


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 22, 2020)

This article explains why Vermont education taxes are so expensive:
https://vtdigger.org/2020/01/21/woo...ding/?is_wppwa=true&wpappninja_cache=friendly


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 22, 2020)

VTKilarney said:


> This article explains why Vermont education taxes are so expensive:
> https://vtdigger.org/2020/01/21/woo...ding/?is_wppwa=true&wpappninja_cache=friendly



Relatively small (42,000) Burlington just announced at $91.5 million school budget.  Think about that and do the math. 


https://vtdigger.org/2020/01/22/burlington-school-budget-calls-for-7-4-property-tax-increase-﻿/


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## cdskier (Jan 22, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> Relatively small (42,000) Burlington just announced at $91.5 million school budget.  Think about that and do the math.
> 
> 
> https://vtdigger.org/2020/01/22/burlington-school-budget-calls-for-7-4-property-tax-increase-﻿/



Still not as bad as NJ (not that that is a good point of reference). My town in NJ (of about 18,000) has a $49M school budget. :-x


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 22, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> Relatively small (42,000) Burlington just announced at $91.5 million school budget.  Think about that and do the math.
> 
> 
> https://vtdigger.org/2020/01/22/burlington-school-budget-calls-for-7-4-property-tax-increase-﻿/
> ...


That's pretty much in line with my town in NH. We have approximately 10k residents with an enrollment of 1100 students.  Our school budget is $22.3M.  

Performance per dollar would be an interesting study to see.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## gregnye (Jan 22, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> Relatively small (42,000) Burlington just announced at $91.5 million school budget.  Think about that and do the math.
> 
> 
> https://vtdigger.org/2020/01/22/burlington-school-budget-calls-for-7-4-property-tax-increase-﻿/
> ...



I always find it interesting how many people make an argument against funding schools. Funding education is in our best interest to further advance society. And I don't know about you, but living with smarter people is always a good thing. 

We need our children to be educated to accurately evaluate and draw conclusions from factual information, now more than ever, as it seems that the current US government wishes to keep their voting base uneducated and misinformed, easy to manipulate.


----------



## legalskier (Jan 22, 2020)

cdskier said:


> Still not as bad as NJ (not that that is a good point of reference). My town in NJ (of about 18,000) has a $49M school budget. :-x



You get what you pay for. My kids got a great education.
https://www.nj.com/news/2019/09/nj-has-the-best-public-schools-in-the-nation-ranking-says.html


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2020)

cdskier said:


> *Still not as bad as NJ (not that that is a good point of reference). My town in NJ (of about 18,000) has a $49M school budget.* :-x



Most expensive in America, but at least our teachers are I think the 2nd highest paid (IIRC, Connecticut is #1).  

In Vermont, teachers dont make crap, so where the hell's the money going?!?!


----------



## Orca (Jan 23, 2020)

I applaud wanting to fund schools well and educate students properly. Great idea. Unfortunately, Vermont wants a first-rate education system funded by a third-rate economy. Perhaps the action shouldn't be to de-fund the education system. Perhaps the action the government should take is to start implementing business-friendly policies.

This is just a special case of Vermont's problem. It wants a first-rate (insert favorite government service or regulation) based on a third-rate economy. Just doesn't work.


----------



## 1dog (Jan 23, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Most expensive in America, but at least our teachers are I think the 2nd highest paid (IIRC, Connecticut is #1).
> 
> In Vermont, teachers dont make crap, so where the hell's the money going?!?!



If money solved problems like education we'd have it all fixed. Old data but #1 in 1960's now 23rd   ( of  industrialized countries) yet 3x cost per student compared to some of those other countries ahead of us.

Why do we still think money ( and money alone) solves problems. 

1. not always true
2. when it isn't earned or raised close to home, its not allocated properly.
3. when will we every hear from any agency ' we have enough, don't need anymore' ( we all know answer)


Consider we have more people who don't speak English in schools and SPED takes a lot of $$ from 'regular kids' so $20K per sounds like a lot  - it is - but SPED might get $29K while the regs get the left overs. 


