What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[overtone]

You are claiming it was a free gift, but it was not. It was a benefit provided for military service.

I don't care. However motivated, and you are far too simplistic in your supposed motivation (read the history), it was the provision of a free college education, at taxpayer expense, to millions of citizens of the US. Nothing was required in return. And it worked - the benefit to the entire country and everyone in it repaid the cost a hundred times over.

 

Imagine if that benefit had been extended to black people, of the provisions of the GI Bill had overcome Jim Crow and the virulent racism of the US and bootstrapped the sharecropper's sons and daughters the way it did the factory hands and dairy farmers of the heartland.

 

You are associating prosperity following the WWII with the GI Bill and suggesting that prosperity ended as the benefit diminished.

That benefit among others. Absolutely.

 

It's easy to have prosperity when you have no competition and a bombed out world begging for products.

Tell that to the Iraqis, sitting on their ocean of oil. No, it is not. It required good government, from Marshall Plans to rebuild the necessary markets to rigorous taxation and curb on the predators come to feast on the vulnerable. It required income taxation at 90% levels, and functioning governmental oversight punishing corruption.

 

 

After the war, automobile plants went back to making cars instead of tanks.

To sell to whom? A million soldiers home from the war with a soldier's pittance in their pockets and no jobs? The bombed out beggars of Europe battling over scraps? Or civilizations set on their feet through competent and farsighted government?

 

Imagine, for a sec, the post WWII situation governed by the likes of Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina, or the people who handled the aftermath of the Iraq invasion and currently stand in line to form Jeb Bush's cabinet, or the Regent University neophyte grads lining up for jobs in Marco Rubio's administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_University#Bush_administration_hires You think Katrina was badly handled? Abu Ghraib and Bagram and Gitmo were aberrations? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

 

Because the mess that is the current Republican Party does not begin and end with this bizarre circus of declared candidates for President. It's forty years fermenting and bone deep.

Edited October 16, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

I don't care.

Thank you for admitting that the GI Bill was a quid pro quo.

 

I think your other example was Social Security. But wait. Don't people pay for their Social Security. I know I do. 12.4% of my annual income up to the cap. So isn't this program also a quid pro quo?

 

By the way I would have no problem with a program similar to the GI Bill for black Americans. I think it would be appropriate to based on the tragic treatment of black Americans predominately by the Democratic Party. First slavery, then jim crow, and now welfare. When will the Democrats stop?

Underlying these positions expressed by Tar and waitforufo and others is the idea that some people deserve or have earned these things (education, healthcare, food, even dignity) like soldiers or people who worked hard or who won the lottery of birth and were smart enough to be born into a wealthy family in the correct region of the planet, while other people just don't deserve those things or have not earned them. Those "lesser" people help them feel better about themselves by comparison, but the core point underlying nearly every social safety net conversation is that "they" don't "deserve" it, but "we/me/I" do.

No, I believe that people deserve what the earn. It belongs to them. That is a natural human right recognized by our constitution. Also, most people work hard in their lives to provide for their children. For most, it takes many generations of hard work to produce what you call the lottery of birth. All my grandparents lived in poverty. My parents were started in poverty and through hard work moved up to the middle class. Based on their hard work I have moved a little higher then them. I work hard so my children can make it a bit further. There is nothing shameful in this. My children weren't smart enough to be born into a wealthy family. Their grandparents and parents worked hard to provide them with advantages. I don't look at those that have more than me with envy like some. I look at them with admiration and teach my children that our family is climbing that ladder too. I don't look at anyone as lesser then myself. I see them as equals working toward there own personal happiness. Those others, like me, deserve what they earn.

 

These positions assume equal opportunity which simply isn't there. The people espousing them assume meritocracy while ignoring that we are clearly today more of a plutocracy where money and access to power matter far more than ability or work ethic or competence. It assumes that the poor are lazy or unwilling to work hard and relies entirely on these and other similar myopic myths and falsehoods to stand up under its own crushing unsustainable weight.

 

Working produces ability. The work ethic performs just fine. Most don't accomplish all there goals, but most accomplish much and their children accomplish further. Those that work for the assistance of others only accomplish dependency.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that another one of Americas biggest problems is that too many people have their heads inseparably lodged in their asses.

