What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[iNow]

 

Perhaps you should more clearly describe how...

I counted nearly 30 individual questions in your post. I have no interest in arguing against your use of the shotgun fallacy or gish gallop.

 

Pick one, though. I'll gladly give you an informed and sincere answer.

 

In the meantime, consider answering some of your own questions:

 

http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

http://equitablegrowth.org/exploding-wealth-inequality-united-states/

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21631129-it-001-who-are-really-getting-ahead-america-forget-1

 

Finally, let's proactively avoid the strawmen you're sure to introduce, as well. I'm not arguing for full government control. I'm arguing that a hybrid economy that includes capitalism and free exchange, but which also reinvests in the underlying structures that allow that market to operate successfully (schools, roads, police and fire, teachers, libraries, health, etc.).

Edited January 19, 2016 by iNow

[tar]

iNow,

 

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

 

Regards, TAR

[Phi for All]

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.

 

You're crazy the way the crackpots who come here are crazy. You think you're being "skeptical", using your judgement to doubt solutions you aren't familiar with, but you never bother to dispel your skepticism by informing yourself. Instead, you sick up these bogus talking points that have nothing to do with what's really happening, but you can't know that because you buy into the bullshit fed to you by the media. The media you call "liberal", even though it's owned by conservative corporations since 1996. "Liberal" isn't the right word for them. "Fascist" is much closer to the truth you're denying.

 

It's not skepticism if you don't bother to educate yourself about what you're afraid of, what you're questioning the wisdom of. The spin doctors you are obviously enamored of are tickled pink when you spread their BS without question (like BernieCare will be worse, just because). You are a poor critical thinker based on what you post. It's not "My way or the highway", it's obvious to every person involved in this thread who has any type of intellectual background, especially in science areas. Your "logic" is pure "this makes sense to me" garbage, and fails to inform anyone of what you actually believe in. I've seen so many people try to tell you this in a hundred different ways. This is 101.

[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.

[waitforufo]

I counted nearly 30 individual questions in your post. I have no interest in arguing against your use of the shotgun fallacy or gish gallop.

 

Pick one, though. I'll gladly give you an informed and sincere answer.

 

In the meantime, consider answering some of your own questions:

 

http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

http://equitablegrowth.org/exploding-wealth-inequality-united-states/

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21631129-it-001-who-are-really-getting-ahead-america-forget-1

 

Finally, let's proactively avoid the strawmen you're sure to introduce, as well. I'm not arguing for full government control. I'm arguing that a hybrid economy that includes capitalism and free exchange, but which also reinvests in the underlying structures that allow that market to operate successfully (schools, roads, police and fire, teachers, libraries, health, etc.).

Your references simply say the wealth is distributed and how it is distributed, not that there is some undesirable force unjustly distributing wealth that must be counteracted. None of your references say anything about fairness. If the source of our current distribution is that some are more clever or work harder then others that seem perfectly fair to me. Every workplace I have ever worked at publicly stated that they strive to pay based on performance. That is the normal practice and it is justified.

 

So you only want one question. Okay. Who are are these wealthy people who are robbing the poor? Please try to be as specific as possible.

[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]

That is, we are already doing it right, or we would not be here talking about it.

 

Tough to breathe through sand, I would imagine.

 

This is a big part of what I'm talking about. You've complained about so many inadequacies, but the minute you think there's something liberal or socialistic that might help, you suddenly claim "we are already doing it right". Nobody knows what you stand for, so it's very hard to take your claims seriously. You complain with no purpose, you strategize using misinformation, and you seem unable to grasp so many fundamental concepts.

 

We have all these historical instances of potential success to draw upon, other countries who have solved some of the problems we face. We even have our own successes to build upon. The GI Bill educated so many that wouldn't have otherwise had a chance at college, but rather than recognize that success, you want to doubt whether educating more would be even more effective. That's part of your crazy. We get a healthcare system that insures more people for a bit less money, and you doubt whether going all the way with it is a good idea. We have all this precedence for success, but your narrow-minded fear keeps blocking progress, helping make the lying liar fat cats fatter, while your brain idles in neutral, and the rest of us who care about liberty and justice get to watch you vacillate.

