Willie71

Rich is not the issue. Buying the government to give them the advantage at the expense of everyone else is. Getting government contracts that amount to monopolies, or getting laws that put competitive products at an unfair, unnatural disadvantage, is a problem. You think these guys got wealthy through hard work? Sure, there was hard work, but getting in bed with Stalin and Hitler isn't something to brag about. The rules were set to make sure you would never be able to take much of the pie. This is a good system to you?

Often overlooked are mental health conditions. ADHD is highly correlated with obesity, and more recent research shows that people with atypical depression are more prone to obesity, even if diet is controlled for. People with seasonal affective disorder are also highly likely to gain weight, but when young, often lose quickly in the spring. Less so as they age.

This is worth a watch. The well researched book by Jane Mayer explains the takeover of the government by a few hundred oligarchs. She is interviewed by Tom Hartman. Tar, tell me how this is good enough. Your arguments that you claim people don't believe, aren't believed because these arguments have been fact checked and proven to be lies. There is ample evidence showing how inaccurate the claims of the Republican Party are. You regurgitate them as if they should still be taken seriously. They are proven lies.

You couldn't afford college for your daughter, even though you worked hard. This isn't a problem? Your country can affor $30 Billion dollars to bomb Syria next year, but can't afford $60 Billion to make college free to all qualifying students. Priorities? I'm not wasting any more time responding to the uninformed ramblings. It's too frustrating. You have been presented months worth of material to read and study to better understand the issues we are discussing, but a few anecdotes of blacks getting some assistance is good enough evidence for you? Your own family has been impacted by income inequality and the banking crash, yet you say things are fine. Wow, republican talking points really do work on some people.

Worth a watch. Looks at corruption, status quo, corporate influence in government.

Video:

I was just about to post this too.

Tar, I don't mean this sarcastically, or in an insulting way. What people are saying is that believing something that is not supportable with evidence is a minor problem. We have all been uninformed or misinformed many times. However, when evidence clearly showing that belief to be false is presented, it is rational to revise one's beliefs. Failure, or outright refusal to do so is a oroblem, and there is a large minority of people in the US who are detached from reality, and refuse to accept sound evidence. You appear to be one of those people. What prevents you from looking at the evidence and acknowledging there is a mountain of evidence contradicting the notion that things are fine in America? You have: Obscenely high incarceration rates. Obscenely high income inequality. Runaway influence of money in politics. Militarized police state with the highest civillian death toll at the hands of the police I. The developed world. The highest gun violence rates in the developed world. Hard working families bankrupted by a medical emergency. High rates of bigotry and racism. One if the most expensive health care systems in the developed world. An obesity epidemic. A failing education system with high rates of illiteracy. A very high homeless population. A nearly non-existent medical system. Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman et,al. Corporate media, rather than investigative journalism. I could go on, but I would never stop. This is your definition of doing well? It's obscene to other developed countries.

The American media showed clips repeatedly with Reagan saying "Tear down this wall!" then clips of the wall coming down. The two events were not related in any way, really. The connection is burned into many american's minds, but it's fiction. Reagan did not topple the Soviet Union either, another revisionist history trope.

The Germany thing is revisionist history, commonly propagated in the US. iNow answered the Reagan/Nixon timeline and is correct. I have to review Reagan/China, as it's not fresh in my mind. Reagan's popularity grew post mortem. Immediately post office, his approval wasn't very remarkable. The assassination attempt did boost his approval, though. http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx A lot of charts in that article.

The damage Reagan did to the world is overwhelming. Nixon actually took many of his strategies from watching Reagan's campaigns in California. Nixonland was a pretty fascinating read. Highly recommended,

The politicians who pass the laws couldn't be rigging the system, giving an unfair advantage to the wealthiest people, bankrupting the government in the process? What about the people laid off during the crash? People with 20 or 30 years experience who were downsized, list management or manufacturing jobs, left with mortgages they can't afford, and can't afford to retrain? The USA went from a manufacturing g economy to a service economy. Service pays shit, compared to manufacturing. You have a different interpretation of data, but these conclusions are not supported by facts. Too many relevant variables are ignored to be considered accurate interpretations. Under Reagan, the dominionism became much more influential, and hating gays is much more profitable than hating blacks. Reagan also popularized the sound bite over discussion of policy. It was the start of the dumbing down of America.