So you are saying that people who work hard, accomplish things in there lives, provide for there children, and encourage others to do the same, have there heads up their asses. Interesting perspective.

Edited October 16, 2015 by waitforufo

[Phi for All]

So you are saying that people who work hard, accomplish things in there lives, provide for there children, and encourage others to do the same, have there heads up their asses. Interesting perspective.

 

I'm surprised at your age you still think this is clever. Protip: it never was.

[John Cuthber]

 

I think your other example was Social Security. But wait. Don't people pay for their Social Security. I know I do. 12.4% of my annual income up to the cap. So isn't this

So you are saying that people who work hard, accomplish things in there lives, provide for there children, and encourage others to do the same, have there heads up their asses. Interesting perspective.

Their, their, their.

[iNow]

 

Underlying these positions expressed by Tar and waitforufo and others is the idea that some people deserve or have earned these things <snip> while other people just don't deserve those things or have not earned them.

No, I believe that people deserve what the earn. It belongs to them. <snip> Those others, like me, deserve what they earn.

 

This seems only to further reinforce what I said above, not negate it. It's unclear what you intended to rebut by sharing these points. Will you clarify?

 

...most people work hard...many generations of hard work... and through hard work... Based on their hard work...I work hard... Working produces ability. The work ethic performs just fine.

A core point I made in the post to which you're responding (which was also a core point in several of the links I shared in support... suggestion: you should read them, they're not there just for decoration), is that hard work means almost nothing if the environment around us doesn't protect and reward it appropriately. Most people who are poor work extremely hard, and your suggestion that they don't is little more than long debunked myth.

 

In short, hard work is clearly necessary, but not sufficient. Suggesting otherwise as you continue to do merely weakens your argument and reminds readers that you're not arguing from a position rooted in either reality or fact.

 

There is nothing shameful in this. <snip> I don't look at those that have more than me with envy like some.

Please try commenting on what I actually say and not on the caricature of my words your biases introduce in your head. I was not talking about shame or envy. The introduction of these concepts does little but further muddy an already nuanced topic and attempt to unnecessarily poison the well.

 

So you are saying that people who work hard, accomplish things in there <sic> lives, provide for there <sic> children, and encourage others to do the same, have there <sic> heads up their asses. Interesting perspective.

Cute, but as pretty much everyone here can tell, that's not at all what I was saying.

Edited October 16, 2015 by iNow

[overtone]

Thank you for admitting that the GI Bill was a quid pro quo.

It wasn't. Nothing was required of the recipients of its benefits, except that they attend school, buy a house, etc. As with other government welfare payouts, they qualified because of who they were.

 

I think your other example was Social Security. But wait. Don't people pay for their Social Security. I know I do.

No, you don't. You pay for other people's Social Security, old people who are alive now. Whether or not anybody will ever pay for yours is unknown - if the Republican Party gets any more power, probably not, as it would require raising taxes on rich people.

 

By the way I would have no problem with a program similar to the GI Bill for black Americans.

The Republican Party would. And so would you, actually, if it ever came up - affirmative action, it's called. You don't like it, remember?

Edited October 16, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

It wasn't. Nothing was required of the recipients of its benefits, except that they attend school, buy a house, etc. As with other government welfare payouts, they qualified because of who they were.

Wasn't required that they served in the military to receive the GI Bill? That seems like way more than nothing to me.

 

No, you don't. You pay for other people's Social Security, old people who are alive now. Whether or not anybody will ever pay for yours is unknown - if the Republican Party gets any more power, probably not, as it would require raising taxes on rich people.

And yet the government keeps sending me this form telling me how much I have paid in and based on how much I have paid in how much I will receive. You see, there is another thing that people deserve. They deserve what they have paid for. Once paid for, it belongs to them. It is part of an individuals right to property. Too bad the government doesn't respect the natural rights of human beings.

Finally, I don't ever recall saying I was against affirmative action. I'm not. You should remember that I was the one that pointed out the Philadelphia plan and who was responsible for the plan. If you don't remember, here is a good read on it.

http://www.blackpast.org/aah/philadelphia-plan-1967

[overtone]

And yet the government keeps sending me this form telling me how much I have paid in and based on how much I have paid in how much I will receive. You see, there is another thing that people deserve. They deserve what they have paid for. Once paid for, it belongs to them.