 

It's ugly, and it's frustrating. You give our money to industries that are well-established, then you give us excuses why this makes good business sense. Unbelievably, you gripe about the public feeding from the public trough, but don't bat an eye when the corporations hog the table. They're called public funds for a reason, and I find the mega-corporations reasons non-compelling.

[waitforufo]

 

We have all this precedence for success, but your narrow-minded fear keeps blocking progress, helping make the lying liar fat cats fatter, while your brain idles in neutral, and the rest of us who care about liberty and justice get to watch you vacillate.

 

You give our money to industries that are well-established, then you give us excuses why this makes good business sense.

Who are these liar fat cats? Which industries are getting our money? Can you please give some specific examples? What lies have they told? What corporation is getting a check or violating tax laws? Such accusations should be backed up.

[Willie71]

Who are these liar fat cats? Which industries are getting our money? Can you please give some specific examples? What lies have they told? What corporation is getting a check or violating tax laws? Such accusations should be backed up.

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.

[iNow]

So you only want one question. Okay. Who are are these wealthy people who are robbing the poor? Please try to be as specific as possible.

There are a countless many examples, but let's recognize that we're not strangers to these conversations. I know you well enough and what's quite likely going to happen here is I'll cite a couple of examples and you'll nit pick them away as if nibbling at the margins changes the central truth.

 

You'll dismiss anything I say as examples of smart business, and you'll likely assert falsely that I'm just envious or covetous or want to punish the successful and the wealthy... It's really your par for the course... these attempts to distract from the meat of the conversation.

 

To be clear, I have no problem with the rich. There is no desire to punish and I do not covet them nor do I want anything for free. I'm highlighting basic objective facts about our current system and where it's failing us.

 

Also, my core point wasn't about the rich robbing the poor. My core point was that every system needs rules, and right now the rules are deeply biased against the hardest working and the highest percentage. The rules right now are tilted toward those already in power and away from those who need the most help, but I know from experience that you're cold to those points.

 

This isn't about taking away from someone else or punishing anyone, but about restoring some balance. Again, examples will be cast aside, but I respect you enough to provide some since you asked.

 

State and local government provide at least $80 billion in subsidies to corporations. Over 48 big corporations received over $100 million each. GM was the biggest, at a total of $1.7 billion extracted from 16 different states, but Shell, Ford and Chrysler all received over $1 billion each. Amazon, Microsoft, Prudential, Boeing and casino companies in Colorado and New Jersey received well over $200 million each (source). This is all happening at a time when those approving these expenditures were trying to cut medicare and social security and food stamps because of "the deficit."

 

The tax code gives corporations special tax breaks that have reduced what is supposed to be a 35-percent tax rate to an actual tax rate of 13 percent, saving these corporations an additional $200 billion annually (source). This at a time when the right-wing wants to introduce a flat tax that disproportionately hurts the poor, effectively raising their tax rate while slashing it for the wealthy (source).

 

Special tax breaks for hedge fund managers allow them to pay only a 15-percent rate while the people they earned the money for usually pay a 35-percent rate. This is the break where the multimillionaire manager pays less of a percentage in taxes than her secretary. Taxpayers pay about $243 billion each year in indirect subsidies to the fast food industry because they pay wages so low that taxpayers must put up $243 billion to pay for public benefits for their workers (source)

 

On and on and on...

 

... and on again some more...

 

Again, let's look at my core point, the one you ignored:

 

* For the last several decades, wealth has been redistributed from the poor and the middle class upward into the hands of a tiny few

* Wealth is always being redistributed in any economic system and our best option is to find ways of doing so fairly, or to at least minimize the harm

* The only thing that matters is the rules by which this redistribution occurs and how deeply embedded equality and fairness are in the process

* We shouldn't start shitting our pants and forgetting how to do basic arithmetic any time someone says the word "redistribution" or "universal healthcare"

* Shared prosperity has a far greater ROI for us all, the wealthy, the poor, and everyone in between

* This is about recognizing the role of the wealthy in sustaining and protecting the foundation that allows them to enjoy and expand their riches

 

Those are my core points. Please don't disrespect me by suggesting I'm talking solely about reverse robin hood or hatred of those who have done well.