If you can't hold teachers accountable for performance - and now they ( to their credit) have to deal with unreasonable parents, and kids who have no respect for authority- hence unreasonable parenting)  and of course, 'my Jonny is special'



competition will make 'em all better - but unions only want choice in some things, not school choice.

Bring back truant schools and actual punishment or  expel those who refuse to comply.  Unlikely given our culture of ' we can never let our kids be exposed to dissapointment or failure. We all know thoise experiences  teach nothing, riiiiight???


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2020)

1dog said:


> *If money solved problems like education we'd have it all fixed.*



Oh, I know, it's not all about money at all. 

 The point I was trying to get across is that at least NJ pays its' teachers well for the egregiously high education spending, whereas my Vermonter teacher wife fled Vermont because a starting (college educated mind you) teacher there made only $35,000. So if Vermont is spending ungodly $$$$ on education, where the hell is it all going?  With NJ, it's easy to figure it out.

Another example of it not being all about money, but in reverse, would be Utah.  I believe they are something like bottom-ten in America in spending & something like top-ten in America in education results.



1dog said:


> * now they ( to their credit) have to deal with unreasonable parents*,* and kids who have no respect for authority- hence unreasonable parenting)  and of course, 'my Jonny is special'*


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 23, 2020)

Orca said:


> I applaud wanting to fund schools well and educate students properly. Great idea. Unfortunately, Vermont wants a first-rate education system funded by a third-rate economy. Perhaps the action shouldn't be to de-fund the education system. Perhaps the action the government should take is to start implementing business-friendly policies.
> 
> This is just a special case of Vermont's problem. It wants a first-rate (insert favorite government service or regulation) based on a third-rate economy. Just doesn't work.



Exactly.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 23, 2020)

gregnye said:


> I always find it interesting how many people make an argument against funding schools. Funding education is in our best interest to further advance society. And I don't know about you, but living with smarter people is always a good thing.
> 
> We need our children to be educated to accurately evaluate and draw conclusions from factual information, now more than ever, as it seems that the current US government wishes to keep their voting base uneducated and misinformed, easy to manipulate.



That's a red herring.  Nobody is arguing that.  As DHS said, the issue is the outcome.  There is a lot of data that shows that despite the money invested the outcomes are only average at best.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 23, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Oh, I know, it's not all about money at all.
> 
> The point I was trying to get across is that at least NJ pays its' teachers well for the egregiously high education spending, whereas my Vermonter teacher wife fled Vermont because a starting (college educated mind you) teacher there made only $35,000. So if Vermont is spending ungodly $$$$ on education, where the hell is it all going?  With NJ, it's easy to figure it out.
> 
> ...



Honestly, Utah is certainly not a poster child for education.  For all the talk about family values, the dollar is all that matters here.


----------



## prsboogie (Jan 23, 2020)

1dog said:


> Bring back truant schools and actual punishment or  expel those who refuse to comply.  Unlikely given our culture of ' we can never let our kids be exposed to dissapointment or failure. We all know thoise experiences  teach nothing, riiiiight???



This^^^^

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Jan 23, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> That's a red herring.  Nobody is arguing that.  As DHS said, the issue is the outcome.  There is a lot of data that shows that despite the money invested the outcomes are only average at best.



sounds exactly like our healthcare system!  where does all the money go?  in the case of healthcare, industry execs and admin ...in the case of education, admin and insane pensions.  i think we can all agree we could do both better and more efficiently in this country, regardless of how you think that happens.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> sounds exactly like *our healthcare system!  where does all the money go?  in the case of healthcare, industry execs and admin*




Just the slightest bit of education on domestic healthcare expenditures would tell you that CEO, other executive pay, and admin pay cannot possibly be where _"the money goes"_ in the multi-trillion dollar US healthcare system.  Stop believing everything Moveon.org & Daily Kos tell you.  Good grief.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 23, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> sounds exactly like our healthcare system!  where does all the money go?  in the case of healthcare, industry execs and admin ...in the case of education, admin and insane pensions.  i think we can all agree we could do both better and more efficiently in this country, regardless of how you think that happens.