That's not how it's set up. It's a welfare payment - a straight transfer. The money you pay in is paid out to current recipients. What you have paid for is a reduction in the poverty of old people in the US - allowing more of them, for example, to live in their own houses instead of in their children's back bedrooms, or in what used to be called "the poorhouse". You have paid for nothing else, and deserve nothing else, except by the "social contract" that the leftists keep talking about. Do you believe in the socialist, leftist, liberal idea of a "social contract"?

 

There is no other contract - what you will be paid is, legally, completely up to the government at the time. If you vote in any more of these Republican Party politicians, and they get enough power, they are quite likely to do exactly what they have said they will do, and "privatize" (renege on) the entire thing. When they do that, there will be some significant changes in the disbursement schedule, and what you think you deserve is not going to be the predominant factor in what you end up receiving. The standard and agreed alternative - what the leftists and liberals propose, and the agreement for the future when Reagan pushed through the current terms - is to raise the base taxes on rich people's incomes to retire the bonds in the Baby Boom "trust fund" that you have been paying that extra 5% or 6% to build up, and probably also raise the cap on the withholding tax so that rich people pay the same percentage (12+) that you pay.

 

That requires raising taxes on rich people. The only agenda the current Republican Party actually has is to prevent that from happening - at all costs.

 

 

 

 

Finally, I don't ever recall saying I was against affirmative action. I'm not

The Republican Party is, and in particular the partisan Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican Presidents have been and likely will be. Who do you vote for?

 

 

 

Wasn't required that they served in the military to receive the GI Bill? That seems like way more than nothing to me.

Have served, not serve. The GI Bill was passed after the War was almost over, and victory assured. It was a gift, freely given, without strings, to millions of US citizens. And it paid off - paid off enormously.

 

The point was this: giving a free college education to millions of American citizens is not an unusual, radical, extraordinary, or even unprecedented thing to do. It worked before. It works for other countries now. But it cannot happen if the current Republican Party continues to hold significant political power in the US.

 

You should remember that I was the one that pointed out the Philadelphia plan and who was responsible for the plan.

I did forget that you credited Lyndon Johnson for his signal achievements in breaking down some of the racial barriers to employment in the US. Was that in one of those threads where you were joining me in identifying the origin of the current depraved state of the Republican Party?

 

As we see from your link:

 

 

The incoming Nixon administration, however, saw the program as a political wedge issue which could divide two reliably Democratic constituencies: African Americans and organized labor.

- - - - -

With skilled white construction workers rioting in favor of the president’s war agenda in May 1970, Nixon pivoted, abandoning the Philadelphia Plan.

Edited October 17, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

iNow,

 

I was not "smart enough" to be born in Allentown PA of my parents. But I was. It is not useful to consider that I could have been born a cripple in India, because I could not have been. I have my parent's genes. I have been gifted the things handed down to me from Western Civilization. And the place was built by my forefathers and mothers.

 

I do not reject my past. I quite embrace it. And where I was in error, I try and rise above it, and where I was successful I wear with pride.

 

I can not be someone other than me and you suggest there is an objective personhood toward which I should aspire, that Is not me.

 

Working hand in hand with your neighbor is a two way street. On 9/11 for instance, I realized that there were people against me, and my way of life. I am who and what I am. I am not some unidentified soul that landed by accident in a womb in Allentown PA in 1953. I could not have been anybody else. On what principle do you pretend I won a lottery?

 

Regards, TAR

I did not exist prior my conception.

for instance, if my father had not fought and been wounded in the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler may have won WWII, my mother and father might never have met and the particular combination of nature and nurture that created TAR would not have been

if I associate with America it is because I a m a citizen, and seek to hold up my end of the sociial contract​

 

lets talk about the rural poor of West Virginia, that are of European descent from now on, when we talk about drug addiction, lack of education, and dependency on welfare

 

Then we can talk cases where the parents and the behavior of people matters, as to ones accomplishments and status in life, without calling me a bigot.