 

Your references simply say the wealth is distributed and how it is distributed, not that there is some undesirable force unjustly distributing wealth that must be counteracted.

It's okay if you disagree with their conclusions, but it seems clear by this comment that you didn't actually read them closely (if at all) and are choosing instead to flatly dismiss them. Perhaps you'll understand why I called out as a possibility the likelihood that you'd simply respond to any examples I provide by blindly dismissing them.

 

[Phi for All]

Who are these liar fat cats? Which industries are getting our money? Can you please give some specific examples? What lies have they told? What corporation is getting a check or violating tax laws? Such accusations should be backed up.

 

I've been venting on tar because I've gotten tired of watching valid, sound arguments get waffled away or denied outright. You're cut from the same cloth, so I'll defer to iNow's excellently informative response to your most important question.

 

His response is reasonable and undeniable. Seriously, all of his points are fact checked - read them and check yourself instead of making up what you think he's saying. If you'd stop trying to dress his arguments up in rags so you can just point and laugh, you might appreciate a surgical and nuanced insight into very specific problems.

 

You've never given credit for sound, valid arguments made by your opponents in a discussion. You appear to find it much easier to whip out the smug brush and paint it all despicable and unworthy of consideration.

[waitforufo]

Also, my core point wasn't about the rich robbing the poor. My core point was that every system needs rules, and right now the rules are deeply biased against the hardest working and the highest percentage.

If this wasn't your core point then you should stop using such pejorative rhetoric. There is a reason why people respond to you the way they do. Your pejorative rhetoric distracts from the meet of the conversation. You see the corporations that you claim are getting corporate welfare are full of middle class people working for a living, paying taxes, paying to have their kids educated, and saving for retirement. They are your neighbors. None of them are robbing anyone. Your rhetoric is offensive.

 

This isn't about taking away from someone else or punishing anyone, but about restoring some balance. Again, examples will be cast aside, but I respect you enough to provide some since you asked.

First, I appreciate your response and the respect you provide me in giving such a thoughtful response. This balance you are looking for however will be punishing to many. Their are costs and risks associated with doing business. Governments appreciate this. Governments also have citizens that need work. In the end it is people who pay all the taxes. Either through direct taxation or through the prices they pay for the goods and services they buy. So the important thing it to make sure people have work. Governments that provide tax incentives are providing jobs to workers. In doing so they are investing in workers. Those governments then reap the benefits from the taxes the workers pay, the taxes paid by the construction worker building or upgrading facilities, and when the intensives run out the taxes they collect from the successful companies that remain. Your source on corporate welfare was at least balanced enough to point out just such an example. Governments are not forced to provide tax intensives, they jump at the chance. They start out making no taxes and have workers that need jobs. The give intensives which gets investors to spend money on construction and start up business costs. Now they have workers paying taxes. Then the incentives run out and they have successful companies paying taxes, and employed workers paying taxes. You are against this why?

GM was the biggest, at a total of $1.7 billion extracted from 16 different states...

By mentioning GM and their bail out you are confusing matters. GM was bailed out to save the unions. More specifically the workers union pensions. Pensions that were guaranteed by the government. The federal government couldn't afford the pension bail so instead they bailed out GM which was cheaper. It saved workers their jobs and their pension. So who really benefited. The workers did. Stock holders took a big hit in the beginning but have recovered as well. Was that really bad? Who owns GM stock. Working people do. Same goes for Chrysler.

The tax code gives corporations special tax breaks that have reduced what is supposed to be a 35-percent tax rate to an actual tax rate of 13 percent, saving these corporations an additional $200 billion annually (source).

The only way they get that 13% rate is by spending there money the way government wants them to spend it. Sure they benefit as well, but so do workers and governments. I'm an engineer. I don't think I have ever worked for a company that was not able to write off R&D expenses. Corporate welfare in your opinion. No, the government simply wants to punish companies that don't return enough profits back into their companies to keep them functioning thereby keeping people employed. The government goal is a 13% rate. 22% of the 35% rate is punishment for corporate greed. Our tax code prohibits that greed to the benefit of workers.