My family participates in a a Christian Healthcare Ministry / cost-share plan, we pay about $460 a month for all 3 of us. We never go to doctor unless we're actually really sick or injured. I specifically inquired if ski injuries will be covered, they said absolutely, 100%. It's also got hundreds of thousands of members and A+ reviews all around. This amounts to a 60%+ savings over the nearest competitive RomneyCare plan.

This plan also makes hospitals charge less because you choose the "pay out of pocket" option, which means they give you a lower price, then you get a check for that amount from the cost-share plan.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2020)

thetrailboss said:


> * Utah is certainly not a poster child for education. *
> For all the talk about family values, the dollar is all that matters here.



I remember you telling me you felt compelled to put your kids in private school because you thought the public school system was so lacking. But I'm just talking about the data versus other state's data, which if believed show that while it's true Utah is terribly underfunded education-wise, yet Utah results aren't near the worst in America despite that underfunding. Also, you were (are?) living in the city, right? I'd speculate places on the Wasatch Back don't tolerate spending peanuts on their kids, as people who can afford $450k to $1M+ homes typically don't. 

 Or, alternatively, if I'm wrong about this currently, I believe there'll be a seismic change soon in that regard given all the wealth moving into the Back.  I was last there in April, and driving from Midway / south Heber City through Francis, Kamas, and then back to PC through Hideout, it was STAGGERING the development going on in that ~ 20 mile ring.  And I'm talking really nice new homes, starkly juxtaposed against the long-term existing houses which were anywhere from poor looking to charitably middle class. These new people I think are going to demand better & brand new schools to replace 1970s structures with mobile classrooms.  My 2¢ prediction anyway.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 23, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> I remember you telling me you felt compelled to put your kids in private school because you thought the public school system was so lacking. But I'm just talking about the data versus other state's data, which if believed show that while it's true Utah is terribly underfunded education-wise, yet Utah results aren't near the worst in America despite that underfunding.



That's because Mormons have several Moms to handle the home schooling on the side. Even when that's not the case, religious families tend to place more of the weight of educating kids on themselves. Atheists on the other hand probably most reliant on the state.

NOT starting a religious debate but this is objective reality.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 23, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> That's because Mormons have several Moms to handle the home schooling on the side. Even when that's not the case, religious families tend to place more of the weight of educating kids on themselves. Atheists on the other hand probably most reliant on the state.
> 
> NOT starting a religious debate but this is objective reality.



If true that would explain a lot


----------



## 1dog (Jan 23, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> My family participates in a a Christian Healthcare Ministry / cost-share plan, we pay about $460 a month for all 3 of us. We never go to doctor unless we're actually really sick or injured. I specifically inquired if ski injuries will be covered, they said absolutely, 100%. It's also got hundreds of thousands of members and A+ reviews all around. This amounts to a 60%+ savings over the nearest competitive RomneyCare plan.
> 
> This plan also makes hospitals charge less because you choose the "pay out of pocket" option, which means they give you a lower price, then you get a check for that amount from the cost-share plan.



Same Tuna - $490 a month for family of 4 - $240 a year for Brothers Keeper plan if something goes over $1M for any or all in family.

Ask you don't drink to excess and are not a smoker - imagine, managing risk - that government programs won't allow private insurers to do. 

All my doc visits and procedures are 40-50% of list because there is NO PAPER work ( coding, waiting,  and frankly, they don't get the list from insurance companies anyway - but they have a huge expense in bureaucracy mandated by government.)

my regular $4000 p/p deductible I left? $2500 per month. And. . .I can go anywhere to any dr.
Not insurance - health sharing expense plan.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 23, 2020)

1dog said:


> Same Tuna



Cheers Mate, well since we know who's going to be paying our bills, let's try and avoid ski injuries this season, ok?