Edited October 18, 2015 by tar

[John Cuthber]

There are many aspects of the US that trouble the rest of the world but...

https://www.facebook.com/Break/videos/10153729961537792/

[iNow]

In short: No. A bit longer: Such an assertion strongly suggests a lack of familiarity and even remedial understanding of the underlying dynamics.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/01/23/is-chinas-ownership-of-u-s-debt-a-national-security-threat/

The Pentagon did an evaluation on the risks posed by Chinas ownership of U.S. debt in July and came to the same conclusion: Attempting to use U.S. Treasury securities as a coercive tool would have limited effect and likely would do more harm to China than to the United States.

 

The report was sent to congressional committees by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who called Chinas ownership of U.S. debt non-problematic and non-threatening.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-11/china-s-u-s-debt-holdings-aren-t-threat-pentagon-says Edited December 10, 2015 by iNow

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Just FTR: the post that iNow responded to in the reply directly before this was removed, as the poster was a spam bot. This was the post:

 

 

 

America's World largest Problem is The 103.5 Trillion Dollar Debt to China Federal Banks NYSE World Bank requested China to Loan 50 Trillion a year It keeps adding up President Barack Obama Doesn't Conversate over CNN or News at all China is building Artificial Islands Preparing World Launch Airports for Their Military while America is asking Why are we getting everyday a Public mass shooting ? Could the Trillion Dollar Debt be the Reason America to China ?

[Endy0816]

There are many aspects of the US that trouble the rest of the world but...

https://www.facebook.com/Break/videos/10153729961537792/

 

The plan is to ship him to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London right before he is banned from entering the UK. With the sole exception of Ecuador, the Americas would have one less problem(at least).

Edited December 10, 2015 by Endy0816

[John Cuthber]

What did Ecuador do to deserve that?

[overtone]

 

 

What did Ecuador do to deserve that?

They're going to volunteer. They've been looking for a way to play nice with the US, in the coming negotiations, without giving up key economic advances - oil prices are tanking again, the IMF is flexing its muscles in Europe, etc.

 

And they already have Julian Assange - maybe they can get Trump to upgrade the facilities, cover some of the costs.

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2014/09/11/ecuador-economic-miracle-meets-maturity/

[MigL]

The problem with America(ns) is that they wear their ideology like a shield to keep new ideas out.

To some people, as soon as you mention the word Conservative/Republican, the idea is dismissed as nonsense/unworkable/prone to abuse by the rich/etc./etc.

Hate to say it, but Overtone is an example, although some others come close. In his mind every problem has been caused by the Republicans and every issue discussed includes his take on how Republicans caused it ( he is right for some of them ).

To others, as soon as you mention Liberal/Democrat, you get the same dismissal and similar reasons ( replace prone to abuse by rich with Commies and overspenders ).

Waitforufo falls into that category, occasionally.

 

No-one seems to consider ideas and policy on their merits, but through the blinders of ideology.

Obama has done good work; In an advanced society, universal health care is a must and more Conservatives should have gotten behind that policy, and maybe raising the debt ceiling shouldn't have angered so many Republicans as it was needed because funding the wars they started was so expensive ( not that I agree that the solution to debt is to borrow more ).

But even 'W' Bush did some good work with education initiatives. And wasn't it Nixon who finally got American boys out of Vietnam after Kennedy and Johnson escalated our ( sorry sometimes I consider myself American ) involvement ?

( I'd mention Nixon's opening trade relations with China, but I'm not sure if, in the long run, that was a good or bad move )

 

Its time liberals started backing good Republican policy and Conservatives started backing good Democrat policy.

Enough divisiveness already.

That is a problem !

 

( that and that idiot/joke Trump )

[overtone]

To some people, as soon as you mention the word Conservative/Republican, the idea is dismissed as nonsense/unworkable/prone to abuse by the rich/etc./etc.

Hate to say it, but Overtone is an example, although some others come close. In his mind every problem has been caused by the Republicans and every issue discussed includes his take on how Republicans caused it ( he is right for some of them ).

That isn't true.

