tar

Phi for All, I have been telling you the craziness and unworkability of the progressive stances, but you, being a progressive don't hear it. For instance, you already believe that universal healthcare is a human right. Therefore if universal health care would be unaffordable for the government to take on, as a single payer, you completely ignore the reality of the situation, the dollars and cents, and say instead that the drug companies are greedy and the insurance companies are greedy and the republicans are stupid and cruel for saying the thing simply will not work. Then when the country votes in people campaigning for congress on the basis of repealing Obamacare, you say they want to make Obama look bad because they are bigots. Never once would you think we don't have the money for it, unless we raise taxes. You say its fine to raise taxes because you are going to just tax multimillionaires, who are already the people providing jobs and capital for the country's growth. You say it is doable and you point to social democracies that have done it and say anybody who is not a socialist is anti-American and anti poor and cruel and stupid and greedy and obstructionist. You completely don't hear me, or do not believe me, when I say I don't think universal health care will work. When Greece goes into austerity measures, that does not slow you down. When Marketplaces go bankrupt and the strategy doesn't work, you say its because the Republicans got the insurance companies all involved, and the actuaries kept raising the fees and deductibles and you forget that the higher costs are to cover more people for more things. And you ignore the fact that we are not a socialist country and we are more capitalist then communist. All of our medical institutions have grown to the situations they are in, organically. People responding to government rules and proscriptions, appropriately to make health care better for everybody. We already do the thing, and its not good enough for you, unless we go to a single payer system. If the country wanted and single payer system and would be happy to pay for a single payer system, and happy to live with the government telling us when and which health care to have, and the thing looked workable and fair and affordable...we would have it. But there are people that do not like the government to tell them what to do and when to do it when it comes to personal business. I don't want anybody telling me not to smoke, or to get sterilized, or to loose weight, or to get psychological help because a yell at someone, or any number of things that might be proscribed by a system, that reduces my ability to exercise my own judgement. I don't want to live in a communist country. And if I have a status quo mentality, you call me ignorant. If a crazy guy shoots up a school or church you say its my fault, for voting for republicans. Banning automatic weapons is a good idea, banning assault style weapons is potentially a good idea, but is only the next step after banning assault weapons. The craziness is when some liberal suggests that hunters should pay a high fee for their gun license to pay for gang gun violence. It is not fair and reasonable and misses the point. If drugs and guns are a problem then the drugs that are a problem should be targeted and the guns that are a problem should be targeted, and that is mostly gang guns, illegal guns. Legal guns get into the hands of drug lords and gangs, but these things are not caused by the hunter, or even the libertarian out in the woods with his abissault style weapon, waiting for helter skelter. If though, I think it correct to ban handgrenades and artillery pieces and automatic weapons, but think it fine to trust my neighbor with a firearm, without special government tests on.... Anyway I have on many occasions addressed the behavior of the party and their standing in the way of what you would call progress. You however do not allow that the status quo might be such because it works. And you completely disallow the possibility that you might be wrong to attempt to change something that is already working. And you forget that the world is not going to change to suit you. You have to behave as if you wish to continue to help the world work. If on the other hand you persist in telling me my way of life and my ideology is bankrupt and I either don't know what I am doing, or I am being on purpose an asshole, in either case you are saying that how I have lived, what I have accomplished, what evil I have stood against, and what people I have supported has been for naught. I flat out reject that notion, and say instead that if you are embarrassed by my behavior and my ideals and my hopes for America and for my fellows and the direction I would like to see the country take, then vote for Hilary or Sanders. If they win then we will do it your way for 4 years. If someone else wins, like Bloomberg, or Bush. or Trump (god forbid), or Paul then we will do it their way for 4 years. Regards, TAR It would be better if we talked it through, listened to each other and did it the way that 90 percent of us thought would be a good idea. That includes respecting the opinions, hopes and desires of bankers, drug companies and religious folk. They are equal Americans. Ten Oz, Tonight I see on (MSNBC) that Trump does not like one of the Fox reporters that asked him a tough question, and Trump is refusing to attend a debate that she would moderate. If Fox is successful in taking Trump down a few notches and Trump, who is not a serious candidate in my mind, nor a person fit to be my representative to the world as head of State, then Fox would be successful in doing the country a favor. If David Duke is supporting Trump, then Trump is not the kind of person that would be a good president of all the people. But likewise, if Hilary hates the Republicans, and the Drug Companies and the Iranians, she is not the kind of person that would make a good president of all the people. Stop the hate, Dump Trump. Regards, TAR