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Jan 23, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Just the slightest bit of education on domestic healthcare expenditures would tell you that CEO, other executive pay, and admin pay cannot possibly be where _"the money goes"_ in the multi-trillion dollar US healthcare system.  Stop believing everything Moveon.org & Daily Kos tell you.  Good grief.



educate us, charlie brown, where does it go?  why is it we spend the most and have something like the 26th best outcomes??  i'm absolutely sure it has nothing to do with healthcare as a 'for-profit' scheme and is really the fault of all those welfare mamas and illegal immigrants.  try taking a break from breitbart.  the worms in your brain might starve.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 24, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> educate us, charlie brown, where does it go?  why is it we spend the most and have something like the 26th best outcomes??  i'm absolutely sure it has nothing to do with healthcare as a 'for-profit' scheme and is really the fault of all those welfare mamas and illegal immigrants.  try taking a break from breitbart.  the worms in your brain might starve.



Because of a lack of across state lines competition, a lack of transparent pricing of medical services and drug pricing, practices of giving incentives to physicians from drug companies, and price controls and kickbacks on drugs by insurance companies, it is not a free, open, and competitive marketplace.

There is nothing wrong with profit, it pays your salary. Profit provides incentive to do more, to do better.  If you remove profit, you remove incentive - a very bad idea.  The problem is with the incestuous relationships in the industry that Washington has to date been unwilling to shine daylight on.  Any guesses on why that is?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 24, 2020)

spring_mountain_high said:


> educate us, charlie brown, where does it go?  why is it we spend the most and have something like the 26th best outcomes??  i'm absolutely sure it has nothing to do with healthcare as a 'for-profit' scheme and is really the fault of all those welfare mamas and illegal immigrants.  try taking a break from breitbart.  the worms in your brain might starve.



Not really a "nuance person", are you?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 24, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Not really a "nuance person", are you?



Ugh... not even bothering replying to him.   A $3.6 TRILLION expenditure accounting for about 20% of GDP of the planet's #1 economy, and he honestly thinks it's because of CEO/COO pay & "admin" making $160,000 a year.  Weapon's grade ignorance borne from swallowing propaganda.  10 to 1 odds he's a Bernie fan.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 24, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> 10 to 1 odds he's a Bernie fan.



Kyle Jurek walks among us.... JUUUST KIDDING


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 24, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Not really a "nuance person", are you?



?? And why should he be? He was answering to BG who's been dispensing right wing pablum wherever he can stuff it, and he does it really well. So the breitbart remark is well deserved. And the point was really about a huge inefficiency of our healthcare industry. About that spring_mt_h is very much correct.


----------



## Orca (Jan 24, 2020)

Bumpsis said:


> ?? And why should he be? He was answering to BG who's been dispensing right wing pablum wherever he can stuff it, and he does it really well. So the breitbart remark is well deserved. And the point was really about a huge inefficiency of our healthcare industry. About that spring_mt_h is very much correct.



Seemed like the point of the post was to straw-man the opposing argument divisively using welfare mamas and illegal immigrants. I can think of higher forms of discourse.


----------



## chuckstah (Jan 24, 2020)

https://youtu.be/B5dDOKrFUOw

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Orca (Jan 24, 2020)

Get a load of this! It's real.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 24, 2020)

https://www.offthegridnews.com/reli...with-socialism-should-teach-america-a-lesson/


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 24, 2020)

mister moose said:


> practices of giving incentives to physicians from drug companies



There are numerous things wrong with your overall post, but I'll key on this one because it shows an absurd amount of ignorance on your behalf.

As a seller of medical products, I can't buy a doctor an f'n donut without reporting it to the feds and having that doctor record it as compensation.  

The SS Bribery Ship to doctors by drug and device companies set sail almost 15 years ago. 



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 24, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> There are numerous things wrong with your overall post, but I'll key on this one because it shows an absurd amount of ignorance on your behalf.
> 
> As a seller of medical products, *I can't buy a doctor an f'n donut without reporting it to the feds and having that doctor record it as compensation.  *
> 
> *The SS Bribery Ship to doctors by drug and device companies set sail almost 15 years ago. *



FACT CHECK:  Mostly true, with shades of gray (though it was only about 10 years ago). 

