What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[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

[Willie71]

You couldn't afford college for your daughter, even though you worked hard. This isn't a problem?

 

Your country can affor $30 Billion dollars to bomb Syria next year, but can't afford $60 Billion to make college free to all qualifying students. Priorities?

 

I'm not wasting any more time responding to the uninformed ramblings. It's too frustrating. You have been presented months worth of material to read and study to better understand the issues we are discussing, but a few anecdotes of blacks getting some assistance is good enough evidence for you? Your own family has been impacted by income inequality and the banking crash, yet you say things are fine. Wow, republican talking points really do work on some people.

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, encouraging people to do better doesn't serve as a plan of action or a usable stratedgy to accomplish something. If it were that easy teachers and professors could just show up once a year, provide students a list of books to read, and dismiss the class. Businesses would have no need for refresher training or front line supervision. Just encourage responsibility and for every to do better and walk away. It doesn't work that way. Humans evolved as a cooperative species. We do best when doing things together because each individual has different strengths and different points of view that diversify ideas. Structure helps discipline and organize our cooperative efforts. Fairness is necessary to ensure the cooperation is worthwhile for all participants.

 

You acknowledge the privilege plays a role but then are dismissive about the size of the role plays. Yet urban sprawl/white flight was and is driven in part by families looking to gain advantages for their children. That is why having a highly rated public school in a neighborhood pushes up the home values. We say out loud to each other that it is all about hardwork and playing by the rules but then we bend over backwards trying to get out kids in to special programs and schools. Parents taking on multi hour communes to ensure their kids get specific support. So we say it is about individual efforts but our actions say otherwise. Our actions say that we all understand that opportunity trumps effort 9 times out of 10.

 

You say since LBJ we have do enough to help people. Scholarships and what not are in place so people (minorities specifically you meant) don't have excuses for being poor. Well first off fewer today are poor! And secondly you are totally ignoring the impact of our bias legal on them well as the extra opportunities provided to those who have parents with the means to raise then in beautiful sprawl new suburbs with top rated schools.

 

Also, I am sick of the attitude that monorities are a burden to this country and don't pull there on weight. The most biggest economic states in the country that produce the most goods and intellectual property are diverse ones. Lots of minorities in California, New York, and Texas yet those states lead this country in technology, agriculture, energy, finance, and etc. States like Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have populations that are above 90% yet are not the economic drivers of this nation. They are are white conservative utopias. so please stop asking when minorities with get it together as though they are dragging the whole country down. They are not!

[Phi for All]

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.

 

So you're still 100% with the misunderstanding. We've been talking about a basic level of public assistance AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE just because they're Americans. If you lose your home, if "they" lose "their" homes, I don't want any of you homeless. It's inefficient, inordinately more expensive, and inhuman to boot. I don't want the inability to pay for accumulated human knowledge to stand in anyone's way of their pursuits.

 

So now I've concluded you're just being an asshole about this whole thing. Nobody could possibly misunderstand such good intentions and continue to obtusely discuss what's been patiently explained in basic terms and numbers.

 

Last word for me on this. Look at it this way. The liberal solutions we've recently been trying to argue for are basically making available all the efforts of Americans and their long line of ancestors before them. Hard working, cooperative, social people who have worked on developing civilization (not individualization) ever since we started staying in one place instead of hunting/gathering. Why should any corporation or government have the right to withhold that from us? Why should we be charged for what our species has worked, sweated, and bled for in accumulated knowledge? This at least should be made available to all. You may not think health is something worth bestowing as a right, but it's clear that some people would benefit greatly from being better educated, especially with regards to critical thinking.

[tar]

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

Edited January 22, 2016 by tar

[iNow]

I'm reminded of Dan Dennett, specifically this term he coined:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

[The term Deepity] refers to a statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another. Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be "earth-shattering" if true. To the extent that it's true, it doesn't matter. To the extent that it matters, it isn't true.

[Phi for All]

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.

Desire to share prosperity is part of it. It's also recognizing that some investments are best done without private profit interests attached.

 

I realized recently I was a pretty conservative driver for many years. Pack mentality, wouldn't let anyone I didn't trust into my lane because I didn't know them, they might slow me down. Rode my brakes a lot, and tried to take advantage of every lane opening, every individual opportunity for personal advancement, so I'm sure I caused a lot of brakes to be applied. Then I read a study where that's what's causing traffic to begin with, brake lights. It made a lot of sense, even to me, that brake lights take energy out of the system. So I started leaving space for merging, backed off the aggressive driving, started thinking about the system as a whole, how to make it better by cooperation, and give up trying to use this public system for my personal advancement. The result? Way less stress, traffic moves better for me, people smile and wave because I give them a break, I actually spend less time driving and enjoy it more when I do. My personal advancement is actually greater because of the proper use of a public system.