DrP, Fox is biased toward the right, MSNBC is biased toward the left. CNN is just about sensible. My point here, though I don't seem to have the ability to make it, is that whether you are a MSNBC viewer and sneer at Fox commentators, or you are a Fox viewer and sneer at MSNBC commentators you are in both cases, not giving the other party the benefit of the doubt. That is, nobody likes to be wrong, and nobody likes to be made fun of, and particularly people do not like to be made fun of unfairly. It is 100 percent impossible for democrats to be right 100 percent of the time and 100 percent impossible for republicans to be wrong 100 percent of the time...and vice-a-versa. Better to do less sneering, and more understanding. Regards, TAR

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/11/politics-and-iq-conservative-democrats.htm Earlier in the thread a comic suggested that conservatives were dull and liberals were perceptive. This does seem to be the case with whites. And white female liberals in particular seem to have an edge. But the average of all groups was close to the average of all people, which is 100. Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals seem on the whole to be of average intelligence. Maybe independents are slightly less than either party in intelligence but the over all answer is that having an ideology might happen more with greater intelligence, but whether that should make you conservative or liberal is up for grabs. In another thread we talked about intelligence, as in it was likely that the leaders in our society were of higher than average intelligence, being that trustworthiness and capability were two of the strong characteristics of a leader. It is also likely that our leaders, regardless of their ideology or political party, are within the top 10 percent of the population. These people might be scientists or priests, school teachers or lawyers, businesswomen or generals. The majority of people, some 90 percent are not in the top 10 percent of the population. So in a democracy, or in a representative republic, the masses will have their way. My point in this thread, assuming that I am talking to people of above average intelligence, and probably a good number of people in the top 10 percent, is that if we are to all together have a great country, the leadership should work together, not endeavor to prove the other side of the aisle ignorant and evil. We are each equal in the eyes of the law. And each have a right to pursue happiness and follow our own god (or ideology.) We should be helping each other do just that, not telling each other how they are doing it wrong. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, The confounding factors though are difficult to separate, as CharonY points out. Like consider the patriarchal nature of churches, combined with the emasculation factors I suggested earlier. In this light, a female in the church might feel a lack of control where a male would feel an enhanced control, explaining why female suicide might be higher and males lower, when considering the effect of a patriarchal church. And at the same time, a lowering of the number of people in general that went to church, would take away this avenue of power and control from the males that otherwise would have attended and been decons or otherwise found a level of power and control in supporting the church establishment. And there is also a tendency for people alone and in trouble to turn to the church and religion, which would over all associate drugs and alcohol and personal problems and people that would wind up in jail, with religion as an effect, not a cause. I note here the way that inmates turn to religion, and people in trouble "find" Christ, and certain groups like AA use god in their language and direction as to what gives an alcoholic strength...so there are two effects that religion might have on suicide numbers. One to keep one from taking their life in the first place, and two to minister to those who are about to take their lives because of drugs or alcohol or loneliness or despair. Most of the time I have spent in church in my adult life has been around a marriage or a death or a celebration of service to the community. The church knows something about life and death. What I mean here, is that since there is no evidence of an objective god, the stories of such have to be figurative, and since there are plenty of people that feel that objective reality is real and responsible for our existence and that feel in return a responsibility for and a responsibililty to objective reality, there is another way to look at religion, other than a bunch of people who can't think. That is, that perhaps all of us are the judge and protector of each of us, and the symbols in the church are just symbols of that love and respect we have for each other. In any case, I think it would be a mistake to consider the church in general as any one thing, because it is not. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, But white females is not what we are trying to figure out, so the link to the church in the south, one way or the other is not a one to one correspondence in terms of white male suicides. Perhaps one could suggest that white males do better when the church is around, especially compared to white females, but I think the stats you provided are not directly attributable to white male suicides, as they did not point to a increase or decrease of white male suicides because of religion. Or anyway you would have to explain why the lack of religion caused white males to not commit suicide and the presence of religion caused whifemales to commit...any way, I think the causes of or the preventions of white male suicides are not easily gleened from the numbers of southern white female suicides, You would have to lay it out better for me to see the connections. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, You are right of course. Having an imaginary friend is not very empirically helpful. However in 100% of the churches I have attended there were real people there, who had actual fellowship with each other. The arguments against creationism are not the same arguments one could use against having some actual components of objective reality, namely the guy next to you at the service, that cared about you and would rather you lived than killed yourself. Disappointing god is something an atheist need not worry about. Disappointing your parents, or you pastor, on the other hand, is an actual thing you could do that is not imaginary. Regards, TAR ​