Special tax breaks for hedge fund managers allow them to pay only a 15-percent rate while the people they earned the money for usually pay a 35-percent rate.

Hedge fund managers pay the 15% rate on long term capitol gains just like everyone else. They pay higher rates for income just like everyone else. You are simply talking about very successful hedge fund managers like Warren Buffet. This is an extreem example and you know it. Take all of Warren Buffet's money away if you think it will do your cause any good.

Taxpayers pay about $243 billion each year in indirect subsidies to the fast food industry because they pay wages so low that taxpayers must put up $243 billion to pay for public benefits for their workers (source)

Most of these food industry jobs are supposed to be entry level jobs for inexperienced workers. Taxpayers support these jobs because we are kind to people when they are starting out at the bottom. With experence these workers are supposed to move on to better higher paying employment.

* For the last several decades, wealth has been redistributed from the poor and the middle class upward into the hands of a tiny few

By saying "wealth has been redistributed" you suggest a distributor. Perhaps some people are just better at making money than others. No one taking from the poor and middle class and giving from the rich. You would do a lot better if you dropped this evil distributor notion and appeal directly to the kindness in people.

* The only thing that matters is the rules by which this redistribution occurs and how deeply embedded equality and fairness are in the process

There is nothing unfair about the current situation. Some people need help yes but those people have not been treated unfairly. Minorities, particularly blacks are an exception to this. Welfare is provided to them in order to preserve a guaranteed voting block for the Democratic party, but that is a different topic.

* We shouldn't start shitting our pants and forgetting how to do basic arithmetic any time someone says the word "redistribution" or "universal healthcare"

As you know, I am not a fan of either obamacare or a single payer system, but I have often said on this form that single payer would be preferable to obamacare.

Those are my core points. Please don't disrespect me by suggesting I'm talking solely about reverse robin hood or hatred of those who have done well.

I think this is a long enough response from me. If you find any of the above disrespectful, it was not intended to be such.

 

Perhaps our only economic problem is that there are two up and coming countries with billions of people each that are competing with us now. Both of those countries have billions of people living way below bottom rung on our latter. Such competition will impact those at the bottom in our country the most. Same goes for the middle class.

[MigL]

To be fair Phi, quite a few of Waitforufo's questions are valid questions, and iNow did an admirable job of addressing one of them.

( although Waitforufo's comment about blacks, welfare and Democrat voting blocks, in the above post is over the top )

That is called a discussion and is what I thought we were doing.

So what's the problem ?

 

Tar's ramblings on the other hand, are a reason I don't participate ( but still read ) this ( and another ) thread.

And I've previously stated that reason.

Edited January 20, 2016 by MigL

[iNow]

You see the corporations that you claim are getting corporate welfare are full of middle class people working for a living, paying taxes, paying to have their kids educated, and saving for retirement. They are your neighbors.

They are also me and my family. I work (quite successfully) within an organization that currently employees nearly 80,000 people. My father, my grandfather, my grandmother, my aunts and uncles and cousins also work (or worked) for massive corporations. None of that is relevant to anything I'm saying, though.

 

You may find my choice of words or the manner by which I string them together offensive, but you've done nothing to rebut my choice of facts nor my presentation of the correctable asymmetries so common in our current economic landscape.

 

Take all of Warren Buffet's money away if you think it will do your cause any good.

I don't think taking away all of Warren Buffet's money would do "my cause" any good. I simply agree with much of what Warren Buffet himself has to say on the topic: http://reut.rs/1M9anvJ

 

There is nothing unfair about the current situation.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I understand your opinion, but I feel it requires a degree of willful ignorance I'm unwilling to accept. The evidence and facts at hand are just too robust to maintain such an opinion while in parallel remaining intellectually honest.

 

As you know, I am not a fan of either obamacare or a single payer system, but I have often said on this form that single payer would be preferable to obamacare.

That is certainly a bit of a surprise to me, I'll admit. I'm sure you are correct that you've said this before and I've just forgotten. Regardless, I'm glad we can be allies on this particular topic.