 

The drawback? I have to think back about what an asshole driver I was for so many years, thinking I was doing it the right way, and how I helped hamper the system everybody was trying to use.

 

Thanks for the discussion.

[overtone]

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.

You don't have to think about it that way.

 

Think about it like this: the white people are deadbeats, who haven't fulfilled their end of a bargain, and the black people are the creditors who are owed reparations.

 

For example, black people's parents were prevented - by law, and by custom, and by brute violence - from being able to help their children despite hard work and prudence. Their surplus from their efforts was denied to them. So the white people who prevented the parents from being able to provide owe the children what the parents would otherwise have provided.

 

Another one: white people were given a good deal of wealth by the US government, especially in the Homestead Acts and similar legislation, and that has been the basis of much of their subsequent prosperity. Black people were denied access to these government handouts, because they were black. So the US government owes black people a proportional fraction of that wealth, plus interest, to provide an equivalent opportunity for their current endeavors.

 

Another one: white people have been the beneficiaries of significant advances in medical care and treatment of trauma and disease in children especially. Black people who are adults today were prevented from taking advantage of much of this (iirc it's Chris Rock who tells the story of his mother going in secret after dark to the back door of the local veterinarian for medicine and injury treatment - if she had gone to the front door and been seen being welcomed, the local white people would have stopped taking their dogs and cats to that vet). At the same time, black children were relegated to unhealthy circumstances, high pollution zones, vermin infested housing, etc. Many health problems that afflict black people today, not to mention the poor health and untimely deaths of parents etc, stem from denial of remedy in the past. So the white people who caused this owe these black people medical care for these extra afflictions, and remediation for some of the side effects.

 

So it's not so much a matter of who "deserves" what, but who owes a debt they are obliged to make good if they are able.

 

Feel better?

 

 

 

I'm reminded of Dan Dennett, specifically this term he coined:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

Deepities should not be carelessly dismissed. I just found out yesterday that I had been too quick in my dismissal of the deepity "There is no "I" in team". I had been taking it to refer to the necessity of selflessness in contributing to team efforts, and inane therefore, but I was corrected by a more alert friend's pointing out that it really meant one could avoid accountability and blame by hiding one's sloth and incompetence within a team identity. That's a valuable insight. Edited January 22, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

@ Phi for All, a few years ago I was part of a car pool. There were 4 of us taking turns driving for a week at a time. We all lived in the same complex. I have never enjoyed driving. One of my first jobs as a young adult was route delivery in a box truck. After a couple years of that my taste for drive stayed sour. So the weeks I drove I just stuck to the simplest most straight forward route to work. Regardless of anticipated conditions I just drove the route with the least number of turns and lane changes. The other car pool members regularly lamented that I drove too slow and would recommend various "short cuts" I could take to avoid lights, traffic, or ect.

 

Eventually we all agreed to a challange of sorts. We used a stop watch to time how long it took each of us to get to work. Clock started exiting the complex and stopped at the front gate of work. Our whole week worth of driving (5days)was averaged. Of the 4 of us all times averaged out to being within 2 minutes of each other and my time was the second fastest. All the zig zagging through side streets to avoid lights, passing other drivers, and etc was simply not beneficial.

 

No one accepted the outcome of course and we ran the expirement a few more times but the conditions were never as controlled. Different people felt unexpected traffic or hitting lights shouldn't count against time. So we agreed to only compare "absolute best times" vs "absolute best times" but not surprisingly some emergent condition always prevented the perfect scenario for an "absolute best time".

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

@ overtone, conservative talking points have done a good job creating the facade that all sins vs minorities ended with the Civil War. Segregation is totally glossed over while unfair housing, banking, and employment practices which studies have exposed are present to this day are treated as silly conspiracies theories.

 

Of course trends exist for a reason. We know whites ave considerably higher incomes, are less likely to be arrested, more likely to attend Universities, and etc. conservatives don't deny those facts or that trends always have a cause. So what causes that trend; enter the conservative paradox. Conservatives deny racism. So by their logic the problem is that minority simply don't work as hard or aren't smart as whites. Hmm, they are not racist, racism don't effect anything anymore, but minorties are lazy and stupid.......

Edited January 22, 2016 by Ten oz

[CharonY]

 

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.