Ten Oz, I would not be too quick to dismiss support structures as a potential preventative measure to suicide. Having someone to talk to is important. Going just by statistics and assuming a correlation or lack of correlation, says nothing to causation. The tie to drugs is something that the numbers suggest on the other hand, where you can assume there is something about drug use that might correlate to and cause or set up other conditions that would cause suicide, or remove a condition that would normally prevent suicide. For instance if you take drugs and choose to hurt others or steal from others to get your high, the others may be alienated from you, and hence not be there to show you love and support. In a recent dinner we had in our town of Citizens Against Substance Abuse, the presenter among a lot of other information and suggestions asked a table of high school students why they did not take drugs. Their answers included of course staying away from the dangers, but the presenter pointed out that one of the very big reasons for kids that did not take drugs, was that they did not want to disappoint their parents. In this, having the support of your family and friends, and school and church and police department and local government is a good thing. Just church is not the point. It is having others in your life that care about you and toward who you in turn feel responsible, that create a cadre of people that you do not want to disappoint. In this, another movement in our society might be worth taking a look at. The isolation created by modern technology, that increases communication and knowledge sharing, but sets up a situation where a person might be sitting alone in their house, rather than going to a dance. When I was in college I had a girlfriend who's younger sister was about to commit suicide. I talked with her all night and convinced her that I did not want her to commit suicide and it would be a terrible thing for her sister and her parents and the people that loved her, and that nothing is so bad as that it would be better to die. l have not spoken to her in 40 years, but I found she is still alive by looking her up on facebook. And I feel, in my heart of heart that she still knows I care whether she lives or dies. And maybe that helped her, along the way, if she ever felt at the end of her rope, that it would disappoint me, and all her loved ones, if she on purpose, ended her life. So, knowing a church community is behind you, might not be required to prevent suicide, and there might be plenty of other places to find love, than in the church, but support of one kind or another from objective reality, might still be a preventive factor, and I would not offhand dismiss the church community's role in being a possible preventative factor. Even if you are a humanist, knowing that another cares about you can give you something to live for, and at least one example of objective reality that would be disappointed if you died. Regards, TAR But this still does not account for an increase in white male suicide independant from any similiar increase in other populations. It seems we should look for some factors that exist in the white male population that do not exist in other than white male populations that has changed or is in the process of changing in the last number of years. Here I am thinking that if there are areas where white males are found in greater numbers than other areas, then changes in these areas might be related. For instance, if white males are found in greater numbers in corporate America, then changes in corporate America that would possibly cause a person of any age race or sex to be more likely to commit suicide would be seen as a statistical increase in the deaths of white males. Any feeling of isolation or loss of control traceable to changes in a more automated corporate America for instance, where decisions are made by metrics, rather than human judgement, and you can not find the person responsible, but are just answering to the system...if such would make one more likely to commit suicide, especially combined with a lay off and the correlated loss of salary, power and control, with no one to turn to, but a faceless bureaucracy with the same metrics running the show. Combined with the across the board effects of drugs and alcohol something happening in corporate America might effect white males more than any other group, being that white males are found in higher than demographic averages, in corporate America. this of course only if some of the white males that commited suicide were ever employed in corporate America