 

We're not as different as you probably think, but we are differently opinioned and informed on this topic.

[Phi for All]

To be fair Phi, quite a few of Waitforufo's !questions are valid questions, and iNow did an admirable job of addressing one of them.

( although Waitforufo's comment about blacks, welfare and Democrat voting blocks, in the above post is over the top )

That is called a discussion and is what I thought we were doing.

So what's the problem ?

 

What is it with conservative mindsets?! It's like you're translating my words with your nifty right-wing decoder ring.

 

Where did I say waitforufo's questions weren't valid? What I actually said was that he ignores valid, sound answers and rebuttals to his questions and arguments. Your decoder ring is obviously broken. Or perhaps it was designed that way.

 

That's anything but fair. That's the problem.

[iNow]

Who owns GM stock. Working people do. Same goes for Chrysler.

You imply with your words that it's salt of the earth, dirty fingered nail, blue collared, 9-to-5, a sixer of Pabst and a pack of lucky's "working people" who own those companies, but absent a few on the margins with a largely insignificant number of shares that's just not true.

 

GM Owners: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-board-shareholders-factbox-idUSKBN0LE2JX20150210

Fiat Chrysler Owners: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/beb311a4-c92a-11e2-9d2a-00144feab7de.html

 

I don't think I have ever worked for a company that was not able to write off R&D expenses. Corporate welfare in your opinion.

Corporate welfare is about much more than the ability to write off R&D expenses.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#Comprehensive_analyses

Background

Subsidies considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying are often called corporate welfare.[1] The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations, and often in uncompetitive, or anti-competitive ways. For instance, in the United States, agricultural subsidies are usually portrayed as helping honest, hardworking independent farmers stay afloat. However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs actually goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland, as they own a considerably larger percentage of production.[22]

 

Alan Peters and Peter Fisher (Associate Professors, Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Planning, University of Iowa)[23] have estimated that state and local governments provide $40 to 50 billion annually in economic development incentives,[24] which critics characterize as corporate welfare.[25]

 

Some economists consider the recent bank bailouts in the United States to be corporate welfare.[26][27] U.S. politicians have also contended that zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve System to financial institutions during the global financial crisis were a hidden, backdoor form of corporate welfare.[28]

 

Comprehensive analyses

Cato Institute

Policy analysis conducted by the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank, argued that United States fiscal policy allocated approximately US$92 billion in the 2006 federal budget toward programs that the authors considered to be corporate welfare.[29][30] Subsequent analysis by the institute estimated that number to be US$100 billion in the 2012 federal budget.[31][32][33]

 

Independent

Daniel D. Huff, professor emeritus of social work at Boise State University, published a comprehensive analysis of corporate welfare in 1993.[34] Huff reasoned that a very conservative estimate of corporate welfare expenditures in the United States would have been at least US$170 billion in 1990.[34] Huff compared this number with social welfare:

 

In 1990 the federal government spent 4.7 billion dollars on all forms of international aid. Pollution control programs received 4.8 billion dollars of federal assistance while both secondary and elementary education were allotted only 8.4 billion dollars. More to the point, while more than 170 billion dollars is expended on assorted varieties of corporate welfare the federal government spends 11 billion dollars on Aid for Dependent Children. The most expensive means tested welfare program, Medicaid, costs the federal government 30 billion dollars a year or about half of the amount corporations receive each year through assorted tax breaks. S.S.I., the federal program for the disabled, receives 13 billion dollars while American businesses are given 17 billion in direct federal aid.[34]

Huff noted that deliberate obfuscation was a complicating factor.[34]

 

The government goal is a 13% rate. 22% of the 35% rate is punishment for corporate greed.

Are you simply pulling these numbers out of thin air, or do you have a relevant source you can share with the rest of us that actually supports them?

 

Most of these food industry jobs are supposed to be entry level jobs for inexperienced workers. Taxpayers support these jobs because we are kind to people when they are starting out at the bottom.

https://cepr.net/documents/publications/fast-food-workers-2013-08.pdf

One argument frequently made against higher wages for fast-food workers is that the industry is dominated by teenagers and workers with less than a high school degree, who somehow deserve the low wages they receive.