 

It is interesting that white people feel to be the loser in cases of affirmative action. However, according to various studies I read it appears that the actual real life impact is fairly low. I.e. the admission composition of ethnicity would barely change without affirmative action (not that it matters much as . The only group that would increase significantly were Asians. Similarly, the biggest group receiving financial support if form of grants and scholarship are disproportionately white (though it has been removed in a number of states anyway).

 

So there is a distinct disparity between perception of opportunity and the financial reality. Also I would like to add that at least in STEM Masters and PhD are almost always paid by state or federal grants via their supervisor. Also there are countries who are providing quality secondary education for a fraction of the cost in the US/UK, but that is probably another discussion entirely.

Edited January 22, 2016 by CharonY

[MigL]

Leave it to you, Phi, to label even driving styles as 'conservative' or 'liberal'.

 

What I have found is that if you follow the rules of the road, traffic moves along pretty well.

But we get a lot of Americans here in Canadian towns bordering Western New York, and I notice the large majority of them on the highways, park themselves in the left PASSING lane and will not move over for anyone. Not if you flash your hi-beams, nor if you ride their tails. These people would be forced off the road if driving in Europe.

 

Is that another of America's problems; They don't know how to drive ?

[zapatos]

Is that another of America's problems; They don't know how to drive ?

As far as I can tell, we have quite a few drivers who like to park themselves in the left lane. I don't know if the problem is that they are oblivious or rude.

[StringJunky]

As far as I can tell, we have quite a few drivers who like to park themselves in the left lane. I don't know if the problem is that they are oblivious or rude.

Are you sure they aren't English and in the wrong lane?

[overtone]

I did some research into an article I remembered on this topic, a thorough treatment including some suggestions for amelioration:

https://books.google.com/books?id=8nx8v2FVZ24C&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=dave+baRRY+LEFT+LANE+HATS&source=bl&ots=lrX9uQz228&sig=b7kuV4xp3MrYpYd5QyQCjblap9k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit_-mIv8LKAhVV9mMKHRMdCy8Q6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=dave%20baRRY%20LEFT%20LANE%20HATS&f=false

 

As is my habit, I include a couple of things that have occurred to me over the decades of professional driving I have experienced, matters the experts and their data seem to have overlooked. One of them is this: for low-ability drivers, the left lane is easier. You don't have to handle merge ramps as often (even in the Twin Cities the pioneer highway designers and their crayons appear to have been replaced by a new generation, who have come to the realization that left hand ramps are trouble and should be avoided), you don't have to change lanes until you get close to your exit, and you only have scary traffic on one side of the car (and it's the other side, not right next to you).

 

Why does that matter? Because in a place with such lousy public transit as most of the US, the roads are full of people essentially forced - against their wishes and capabilities - into the role of car pilot. The low-ability driver is just trying to survive out there - and in the US there are a whole hell of a lot of them. All those grandmas and immigrants and frail elderly men and teenage screwoffs and middle aged Korean ladies you see on the trains and buses of Europe? In the US they are driving cars on the freeway.

[imatfaal]

I did some research into an article I remembered on this topic, a thorough treatment including some suggestions for amelioration:

https://books.google.com/books?id=8nx8v2FVZ24C&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=dave+baRRY+LEFT+LANE+HATS&source=bl&ots=lrX9uQz228&sig=b7kuV4xp3MrYpYd5QyQCjblap9k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit_-mIv8LKAhVV9mMKHRMdCy8Q6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=dave%20baRRY%20LEFT%20LANE%20HATS&f=false

 

As is my habit, I include a couple of things that have occurred to me over the decades of professional driving I have experienced, matters the experts and their data seem to have overlooked. One of them is this: for low-ability drivers, the left lane is easier. You don't have to handle merge ramps as often (even in the Twin Cities the pioneer highway designers and their crayons appear to have been replaced by a new generation, who have come to the realization that left hand ramps are trouble and should be avoided), you don't have to change lanes until you get close to your exit, and you only have scary traffic on one side of the car (and it's the other side, not right next to you).

 

Why does that matter? Because in a place with such lousy public transit as most of the US, the roads are full of people essentially forced - against their wishes and capabilities - into the role of car pilot. The low-ability driver is just trying to survive out there - and in the US there are a whole hell of a lot of them. All those grandmas and immigrants and frail elderly men and teenage screwoffs and middle aged Korean ladies you see on the trains and buses of Europe? In the US they are driving cars on the freeway.