Phi, I like your attitude, about feeling a part of a greater whole, the human race, Western civilization and all the people that have come before us, that gifted us with the things that protect us from the bears, and the blizzards and the blights. Those things belong to us all...you are right. The people that gave them did not require being paid back. Just knowing they made a contribution, was enough. I feel that way too. Perhaps I am being an asshole in not just recognizing that everybody has the desire to share things with the rest of humanity and benefit from all that the rest has given us. I am probably a little bit of a humanist myself. I have some of the desires and characteristics of a humanist....but then the asshole part comes in. Not everybody else is acting appropriately. ISIS is blowing up century old art and throwing gays off buildings. North Korea is restricting the use of technology and free access to the rest of the world, keeping their people from it. Bid Laden flew plaines of people into the towers. Evil lurks about. Not everyone can be trusted to not take advantage of other. Integrity is not high everywhere, even close by. People lie, cheat and steal and cheat on their spouses. People do stuff for spite. I am about finished here too Phi. Tired of getting beat up, trying to protect everybody from the other's scorn. Thanks for your conversation, and iNow and Ten Oz and Overtone and MigL and Waitforufo and everybody. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, Was reading up on social security and the text said "we will give you..." as if I was getting a present because of "their" good hearts. Phi wants "us" to give "them" a chance to succeed. As if they could not possibly manage to succeed on their own. I understand that privilege gives a person an inside track on some things, but the majority of us just have the privilege gained by our parents working and watrnting to give us a better life than they had. We still have institutional racism and we still have unconscious racism where gifted black children are not put in gifted programs at the proper rate, according to test scores and such when their teachers are other than black. But when we see things like this we encourage the teachers to pay attention to this subconscious bias and favoritism. It does not make teachers bigots, it is just something they need to be aware of so they treat all their students fairly. In the Army there is no black and white and red and yellow...everybody was "green" when I was in the service. I suppose everybody is camo now. Often the inequality in this nation is framed as if "we" (whites) have it, and are keeping it from "them" (blacks and latinos.) As if the tax payer is a rich white guy and the wards are the blacks and latinos. I don't think this attitude is fair to blacks and latinos, to treat them special, and not provide the exact same state assistance to a white person...regardless of income. Every year, when my daughter was paying for college I filled out the Fafsa form, and every year my wife and I made to much to get any help. We lived from paycheck to paycheck like everybody else and put money aside for big expenses, like everybody else. We had not saved for our daughter's college as we should of. We had to borrow. Schools cost different amounts and better schools cost more money. Better infrastructure, better labs, government research projects, better faculty and all costs money. I don't think we have enough money as a nation to give every child the best. That is why we have competition between schools to attract the best students with scholarships and such. Having the government pay for everybody's college would not work out financially. And what about masters and Phds and all. Where would you draw the line. And what if a person wanted and art degree and the government wanted to compete in the world in science and math and technology? Liberal arts teaches a person how to think, certain technology paths train a person to perform a function. People have historically suffered longer hours and higher costs to become doctors and lawyers and engineers, than to get degrees in sports medicine. We already have a system that rewards talent and delayed gratification and long hours of study. And blacks and latinos have already studied hard and attended schools and become doctors and lawyers and engineers...DUE to Pell grants and Fafsa and programs whose basis for being is to foster an even playing field. "We" already care. The effort has been going on since Johnson at least. Long enough for people that have been assisted by the government to have children of their own that do not need government assistance. When would it ever be such that there were not low income people? We already have scholarship programs where exceptional folk of all colors are welcomed into school and business. Phi, I don't know for how long you should consider blacks and latinos "them" that need "our" help. I think a black man is perfectly capable of pulling his own weight in this society. Regards, TAR