 

An analysis of government data on fast-food workers, however, tells a different story. First of all, only about 30 percent of fast-food workers are teenagers. Another 30 percent are between the ages of 20 and 24. The remaining 40 percent are 25 and older. (All the data we present here are from the governments Current Population Survey, where we have combined data for the years 2010 through 2012 in order to provide a large enough sample for analysis.) Half of fast-food workers are 23 or older. Many teenagers do work in fastfood, but the majority of fast-food workers are not teenagers.

Perhaps some people are just better at making money than others.

Indeed, some (even many) are, but that's not what we're discussing here.

 

If you find any of the above disrespectful, it was not intended to be such.

I appreciated your reply. It was not disrespectful of me, but much of it was disrespectful of accuracy and facts.

 

Perhaps our only economic problem is that there are two up and coming countries with billions of people each that are competing with us now. Both of those countries have billions of people living way below bottom rung on our latter. Such competition will impact those at the bottom in our country the most. Same goes for the middle class.

You are absolutely and 100% correct that this is a big issue (even a problem) worthy of our focus and attention, but you are incorrect to suggest it's the only (or even the primary) one. Many countries, essentially all of whom are vastly smaller than ours, are also competing with China and India, yet most still manage to set policies that safeguard against plutocracy and which prioritize the maximum benefit of the maximum number of their citizens, and all while engaging and respecting robust active markets.

[MigL]

"What is it with conservative mindsets" Phi ?

 

Why do you keep assuming I'm of a conservative mindset ?

Why do you feel the need to 'label' me ?

 

I am pro discussion, and iNow and Waitforufo are doing just that.

You, on the other hand, demand that people 'give credit' to your valid points.

Automatically label people as conservatives if they don't agree with your 'enlightened' viewpoint.

And blabber about prizes found in Cracker Jack boxes.

[overtone]

I dislike your pigeon hole responses to my thoughts, as if I am using the talking points of Fox. If my reasoning has led me to feel certain ways about certain things it is not because of Fox, I listen to CNN and CNBC as well

Ha! If I had asserted that it would have been mockery, gratuitous insult.

 

Fox doesn't copyright its talking points. It doesn't even write most of them - radio jocks and think tanks and media operations financed by the same people who brought you the modern Republican Party do that, they feed and frame CNN and CNBC as well. You have no other sources of information ?

 

 

You point to 34 different countries that have one payer systems that work to have better health care for everybody. You say we need such a thing.

I don't say that "we need such a thing", I say you, and everybody you care about, and the entire country you claim to favor, would be better off with one of them. And they aren't all single payer insurance, btw - most are, but they vary.

I don't know whether you are arguing that Obama care is bankrupt and we should move to universal health care

I'm not arguing that, but it's true, and it was pretty clearly going to be true from the time Romney designed it to prevent socialized medicine.

 

or you are arguing that what we had before Obama care was not as good as what we have after.

That's also obviously true, and I'm not arguing that either.

 

 

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.

That's how the US does it, as well. Only badly, with higher taxes and higher employer costs and higher beneficiary costs for lower quality of medical care, and at the same time covering all the costs and side effects of not providing standard medical care to large numbers of its citizens. The highest costs, and lowest levels of benefit, of the 34 First World medical care systems.

 

 

Greece is number 14 in healthcare and probably among the 36 template countries that we should emulate according to you.

The numbers say that if the US had adopted the Greek system, just as and when it was adopted in Greece, we would currently have significantly better medical care for about 2/3 of the money - including tax money - we currently spend.

 

And the reason we are currently stuck with the worst medical care system in the Western industrialized world, is that the combination of racial bigotry and conservative rightwing corporate power now concentrated in the current Republican Party has been blocking all attempts to improve it - the best anyone has ever been able to get past that barrier is Obamacare, a Republican designed system carefully set up to protect the corporate profits of the various corporate interests involved in the status quo, while boosting delivery of medical care to some citizens of the country.

 

So we add that to the damage bill from this dumpster fire of a political Party - like Cubans unable to afford their own cigars, or Nigerians unable to afford the oil that's being pumped from under their houses, Americans cannot obtain the medical care largely developed and made possible by their own tax dollars and educational systems, that citizens of other countries routinely enjoy at a cost they can easily afford.