 You're 95% correct, except there are ways around it, depends upon how creative you want to get, or more precisely, do you want to push the envelope.   I actually put the kibosh on some activity I didn't like a few years ago due to what I consider, shall we say, excessive risk.  I predict within the next few years the Feds are going to ring a major up on Sunshine Act with a hefty fine, because many in healthcare are working what I would call end-arounds.  I'll also go out on a limb and say I believe the lawsuit will involve a third party.  It's the same old story.  Government has a law and people pay attention to it.  Years pass, government doesn't really enforce it.  People get emboldened.  Smart people get creative.  Years more pass.  Too many people are in the know.  Government finally gets a clue.  Someone gets a multi-million dollar fine.  It's coming.

 This is one thing Obama did that I actually support, because abuse was rampant; though as with many things Obama, they went extremist far.  For instance, in DHS' "donut" example, while that sounds like sarcasm, it isnt.  If you want to have a small event with physicians & just do the pleasantly of having a plate of cookies & cups of coffee, the government demands you ascribe a monetary value to the cookies & coffee and report it to the Feds.  This is, of course, completely insane & totally against the spirit of the intent of the law, because, government...


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 24, 2020)

The loop holes available are not enough to influence buying decisions.  Yes, you can buy a donut for folks without an MD next to their name and have that MD stand in the back of the room observing. 

What you can't do is buy doctors vacations for their families for "speaking engagements" like you could pre-sunshine. 

The law has largely worked as intended.  I work for one of the largest and fastest growing international medical technology companies in the world.  We don't f around with that law.  I have dozens of former colleagues now working for other companies that don't either. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## mister moose (Jan 25, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> There are numerous things wrong with your overall post, but I'll key on this one because it shows an absurd amount of ignorance on your behalf.
> 
> As a seller of medical products, I can't buy a doctor an f'n donut without reporting it to the feds and having that doctor record it as compensation.
> 
> The SS Bribery Ship to doctors by drug and device companies set sail almost 15 years ago.



Um, okay.  Here's some absurd amount of ignorance:

A ProPublica analysis has found that doctors who receive payments from the medical industry do indeed prescribe drugs differently on average than their colleagues who don't. And the more money they receive, the more brand-name medications they tend to prescribe."
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/17/470679452/drug-company-payments-mirror-doctors-brand-name-prescribing

The findings suggested that for oral anticoagulants, or blood thinners, and non-insulin drugs used to treat ​diabetes , payments to specialists were associated with greater prescribing of brand-name drugs than payments to non-specialists, who receive fewer gifts. 
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-18/pharmaceutical-companies-influence-doctor-prescribing

Those articles are only a few years old, far from 15 years ago.  Your point, other than grandstanding, was that the wild west era was over.  It isn't over, it's just been downsized and given a shiny coat of paint.

​


----------



## mister moose (Jan 25, 2020)

More absurd ignorance:


First, on March 8, 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts announced a $3.1 million dollar settlement with Abiomed, Inc., to resolve allegations that Abiomed violated the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and False Claims Act (FCA) by inducing physicians to use its products. Abiomed allegedly violated the AKS by paying for expensive meals for physicians (and their spouses) in excess of Abiomed’s own guidelines for such events, and by listing fictitious attendees at such meals to reduce the per-attendee cost of the meal, in order to influence the attendee-physicians to order and use Abiomed heart pumps. Interestingly, in its settlement announcement the DOJ highlighted the fact that Abiomed’s per-meal payments exceeded “Abiomed’s own $150 per person guideline,” 

March 9, 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Rhode Island announced that a physician had been sentenced to over four years in federal prison for committing health care fraud and for violating the AKS. In this case, the physician admitted to soliciting and receiving kickbacks in excess of $188,000 in the form of purported speaker fees from a pharmaceutical company to induce him to prescribe Subsys, a highly-addictive version of the drug Fentanyl. The physician also admitted to committing health care fraud by falsely claiming that patients had “breakthrough pain from cancer” in order to secure approval for Subsys prescriptions from payors (including Medicare). Notably, this case is one of a number of criminal convictions that have been secured against providers for accepting kickbacks from Insys – the Arizona-based manufacturer of Subsys – through its speaker programs, and Insys and certain of its employees are currently the subject of cases involving similar allegations in other jurisdictions.
​https://www.healthlawdiagnosis.com/2018/03/recent-anti-kickback-cases-emphasize-government-scrutiny-of-speakers-bureaus-and-lavish-meals-funded-by-pharmaceutical-and-device-manufacturers/