Phi, Sorry to make you sick, but I am not doing well enough to help anybody else out. I have been unemployed for a year, and my wife just got laid off. I do not have a clear plan for how I am going to keep my house and my way of life. I am not blaming anybody, nor looking for anybody else to solve my dilemma. I look to myself to do something of value for someone else, to where they will pay for the good or service and I can pay my property taxes and health insurance and such and keep my house in the suburbs. In the past I could give to charities and we still give old cloths and such to goodwill and that, and I volunteer in town to help people out, but I am not in a position to hire anyone or pay for anybody else's education. I still have my daughter's loans to pay off and my mortgage. In some ways I have less that a farmer in the Yucatan living in a mud hut. He is in the tropics where I spent vacation money to visit, and he does not have the debt I have. I still think we have a great country and we have done it right. And I still think I am not the problem with America. Regards, TAR iNow, The article said exactly what I said. How does that prove me wrong again? I said my dad took a hit when the stock market went down, as he had gained when the stock market went up with quantitative easing, but I was in near money market investments, so I was actually hurt by quantitative easing, as savers were hurt due to the lowering of interest rates. Thereby putting me in a class of investors not assisted by quantitative easing. Regards, TAR ​

INow, My 401K is small and is in near cash type investments. I put it in, and it did not grow or shrink much and when I take it out I will pay taxes that you will benefit from. I don't consider that quantitative easing gave me any money. And how I will be affected financially as the Fed unwinds the balance sheet remains to be seen. I am not sure my statement is false. Regards, TAR

iNow, Sorry, I was watching presidential campaign politics all day and did not know what Willie71 was talking about saying the Reagan ruined the world and that Nixon copied his campaign strategies. It didn't dawn on me that Nixon might have copied his campaign for governor. I was thinking presidential campaigns. Willie71, I don't know either about this revisionist history thing. I was in West Germany for 2 years when there was an East Germany, and I remember hearing in real time "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall." And now there is one Germany. I think Reagan had something to do with it. I am not attempting to revise anything, just remembering a divided Germany and the speech, followed by a united Germany. The memory is not consistent with the thought that Reagan inflicted overwhelming damage on the world. Regards, TAR

Phi, The state we are in is normal, in the sense that everything we have done together for the last 4000 years has brought us to this point. The rate of technology advances is moving along at exponential rates. We have to be doing something right to be able to have an internet to talk on, and a political system that allows the free exchange of ideas and an openness to criticize our leaders and hold them accountable for their actions. We might not be the best country in the world anymore, but we are up there in the top half dozen. Which is not bad in a world of 100s of countries. Republicans and Democrats brought us to this point. Rich people brought us to this point. We would not be where we are without Rockefellers and Gates. Big projects require capital. Banks loan people money to do stuff. Put roofs on schools, build infrastructure and parks and all the things that improve our quality of life. During the housing crisis bad loans caused an over leveraged financial system to fail. In the aftermath the Fed expanded its balance sheet, floating out 85 billion a month to keep the economy going. I didn't get any of that money. People with savings were hurt, because interest rates fell to near zero. People living off the interest of their savings were made poorer. Somebody made money, people outside the U.S. made money in a world economy. The world bank worked to keep liquidity up; Big powerful banks all over the EU and England and the U.S. worked together to rebuild confidence and trust. Confidence and trust is how an economy works. If you are to take the attitude that the rich and powerful are the enemy then you can not have riches and power to call on to get things done. Well you can have the state run everything, but then you have China, or the Soviet Union, and run the risk of waiting in line for toilet paper. We are where we are because we built a rail across the nation with Chinese labor, and dug coal with immigrant workers and had strong unions and a hundred other situations where both worker and management were important to get the thing done. We are not just the worker and we are not just the boss. We are all those things, and we have made it work for over 200 years. We are a melting pot, and still a leader in technology and sports and entertainment and culture and industry and business and human rights and law and order. There are better countries than us in any one category, but when you look at any category we are in pretty good shape. We are doing it right. Me and you. Our families, our neighbors. We are doing it right. Regards, TAR

Willie71, Not quite sure what you are talking about. Nixon was before Reagan and Reagan opened dialogue with China, helped reunified Germany and left office with a high approval rating. Regards, TAR