You have performed an inversion - I do claim that the entire Republican Party has been coopted by the corporate rightwing authoritarian militarized political faction and their base in societal bigotry we used to call "fascism", and is now a disaster - the single biggest problem America faces as a country, and essentially incapable of doing anything worthwhile or beneficial for the country as a whole. So right now, currently, in point of fact, I claim all Republican stuff is bad. But that is not the same as the inverted argument you assign to me - I do not claim that everything bad is Republican or caused by the Republicans or to be blamed on "the Republicans".

Much less do I denigrate Conservative ideas - I'm borderline conservative myself, in many if not most political respects. The Republican Party's abandonment of core principles of conservative thought is a lot of the problem with that Party.

Also, I do not take anyone's word for something being "Conservative/Republican". You can't wind me up by merely labeling.

Off hand, I can point to GMOs, the nuclear waste from Fukushima, gun control, CO2 buildup and its effects, mercury and other such contamination, racial bigotry and oppression in police work and other areas, all matters of heated debate here - nowhere will you find me claiming that Republicans as a Party caused the problems we face in these areas.

 

Its time liberals started backing good Republican policy

We need an example - I claim there is no good Republican policy at the moment, in fact. There is rhetoric, held over from the days of principle and conservative ideology, but to the extent it is "good" there is no actual policy behind it. Do you have an example, to contradict my claim?

 

If you want liberals to back rightwing or conservative policy when it's good or seems good, that we see all the time - a vote for a Clinton (either one) being a prime example.

Edited December 11, 2015 by overtone

[TheGeckomancer]

In your opinion, what is Americas biggest problem?

 

I have been asking this question for a couple days. The answers are very diverse. I am curious on what everyone in this community may have to say.

 

I realize the question is broad, but I appreciate any thoughts you may have to offer.

 

 

The fact that we are ran by the very worst examples of humanity possible. There is a bizarre dichotomy to politics, especially in the united states. People who want to make the world a better place know that you cannot do that through politics in the united states. And those that just want the benefits will promise anything, smile, and woo the public, while eating out of the hands of corporate owners. Not that the people are not JUST as at fault. Like children any comforting lie from the grown ups and we do what we are told. I am more disgusted by the population than the ruling class in fact.

Edited December 11, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Phi for All]

Its time liberals started backing good Republican policy and Conservatives started backing good Democrat policy.

 

Over the last few years, I've prepared a list (a couple of times) of decent Republican legislation that was abandoned wholesale by the party as soon as the Democrats showed bipartisan support. The same is NOT true of the Democrats. It's the Republicans who publicly made no bones about doing ANYTHING IN THEIR POWER to keep Obama from a second term. This includes deceptions with the debt ceiling to fool a gullible, uninformed public (mostly their own base, btw), and most heinous, backing away from good laws that we really needed just because it made them look like they were cooperating with the enemy.

 

This is NOT the way a political party helps its country. It's the way they help themselves to whatever they can get away with.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

 

But politics is a two way street. What is "good" legislation from one perspective might be bad from another. Party line voting takes place in the house and senate all the time. And on many occasions the President, before legislation is even written and voted on, says he will veto it.

 

It is hard to compromise with someone who has already made up their mind, and will not back down, off their stance.

 

So when impossible, unworkable plans are proposed and a republican says "that plan is impossible and unworkable" it is taken as obstructionist.

 

Take the minimum wage. The president says he we are going to have 10 an hour...now people are asking for 15...why not 100 or 1000?

 

Unfunded mandates, are not workable. You ask something be done with somebody else's money.

I have heard too often the argument that we are a rich country we shouldn't have poor people around. That is a socialist, or communist argument. A robin hood type of morality. Bring the poor up at the expense of the rich. Then with your other hand use the wealth and power of the U.S. to enforce your policy and ideology, against the very people providing the wealth and power.

 

Have you ever read Animal Farm?

 

In any case we need rich people, they are Americans too, they are people too and they should not be treated like they owe us middle class people any more than poor people owe us, or that poor people are due more than middle class, or that any one segment is in control and everybody else should be subject to their whims.

 

The last election cycle gave the congress to the republicans. By vote. The will of the populace. You say it doesn't count, because everybody that voted for a republican is a stupid greedy bigot. That they are obstructionists.

 

The other way to look at the situation, is that the opposition is against unworkable plans.