Edited January 20, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

To be fair Phi, quite a few of Waitforufo's questions are valid questions, and iNow did an admirable job of addressing one of them.

( although Waitforufo's comment about blacks, welfare and Democrat voting blocks, in the above post is over the top )

That is called a discussion and is what I thought we were doing.

So what's the problem ?

 

Tar's ramblings on the other hand, are a reason I don't participate ( but still read ) this ( and another ) thread.

And I've previously stated that reason.

No "valid" points; just talking points conservatives often repeat. Waitforufo is debating iNow's facts with diatribes about inexperienced workers and Warren Buffet. Sarcasm and poor people shaming do not prove a single point about taxation or economics. Rather it simply infers that perhaps winners and losers is the natural order of things and losers belong at the bottom. That the status qou works and people need to just need to suck it up rather than fuss over stats, history, and law.

 

"What is it with conservative mindsets" Phi ?

 

Why do you keep assuming I'm of a conservative mindset ?

Why do you feel the need to 'label' me ?

 

I am pro discussion, and iNow and Waitforufo are doing just that.

You, on the other hand, demand that people 'give credit' to your valid points.

Automatically label people as conservatives if they don't agree with your 'enlightened' viewpoint.

And blabber about prizes found in Cracker Jack boxes.

An aroused teenage boy is pro discussion too when a female says no but he's still wiggling for an angle. You are being labelled a conservative here because you are exhibiting a conservative tone. You're confronting facts with opnions and then insisting that opinions deserve equal consideration to facts. One can attempt to have a discussion about whether or not 2 + 2 = 5 but shouldn't be surpirsed when others in the discussion are assertive of facts and demanding of legitimate evidence.

By saying "wealth has been redistributed" you suggest a distributor. Perhaps some people are just better at making money than others. No one taking from the poor and middle class and giving from the rich. You would do a lot better if you dropped this evil distributor notion and appeal directly to the kindness in people.

There is nothing unfair about the current situation. Some people need help yes but those people have not been treated unfairly. Minorities, particularly blacks are an exception to this. Welfare is provided to them in order to preserve a guaranteed voting block for the Democratic party, but that is a different topic.

As you know, I am not a fan of either obamacare or a single payer system, but I have often said on this form that single payer would be preferable to obamacare.

I think this is a long enough response from me. If you find any of the above disrespectful, it was not intended to be such.

 

Perhaps our only economic problem is that there are two up and coming countries with billions of people each that are competing with us now. Both of those countries have billions of people living way below bottom rung on our latter. Such competition will impact those at the bottom in our country the most. Same goes for the middle class.

 

So basically poor people in America are the problem with America and not a problem within America. More broadly poor people globally are a threat. Billions in China and India will eventually want food, clean water, and housing which you see as too burdensome. You are advocating for a caste system right down to injecting racism as a primary justification. Blacks are poor because they are lazy and or stupid while the rest of the world having anything is something to be worried about because "they" aren't "us".

 

Thoughout world history this has been tried. Throughout U.S. history this has been tried. We had slavery, child labor, segregation, and currently have an undocumented immigration employment crisis. It never works. Finding ways to force people into undesirable labor has been an ongoning battle since before biblical times. The collateral costs eventually catch up and erode gains. Plus it is simply wrong.

[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]

"What is it with conservative mindsets" Phi ?

Thanks for asking. I've observed, in my lifetime, an America that was rooted in it's People. We made investments in Them, which paid off in so many ways educationally, technologically, and economically. We were at a point, when I was just becoming aware of such things, where the wealthiest seemed to understand that each should give to the public trust, from each according to his ability, for each according to his needs.

 

Then the age of the efficiency experts dawned in the corporate world, and when they were finished being efficient, they set their sights on ways to trim bone instead of meat. They needed a way to judge the worth of the people receiving supposedly inalienable rights and government benefits. They worked to shift their tax burdens to the People while also shifting benefits for all into benefits for them alone by raging against social program spending.