Willie71, In this thread, I am not trying to have either the rich or the poor win. I am trying to win an argument, that says the biggest problem in America is that we don't give each other the benefit of the doubt and treat each other as equal citizens in power and authority and judgement. We are none of us either withholding largess from the other or entitled to largess from the other. Equal citizens share each others strengths and bolster up the other when they are in danger. Neither rich nor poor should be the enemy of the other. Regards, TAR Ten Oz, I think Sanders will win in New Hampshire and possibly Kansas and the momentum thus achieved might hurt Hilary's chances with the Southern black vote she is hoping will get her some of those states. Plus, if there are any federal charges related to her handling of top top secret information, people that otherwise would have voted for her, might not trust her with the nuclear codes. Biden I think might be a little sorry he did not throw his hat into the ring, so I am thinking he might be attractive to Sanders, to absorb some of the votes that would have gone to Hilary. Regards, TAR

Phi, We have had a good deal of programs put in place We are, as a result, exactly where we are. Some good has come. Some things did not work out. Some things worked but had unintended consequences. There is such a thing as game theory, where everybody makes their best move...every time. My theory remains that we are doing it right, and everybody is doing their best...and it is working out like this. And it is much better to attempt to win the game together, than to attempt to have the other guy lose. I don't mind working with you to end drug abuse and poverty and ignorance. I mind you making it sound like I am the enemy and the only way you can win is to make me look foolish and defeat me. Makes no sense for you to take that attitude. I am on your side. Regards, TAR

iNow, I think it obscene that everybody pays 80 bucks for seats you can barely fit into in the new Yankee stadium and there are 800 dollar empty seats, big wide soft chairs, behind home plate, with waitresses coming down to take drink orders. Still I bought the 80 dollar seat for my dad and took him...once, to a game, as he had taken me half a dozen times to games at the old stadium. Being not upper class, does not mean I can not be proud of my accomplishments, and remain a kind and generous, reasonable person, whose ideas of fairness and equality do not include hamstringingy one person so another can succeed. Phi for All, The GI Bill and Pell grants and all the other ways we have invested in our nation and its people through grants to colleges and tax credits for R and D and such, and all the big endeavors like space programs and the interstate system and the Tennessee valley authority and such are obviously beneficial to everyone. Working together is good. I am all for it. There is however a distinction in my mind between helping your neighbor get strong so that the whole chain is stronger by virtue of there being no weak links, and enabling an abled body person to be a leech. I point here, especially to West Virginia where government programs and disability insurance and such has made it possible for people to survive, without doing a darn thing for themselves or for society. Yes there is a Meth problem and a stupidity problem in West Virginia, but I think government programs do as much to enable the swoon than to put any boxes under a short person so that they can see the game. So yes, I think a person should "deserve" a leg up, but I also think a person should feel obliged to give something back to us, as the society that handed out the boxes to stand on. Regards, TAR And as far as this thread goes, I remain correct in assuming that we already are beholding to the people that own the stadium, for bringing us the game. And some of these people are conservatives, and some vote republican, and almost all are capable and trustworthy and do not deserve the ridicule that is evident in the conservative/liberal view of equality cartoon.

Phi, I get the principle of giving the guy the boost. I already do that and I would do that, even as a conservative, You posted the comment to laugh at conservatives and to tell us what a conservative's idea of equality was. And to show that conservatives are evil and stupid, whereas liberals are kind and reasonable. I responded with my obtuse remarks to show you that you indeed do not understand a conservative, nor how they would view a situation. I am neither stupid nor cruel but I might think the kids are getting for free what everybody else has worked for. There are many ways into the stadium. You can get somebody to take you, by doing something for them. You can earn some money and buy a ticket. You can marry the daughter of the owner of the team and get a box seat, you can practice and get really good at baseball and go out for the team, you can get a job as ball boy, or selling popcorn or whatever. Any conservative would give his little brother a boost to see the grand canyon. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, I don't know who Sanders would pick as a running mate, I just picked somebody I would vote for. Regards, TAR String Junky, I took it as an analogy. People getting for free, what everybody else is paying for, is exactly the topic we are discussing as where conservatives feel abused by people that feel entitled to get the same stuff for free that they themselves have worked all their lives and made all the sacrifices to achieve. Perhaps if the analogy was not meant to have a profession team on the field and a stadium full of paying customers, it should have been a sandlot game with kids playing and garbage can lids as bases. Regards, TAR