I'm left wondering why an absurdly ignorant moose seems to be more aware of this than an industry insider, who claims that there isn't so much as a donut being passed around as "incentives".  I'm glad you personally  don't buy any donuts.  But it's time to see the forest.
​
​


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 25, 2020)

As I said, there are ways around it.  Though those sound like pretty stupid ways which were easy to get caught.  There are definitely far more clever ways afoot out there.  Though that ABMD example is more what I'm talking about, that Subsys example is just straight-up fraud, which is not what I'm talking about.


----------



## Orca (Jan 25, 2020)

Orca said:


> Get a load of this! It's real.



Not sure I can exactly get over Bernie's hair. 38 years ago and he still has a crazy coif.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 25, 2020)

mister moose said:


> More absurd ignorance:
> 
> 
> First, on March 8, 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts announced a $3.1 million dollar settlement with Abiomed, Inc., to resolve allegations that Abiomed violated the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and False Claims Act (FCA) by inducing physicians to use its products. Abiomed allegedly violated the AKS by paying for expensive meals for physicians (and their spouses) in excess of Abiomed’s own guidelines for such events, and by listing fictitious attendees at such meals to reduce the per-attendee cost of the meal, in order to influence the attendee-physicians to order and use Abiomed heart pumps. Interestingly, in its settlement announcement the DOJ highlighted the fact that Abiomed’s per-meal payments exceeded “Abiomed’s own $150 per person guideline,”
> ...



You're not more aware, not even in the slightest fashion.  Your post here only further prooves that those that try and skirt the sunshine act, tend to get caught and penalized. 

but say they didn't.  let's roll back to your initial claim that bribing docs has a meaningful impact on the cost of medical services in this country.

how much is it?

what do you believe the percentage increase that criminal behavior has on cost of care to consumers?

what do you think those activities contribute to the bottom lines of the companies that still flirt with the legallity line?



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (Jan 26, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> You're 95% correct, except there are ways around it, depends upon how creative you want to get, or more precisely, do you want to push the envelope.   I actually put the kibosh on some activity I didn't like a few years ago due to what I consider, shall we say, excessive risk.  I predict within the next few years the Feds are going to ring a major up on Sunshine Act with a hefty fine, because many in healthcare are working what I would call end-arounds.  I'll also go out on a limb and say I believe the lawsuit will involve a third party.  It's the same old story.  Government has a law and people pay attention to it.  Years pass, government doesn't really enforce it.  People get emboldened.  Smart people get creative.  Years more pass.  Too many people are in the know.  Government finally gets a clue.  Someone gets a multi-million dollar fine.  It's coming.
> 
> This is one thing Obama did that I actually support, because abuse was rampant; though as with many things Obama, they went extremist far.  For instance, in DHS' "donut" example, while that sounds like sarcasm, it isnt.  If you want to have a small event with physicians & just do the pleasantly of having a plate of cookies & cups of coffee, the government demands you ascribe a monetary value to the cookies & coffee and report it to the Feds.  This is, of course, completely insane & totally against the spirit of the intent of the law, because, government...


There’s never going to be an easy solution to the problem. It’s not just the health care system. ANY government regulation, if it’s not enforced for long enough, people who start to ignore it. Kind of like the speed limit on the interstate!

I work in another highly regulated industry. I write computer program to “help” ease operation of all kind. As part of that process, we routinely add in checks to kick out operation that’s against the law or regulations. 

It’s not uncommon we get “complaints” from our user “You’ve introduce a bug, I can’t do x or y any more”. Well, because it’s illegal! “But we’ve been doing it for ages”. Haha! 

You got the idea. “But officer, I’ve been driving this stretch of highway day in and day out, EVERYONE going at least 80mph!”


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 26, 2020)

In terms of VT, what are the tipping point incomes for this welfare state? 