You say you are not trying to have the rich win, yet you support politicians and policies that rig the game in favour of the rich. How does that work in your perception? It causes me cognitive dissonance. As has been pointed out multiple times, the policies of the republicans cannot let everyone win. History shows this in multiple examples.

I think the biggest differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives refuse to accept the role of the biggest factor in success, the social/genetic lottery. That is the single biggest predictor of what retirement will look like for people. Liberals accept that, and don't see minimizing the high costs of letting people flounder through life is either ethical, or financially viable. Conservatives call it freebies. Liberals recognize that for every dollar spent on prevention, $100.00 is returned in not requiring expensive fixes later on. By preventing "freebies," you are losing so much money it's obscene. Math is not a conservative strong point, obviously. Hmmm, you support everyone chipping in fairly to support the team wages, and operational costs, but taxing a corporation that uses public I frastructure is bad to you? Please try to be internally consistent. Would you agree that the best seats should have the highest price, rather than be given to the wealthy for free?

It's difficult to enter a conversation when you have absolutely no idea what the others are talking about. How about you do some research on wealth inequality, corporate welfare, and tax evasion befor asking these nonsense questions? I do not believe you are really unaware of these issues, as they have been plastered all over the news for many years. It appears you are looking for statements to dismiss out of hand. Not interested in that dishonest "debate" strategy.

Tar, these companies, and people with personal responsibility don't use any of the public services built during the new deal? They don't use the roads, bridges, sewage systems, postal system or other tax funded services, and therefore should not pay taxes? Myopic nonsense. It isn't wealth redistribution. That's an Orwellian reframe. Do these companies and individuals who have personal responsibility not use the highly subsidized fuel and oil that is taken out of regular people's taxes for corporate welfare? How about the fact that the republicans dismantled collective bargaining, and many people work full time, two incomes per household, yet still need food stamps to feed their family. These job creators are showing record profits, while you blame people for not having enough personal responsibility, since your tribe screwed them over.

Doublespeak is still an issue. Family values= cut spending on social programs. Pre-emotive defense= invasion. Self protection= murder. We aren't talking about perception. You said you valued your financial stability. You have it because of democrat policy, which is being eroded by republicans. There is no perception there. Republicans want to cut social security, let banks gamble with your savings, and remove health care for seniors. How do those policies help you financially? Squirrels aren't carnivorous predators. Thought I would mention that. The squirrels at my cabin throw acorns at the dogs, steal their food, and try to steal stuff from the pantry. I wouldn't characterize them as scary. An entertaining nuisance, but not scary.

I stand corrected.

Tar, if Obama didn't bail out the banks, you wouldn't have your financial security. Do you get social security? You realize that the republicans wasn't to cut it, and give that money in tax breaks to multinational corporations? These "job creators" push for policy that makes it easier to move manufacturing overseas so they can save money. This is what maintains your way of like? Bernie is pushing to reinstate Glass Stiegle, protecting you from the banks using your savings to gamble with. This works against your interests? He wants to keep jobs in America, which is against your interests? He wants an educated populace to build the technological economy, creating jobs and developing industry, against your interests? I have to ask, are you basing your opinions on a position of ignorance or misinformation, from your own perspective. Ignorance is relatively easy to fix, but misinformation is more entrenched.

This is why conservatives believe education indoctrinated syudents. They don't get that facts sway reasonable people.

I'm not a mod, but I think that would be an appropriate thread. The science is sound. It's the politics that are "uncertain."

Tar, I'm sure you are aware of the gerrymandering that has kept the Republican Party relevant. Progressive policy positions are supported by the majority of the populace, but redrawing the boundaries to concentrate the republican voters pays off. Why this wasn't opposed more strongly by the democrats is puzzling to me.

Tar, I'll use an analogy. Bush lit a forest fire that burned out of control. It was getting worse when he handed over the reigns. Obama tried using controlled burns to slow down the fire. Seven years later it's still out of control. You are asking Obama to take responsibility for the fire. Pandora's box is open. How do we close it?

Obama is right wing on economics, with his support of the big banks, pro corporate stance, tax policy, and support of TPP. Is it any surprise that wealth inequality has grown, as that us what happens with right wing economic policy in the past 100 years. The economy overall has grown, a strong point for right wing economics, but a smaller percentage of the population shares in the growth, and the poorest typically lose ground.

I made no reference to my own education, just the level of education in most fields where this set of skills is taught. I didn't say that people with a science education are misled. To the contrary, actually. People without a background in research are easily misled when research is misrepresented.