Phi, I don't see either picture as equality. I am thinking the security guards should chase all three away for not buying a ticket like everybody honestly watching the game have done Regards, TAR That would make it fair, for the people that bought the tickets. Without the ticket price the players would not be paid and the game would not be talent filled and exciting to watch. Someone has to pay the mortgage on the stadium and pay to keep the place nice to look at and functional. The conservative view would be the three of them should go home and do their chores and get their dads to take them to the next game. or get a paper route and buy a bleacher seat for a game later in the season regards, tar

Thread, I saw yesterday that Sarah Palin is supporting Trump. As I already was hoping the republicans would find a real candidate, which seemed to inexplicably be not happening, I now am completely convinced that we are in trouble and in danger of going the fascist, xenophobic route...or perhaps the socialist route as some people like me might vote for Sanders if the battle comes down to a Trump/Palin versus Sanders/Biden ticket for instance. This feeling however fearful it may be, does not need supporting statistics. It does not need supporting facts. Anyone fearful of Nazi Germany or Cuba can just see the parallels and say "boy I hope that isn't happening here". But the magic decoder ring, I think is worn by us all, and we generalize as an automatic reaction. We see the slippery slope and warn everybody away from it. What my point in this thread is, and the source of my ramblings is to point out, that very often as we warn others to step away from the edge of cliff, we forget that nobody wants to fall off the edge, and most people are busy putting up the guard rail, and we should not ascribe our worst character traits to others, who may or may not be feeling the way they are feeling, and doing the things they are doing, to put up a guard rail so we don't slide down the opposite slope. When I say we are doing it right, I am pointing out that we already have a graduated income tax. The top 10 percent of income earners already pay 70 percent of the taxes. Income inequality exists, but so does unequal responsibility for picking up the social tab. The facts show that percentage of income wise the poor pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes. But dollar for dollar 12.2 percent of 18,000 is 2,196 and 3.3 percent of 463,000 is 15,279. There are two ways to look at this. Guy A is paying 4 times the percentage of his income in taxes compared to guy B or that guy B is paying 7 times as much tax as guy A. Add to this two ways of looking at it, that fact that guy A is also receiving government assistance and guy B has 10 employees who he pays a living wage and who pay taxes themselves and who he provides health insurance for, or the salary to pay for health insurance...then the income inequality component between a fast food worker and a corporate Vice President, is not automatically caused by bigotry. Regards, TAR

Phi for All, Besides, the point was not to argue healthcare. The point was I have an honest opinion and feel a certain way about a thing, of my own free will, using my own judgement, and you lump me in automatically with some image in your head of the enemy. My point in this thread is that you cannot have all people of less intelligence than you, be your enemy AND say "everybody knows" the right way to think And you cannot wield wealth and power as part of your strength, if you have as your enemy everyone with wealth and power. That is, we are already doing it right, or we would not be here talking about it. Regards, TAR

Phi for All, So the 36 countries do it successfully thing is not a talking point? Why don't you explain to me how Greece is working? Regards, TAR And I take offense at you accusing me of having no critical thinking skills. I can think along with everybody here of above average intelligence. I do not need either you or Fox to tell me how to think.

iNow, Chains of logic go the other way as well. If Obamacare sucks, then Berniecare will suck worse. Regards, TAR

Phi, You are proving my point. You are speaking about me as a documented crazy without the required skills to have an opinion. Like your way or the highway. Like I do not have human judgement and a will of my own. y Other success stories in how health care is run are not without drawbacks. All portions are worth discussion. Other countries healthcare is done with a combination of government run programs paid for by high taxes and private insurance. In most cases there is a high employer paid component. That is high fees paid by the employer, for each employee. Speaking of numbers, there is little difference between paying a person more money so they can pay for their doctor's visit, or paying them less money, so you can give the money instead to the government who will pay the doctor. It still comes down to doing something that creates wealth, or providing someone with a good or service. Otherwise you have nothing to tax and no employers. My main idea against Overtone in this thread is that she looks for help from the same people she faults. I think you are falling to the same illogic. Greece is number 14 in healthcare and probably among the 36 template countries that we should emulate according to you. They are however currently under some financial constraints and after a year your socialized benefits run out. Regards, TAR