 

It all looks as if the conservative mindset wants to deny that all humans, let me repeat that, ALL HUMANS, deserve our basic help. There should be things Americans especially can't have taken away arbitrarily, just because conservatives don't think they're worthy if they don't jump through the right hoops (food, shelter, education, healthcare, things needed to cover the basics of staying alive in the 21st century - not the 18th).

 

Hey tar, my wife shared something with me this morning. It was a couple of pictures showing the difference between equality and justice. It showed three people watching a sporting event over a fence. One very tall, one medium, and one short. They were each standing on equal boxes, so they had equality, but the short guy still couldn't even see the game. The tall guy had a penthouse view. The second picture shows justice. The tall guy gives his box to the short guy, and now they aren't equal in that regard, but everyone is now enjoying the game.

 

Why does the conservative mindset seem to want to deny everyone getting justice, and enjoying life? You impose so many "You're not worthy" clauses to every bit of legislation that it's caused us to have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Do you really believe we're that horrible? We're raking in record profits while the conservative mindset has allowed corporations to ignore their duties to the country that gives them charter. We have poverty and starving children still, but they aren't worthy in so many people's eyes.

 

I believe we need to remove the barriers that are keeping Americans ignorant and fettered. Most of those barriers seem to be adaptations of the conservative mindset. That is what's with it.

[MigL]

And you got all that from my post Phi ?

 

You yourself have recently said that some of Waitforufo's questions are valid questions and deserve to be addressed or discussed.

You don't give him the 'credit' of discussing them; Yet you DEMAND he give credit for your valid points.

You choose, instead, to analyze his motivation and mindset ( as well as mine for sticking up for him ).

 

Do you not see how that is different from iNow's more constructive approach ?

 

And Ten oz, I am Canadian.

We have funded health care, a heavily subsidized higher educational system, social assistance/welfare, and many other social support programs, all of which I've voted for. Do you as an American ?

 

Yet funnily enough, I'm being branded a Conservative ?

You two need to give your heads a shake.

[Phi for All]

And you got all that from my post Phi ?

 

You yourself have recently said that some of Waitforufo's questions are valid questions and deserve to be addressed or discussed.

You don't give him the 'credit' of discussing them; Yet you DEMAND he give credit for your valid points.

You choose, instead, to analyze his motivation and mindset ( as well as mine for sticking up for him ).

 

Do you not see how that is different from iNow's more constructive approach ?

 

You still misrepresent me, even though I feel you are reading my posts. You're making up the bit about not giving credit for discussion. Isn't it inherent in replying that you're at least giving that? And isn't there a big difference between "At least you're willing to discuss this" and "You never address the valid points made, but instead sick up these well-refuted, ignorant talking points as if they're a sound, valid rebuttal"?

 

I do see how different my approach is from iNow's. Do you see how different waitforufo's approach is? In fact, I wrote about how solid iNow's was, and I watched it get dismissed in the very way I mentioned above. I don't DEMAND that people recognize my opinions, but when solid facts and sound logic get dismissed by "some people may get hurt by your suggestions", I feel like an emotional response is all the conservative mindset understands.

 

You don't seem to grasp historically what's worked to make America strong, and the whole idea of long-range investment in People, but you're not really willing to kick widows and orphans to the curb like you have pot-smokers and poor minorities because it's hard to paint them as unworthy. I feel there's hope when I find common grounds, but as soon as any big-picture solutions are suggested, the conservative mindset gets scared and starts pulling out the irrational arguments again.

 

No offense, but maybe you should address the points, join the discussion, instead of misrepresenting what I say. Can you talk about iNow's heavily researched arguments instead? Maybe try to rebut instead of dismiss? And no using the passive/aggressive "I have strong opinions about America, but I don't have to support them because I'm Canadian" approach. Yeah, you know what I'm talking about.

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, Sanders/Biden?

[MigL]

I have no need to rebut iNow's heavily researched arguments, as I agree with most of them.

Nor do I dismiss them.

 

Can you talk about Waitforufo's questions raised in post #398.

Maybe try to present mitigating arguments, or dispel his fears ( as INow is doing ).

He is, after all, one of the people you profess to care about.