 

Regards, TAR

one might think that intelligent people should have more of a say than stupid people

 

one might say that rich people should have more of a say than poor people

 

In everyday life intelligent, capable people do take leadership positions and have more say than stupid people.

In everyday life rich, powerful people do run business and make projects happen and are the movers and shakers.

 

But in a representative republic, the rule is one man (woman) one vote.

My vote weighs the same as a gang member in Harlem, or a skinhead in So. California, or a Muslim in Chicago, or a good ole boy in West Virginia, a jew in NYC or one retired in Florida. Old and young, rich and poor, good and evil, we work together to make this country great. If it is not great, it is because we are not working together, but working at cross purposes. The key to governance is finding the purpose that everybody or at least 90 percent are happy with. Not this party line vote stuff.

 

Regards, TAR

In West Virginia there is a big meth problem and a lot of dependent people, dependent on government largess. I saw a 20 20 where a doctor would sign the papers for somebody to get a disability claim, and then take a kickback. People don't understand the difference between right and wrong anymore, with not knowing when you are supposed to take something for nothing, and when that is called stealing.

Edited December 11, 2015 by tar

[Phi for All]

But politics is a two way street. What is "good" legislation from one perspective might be bad from another. Party line voting takes place in the house and senate all the time. And on many occasions the President, before legislation is even written and voted on, says he will veto it.

 

It is hard to compromise with someone who has already made up their mind, and will not back down, off their stance.

 

So when impossible, unworkable plans are proposed and a republican says "that plan is impossible and unworkable" it is taken as obstructionist.

 

You're choosing to misunderstand me. This isn't about Republicans deeming a plan to be unworkable. This is about them introducing a bill, doing everything in their power to get it passed because it's needed, it will be a law that helps the country. This is about them abandoning that bill when it starts to gain bipartisan support. IT WAS A REPUBLICAN-SPONSORED BILL IN THE FIRST PLACE!

 

They've killed their own bills on human trafficking, veteran benefits, decent and good bills that the Democrats agree with, and they suddenly get rethought and abandoned. Clearly a party interested in its own ends, and not trying to really represent the wishes of its constituents.

In West Virginia there is a big meth problem and a lot of dependent people, dependent on government largess. I saw a 20 20 where a doctor would sign the papers for somebody to get a disability claim, and then take a kickback. People don't understand the difference between right and wrong anymore, with not knowing when you are supposed to take something for nothing, and when that is called stealing.

 

It's been known for quite some time that the biggest abusers of the welfare system are the businesspeople who contract with the system, NOT the recipients of welfare the way the businesspeople would have you believe. Dependence on the system would be much rarer without illegal help from providers.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

I got your point. I was trying to make the point that trying to achieve "their own ends" is only an automatic negative, if you disagree with those ends.

 

I have a personal grudge against regulation because I had a good investment scheme going that was dashed when UBS got into some issues with the government and banned the purchase of double shorts and double longs with their investors, because of pressures put on them by the government. If I wanted to keep anything, I could, but I couldn't buy. That was not my plan, but I chose to go all short, and sell my long positions and that proved to be an awful situation because the market recovered strongly an d I lost my shirt. I am against, in general, changing the rules in the middle of the game. At the time, I thought, well, I just have to go with the direction of the country being against the direction I would chose, and hope somebody else is in power, after four years. Obama got reelected...so I have to wait again. My point is, that if you agree with the policies of the President then anybody opposing him is an obstructionist, while if you disagree with the policies of the president, anybody opposing him might be opposing him on that particular issue for the same reason I oppose it. Just because I think Obama is an intelligent pragmatic leader, that has made some great moves and has guided us out of recession, does not mean I agree with everything he does. Regulation is one of those things he does, that makes no sense to me. If you trust businesses to police themselves, let them police themselves. If you don't trust them, why do you trust the regulators to do a better job? You just add layers of incomprehensible filings, increasing the cost of business and give immense power to agents, to create winners and losers. It makes a workable situation, unworkable, and doesn't always fix the targeted problem and could well cause unintended problems.

 

So your definition of good legislation is already going to be that legislation that furthers your agenda. It is no surprise that the opposition would do things as if they are interested in their own ends.