As in in how poorly are all these people doing that requires all the handouts? How big are the handouts? I feel a lot of the discussion completely blows by these figures and just assumes everyone who is on the dole either deserves it wholeheartedly or are complete and total fraud welfare queens. 

For example, you can have a household income over 150k a year and still qualify for certain a properties within the affordable housing program here in Jackson. 150!

Other programs are no different from other places like food stamps or unemployment. 

I guess what are these egregious examples of state dependence everyone keeps mentioning. I have a hard time seeing VT as being so egregious in terms of welfare state vs being hard on business. You can be pro business much easier than you can roll back public subsidies. 

Any gambler knows once you are on the juice you are on the juice you probably aren’t getting off without pain.

Id like to know also as I could conceivably cash out of real estate here and buy places cash in VT, which is kinda appealing. You can get a serious spread in Vt right now for pretty damn cheap even with the taxes. I’m pretty much their target audience for this promotion, with the ability to work remote and enough resources to conceivably make it happen.


----------



## Orca (Jan 26, 2020)

AdironRider said:


> In terms of VT, what are the tipping point incomes for this welfare state?
> 
> As in in how poorly are all these people doing that requires all the handouts? How big are the handouts? I feel a lot of the discussion completely blows by these figures and just assumes everyone who is on the dole either deserves it wholeheartedly or are complete and total fraud welfare queens.



I think the discussion here of the welfare state is broader than specific public assistance programs for the poor. Welfare state in the context of this discussion refers to excess public spending of all types. Vermont's problem is that it wants a first-rate welfare state based on a third-rate economy. It cements its third-rate economy with laws and taxes that are burdensome to business. There are lots of links sprinkled throughout this thread that you can investigate.



AdironRider said:


> Id like to know also as I could conceivably cash out of real estate here and buy places cash in VT, which is kinda appealing. You can get a serious spread in Vt right now for pretty damn cheap even with the taxes. I’m pretty much their target audience for this promotion, with the ability to work remote and enough resources to conceivably make it happen.



You aren't getting public assistance if you can buy a nice place with cash. Not having a mortgage makes the tax burden more palatable, I am sure. Glad for you that your real estate ventures in Jackson have done so well.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 26, 2020)

AdironRider said:


> Id like to know also as I could conceivably cash out of real estate here and buy places cash in VT, which is kinda appealing. You can get a serious spread in Vt right now for pretty damn cheap even with the taxes. I’m pretty much their target audience for this promotion, with the ability to work remote and enough resources to conceivably make it happen.



Why on earth would you want to leave Wyoming for Vermont, are you originally from Vermont?


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 27, 2020)

Orca said:


> I think the discussion here of the welfare state is broader than specific public assistance programs for the poor. Welfare state in the context of this discussion refers to excess public spending of all types. Vermont's problem is that it wants a first-rate welfare state based on a third-rate economy. It cements its third-rate economy with laws and taxes that are burdensome to business. There are lots of links sprinkled throughout this thread that you can investigate.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't getting public assistance if you can buy a nice place with cash. Not having a mortgage makes the tax burden more palatable, I am sure. Glad for you that your real estate ventures in Jackson have done so well.



Just to be clear, I am not seeking public assistance but trying to gauge just where the problem is. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you think the government employs vastly more people to do the same job. I don't think it is the benefits. My Dad worked in wastewater treatment in NH, we had a pretty stellar health plan and he gets a pension. It's not like governments elsewhere don't have plush benefit packages on offer. Are there examples of departments that exist in VT but not Massachusetts for example? 

Vermont is still a very pretty place, and the thought of being able to buy a place cash at my age really takes most of my fears about making it work in VT away. I have a portable income, and without a housing nut, only need 50% of what I do now to live the exact same lifestyle. Actually, probably more like 40% since eating out and buying anything here is more expensive. I can also trade my 1 acre here for about 100 in VT. That room to roam and not have it be some barren dry farm is pretty appealing. The skiing isn't as great sure, but lets just say Jackson loses a certain appeal as you age and get more limited in how extreme you want to be on any given Tuesday.  