 

For instance, how does a raising of the minimum wage represent the interests of your constituents, if some of your constituents own, operate, work at and service, and eat at, and do business with a fast food restaurant that goes out of business because of the imposed wage hike?

 

Regards, TAR

it is my thought here, that our biggest problem is we don't hear the other's argument because we think they are doing it wrong and we are afraid to give an inch, because the other side winds up taking a mile, that we have to STOP the other party from getting their way, because if the other party gets their way, then we lose

 

My suggestion therefore is that we don't make laws that 45 percent of the country doesn't want. If we make only laws that 90 percent of the country wants, then there would be no party line votes. That would be "good" legislation. If 90 percent of the population are not for it, it shouldn't be a law.

why would you want to make 45 percent of the country outlaws?

we have so many arbitrary laws that have been put in place to encourage this kind of behavior and discourage that kind of behavior, that normal law abiding citizens could run contrary the law without even intending to

 

used to be ignorance of the law is no excuse

 

Now, I do not think there is anybody that knows what the law is. It changes too often, for arbitrary reasons. And it is too complex with all sorts of ifs ands and buts, where you can read the thing, and STILL not know if you are about to do the right thing, the wrong thing, follow the letter and go against the principle, follow the principle and go against the letter, or what.

I remember several years ago, after Sandy Hook, when the plan was to change the gun laws, and I was down in West Virginia and everyone was buying guns. Even people that didn't have any guns were buying guns, before a feared ban was put in place.

I am not sure that people respond well to being told what to do.

 

Couple years ago I remember a chain in another country making a one plate rule for their salad bar. It became a fad to go into the restaurant and build these elaborate towers of vegetables. Works of art and fun to boot. People can easily stay within the rules and defeat the purpose if they take it as a challenge. If you trust peoples judgement...trust it. Imagine that the people you agree with AND the people you disagree with are intelligent, capable folk with mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers that know how to be good people and can exercise good judgement, same as you can. That even a person completely on the other side of the aisle on every political issue would help you if you were in trouble. 'cause the most of us are good people.

Edited December 11, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

If you trust businesses to police themselves, let them police themselves. If you don't trust them, why do you trust the regulators to do a better job?

Regulators are hired by us, are accountable to us, work in public not in secrecy, and do not benefit from doing a bad job. If we set up competent government, that is.

 

Businessmen are not hired by us, not accountable to us, work in secrecy, and can make big money for themselves by cheating us and ruining our communities and lives.

 

 

 

If we make only laws that 90 percent of the country wants, then there would be no party line votes.

That isn't true. In the modern Republican Party era we've seen Party line votes on lots of stuff that almost everybody wants. 85% of the country wants good background checks on all gun purchasers, for example. They want federal judge positions filled quickly and efficiently with competent and respected jurists. They want the US government to pay its bills on time.

 

 

I have a personal grudge against regulation because I had a good investment scheme going that was dashed when UBS got into some issues with the government and banned the purchase of double shorts and double longs with their investors, because of pressures put on them by the government

So why are you mad at the government, instead of the scammers at UBS?

Edited December 12, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

"Regulators are hired by us, are accountable to us, work in public not in secrecy, and do not benefit from doing a bad job. If we set up competent government, that is.

 

Businessmen are not hired by us, not accountable to us, work in secrecy, and can make big money for themselves by cheating us and ruining our communities and lives."

 

Good point, I had not so much thought of it like that. I always figured that people should police themselves and have integrity, without anybody watching.

 

Regards, TAR

there was no scamming going on, our government was pressuring them to release some swiss bank account information, and they had to make some concessions and not allow their clients to "game the system" as I was doing

 

and I don't know about that 85 percent thing the three things you mentioned all have some reasons for why they were opposed

Overtone,

 

On a personal note, how do you figure you are conservative? You mean like fiscally conservative?

[MigL]

Tar, I like you, respect your opinion, and often agree with some of your opinions.

But do you have to always take such a convoluted path to get to the point ?

Your posts are full of anecdotes and have to be read carefully to get at the simple point which should have been clear in a few lines.

It gets to the point that I don't want to read your 'wall of text' and I opt out of the discussion.

 

Please, be more direct !