From my outside perspective, it seems like the problem is the lack of a good business climate and a reduction of tax receipts. You are left with a higher percentage of people that need assistance while not increasing that overall number of people as the earners and business owners leave. Same with government employees. Towns still have to operate, regardless of population. Streets still need to get plowed and bills paid.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 27, 2020)

Orca said:


> Not sure I can exactly get over Bernie's hair. 38 years ago and he still has a crazy coif.



I can't get over his slanderous lies and disdain for our nation. Nobody throws out the "racist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic" slur on patriotic individuals more than this piece of shit. I look forward to his defeat by a historical margin.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 27, 2020)

AdironRider said:


> From my outside perspective, it seems like the problem is the lack of a good business climate and a reduction of tax receipts. You are left with a higher percentage of people that need assistance while not increasing that overall number of people as the earners and business owners leave. Same with government employees. Towns still have to operate, regardless of population. Streets still need to get plowed and bills paid.



Vermont is also anti-business. The politics there have changed more than you can possibly imagine in the last 20 years, and the politicians in Vermont are no longer merely liberal, but wacky leftist. You'll also be paying the very high 8% or 9& Vermont income tax rate versus 0% Wyoming income tax.



bdfreetuna said:


> I can't get over his slanderous lies and disdain for our nation. Nobody throws out the "racist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic" slur on patriotic individuals more than this piece of shit. *I look forward to his defeat by a historical margin.*



The Democratic Party (once again) isnt going to let Sanders get the nomination.  They're rigging it against him (once again); and Obama is reportedly going to knee-cap him should Sanders actually become a threat to win it.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 27, 2020)

I thought they were gonna knee cap Sanders but unless the Antichrist reveals himself the (D) don't have a candidate. Maybe they were actually stupid enough to think Biden was the guy? Sanders is the only one with an actual voting bloc. Hillary killed her chance by bad-mouthing Sanders and Barack's partner Michelle hasn't done anything to improve they/thems image lately.

I think if Obama does that you'll find out pretty quickly how his former voters have already moved on. Some (like myself) toward the other side. The other half disagrees with Obama about toning down SJW / woke / cancel culture and are fully intent on escalating it and in fact even moreso if given the chance as revenge politics.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 27, 2020)

Let's keep things light and non-political please. The discussion is about Vermont, not specific political players.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 27, 2020)

^^
actual moderation taking place, I have to respect that


----------



## 1dog (Jan 27, 2020)

lack of competiton across state lines. Thats a huge part of it. 

Quick example of a pol who did help with this - one I never voted for but you ghotta give credit where credit is due - Commerce Insurance Co in MA had one of the largest lobbying arms in MA - still - Gov Patrick deregulated auto insurance enough that more companues could come in and compete - pretty much everyone got $200 knocked off their bill due to ( I'm making up a #) 30 insurance companies competing instead of 6.

That would not make him a good candidate for President - yet he runs. . . . . 

There are 900 or so health insurance companies in the USA - but 5 hold the majority of the market  - most are limited to a few states - imagine letting them run in any state they wanted? And limit coverages to what we chose?  


Spring_m_high said it best - 26th yet we spend the most - get government out of the way and the competiton and the quality rise - same with public ed. #1 in spending#23 in stats.

See a pattern here?

One thing we are # 1 in - government spending and government employment.


----------



## Edd (Jan 27, 2020)

Education/knowledge not important. Exhibit A:


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 27, 2020)

Edd said:


> Education/knowledge not important. Exhibit A:
> 
> View attachment 26116



This guy makes me puke  
uke:


----------



## Edd (Jan 27, 2020)

Bumpsis said:


> This guy makes me puke
> uke:



I’m ex-military, he makes want to puke also. There’s not a bigger pussy alive.


----------



## Orca (Jan 27, 2020)

JimG. said:


> Let's keep things light and non-political please. The discussion is about Vermont, not specific political players.



The comment about Bernie's hair was strictly about fashion!!!


----------



## Orca (Jan 27, 2020)

JimG. said:


> Let's keep things light and non-political please. The discussion is about Vermont, not specific political players.



Apparently Edd and Bumpsis can't read.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 27, 2020)

Oh well, too bad.


----------