 

I thought a little about your last paragraph and looked up wikipedia - according the Modal transport share page 92% of journeys to work in Indianapolis are by car! I rant about there being too many in London at 34%. Forget about Phi's analogy (I think that was how we got onto cars) - surely a decent problem for USA is the lack of good public transport in some major cities. NYC is good on its percentage (29%) - but then the public transport there is better than London (those being two big cities I have worked for extended periods in) but some of the other places in the States; wow - is it just the cheap fuel or more to it than that (need for independence, unbelievable powerful big oilco, being brainwashed about the dangers of socialism...)

[zapatos]

In St. Louis a while back we put in a light rail system. The opponents seemed to complain most loudly that the rail system would not pay for itself through fares. Of course none of the highways pay for themselves either, but that didn't seem to matter.

 

I also think population density plays a major factor. If the population is spread thin it is difficult to create enough public transportation infrastructure to accommodate a high percentage of commuters. If you have to drive for 20 minutes in order to get to public transportation, it is often easier to just continue driving all the way to work.

 

And of course the price of gasoline makes it easy on us Americans. Last week I paid $1.58 per gallon. Not much incentive to take public transportation if I can make the drive myself for under $2.00 in fuel.

[imatfaal]

In St. Louis a while back we put in a light rail system. The opponents seemed to complain most loudly that the rail system would not pay for itself through fares. Of course none of the highways pay for themselves either, but that didn't seem to matter.

 

I also think population density plays a major factor. If the population is spread thin it is difficult to create enough public transportation infrastructure to accommodate a high percentage of commuters. If you have to drive for 20 minutes in order to get to public transportation, it is often easier to just continue driving all the way to work.

 

And of course the price of gasoline makes it easy on us Americans. Last week I paid $1.58 per gallon. Not much incentive to take public transportation if I can make the drive myself for under $2.00 in fuel.

 

I think it is work place density as well* - whilst lots of the people I know live a decent distance from work, on roads they might drive, with pretty crumby pubic transport - they just cannot park their cars near their work place in an economic manner. I would pay about $11 dollars (just under £8) to get the underground to work and back - whereas the only car park I could guarantee close to work (abs central London) would be close to $30 per day and I would have to pay petrol and congestion charge on top of that. I think I would struggle to get in and out of London for less than $40 per day - and a huge amount of aggro; its 18 miles so over $2 a mile! So of course I cycle to work - I get sweaty but I love it.

 

* to elaborate; it doesn't matter so much how spread out the population are - it matters more how tightly packed the jobs are. About a couple of million commuters descend onto London every morning - they cannot even manage car parking spaces at the stations in the suburbs let alone car park space in the few square miles where all those millions work

 

edit - it is actually 18 miles each way so closer to a £1 a mile than £2

[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

Edited January 26, 2016 by tar

[DrP]

That's what is happening Tar - it is Fox news and their lot that are going on about how evil Obama is and all of his cover ups... Did you watch that interview I posted about earlier in the thread where Bill O'Really gets owned by Obama in that TV interview? It is so ridiculous.

 

I agree - balanced discussions and working together - I've been saying for years.... conversation breaks down though when people push their own agendas.

[CharonY]

One weird thing is that in politics it is taboo to admit being wrong. Considering the complexity of matters one would expect that there will always be uncertainty and more often than not the outcome will be sub optimal. Yet it appears that one needs to put a positive spin on things, which basically means that it will be harder identify or even learn from mistakes.

In such a situation traceable facts are not only irrelevant, but outright undesirable as admitting their existence would mean that the is a limit to the spin.

[DrP]

I agree Charon - I always think it odd when the press lambasts a politician for doing a U-Turn on policy.... Personally I respect that more than holding to a mistake... the U-Turns can be in response to public outcry or because of a change of plan or because of a failed policy... all reasonably reasons for a U-Turn in my book and they should sometimes be praised for it.... but the press ALWAYS hits hard at a politician for changing his mind - I find it daft.

[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

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, you are misrepresenting reality a bit. Liberals do not follow MSNBC the same way Conservatives follow FoxNews. You are trying to paint a picture where bothsides, liberal and conservative, are equally bias and partisan but that simply is not the case. While it is true than MSNBC is bias to left and FoxNews is bias to the right it is important to point out how few liberals follow MSNBC vs how many conservative follow FoxNews.

 

 

[Phi for All]

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.

 

Unfairly?! So 25 pages of what's-our-problem, and you think the reasons given for our contempt of conservative Republican leadership and the general non-emphasis on doing anything about it by voters like you is unfair? You go on about a general unfairness, but you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER address the specific points made about your party's insane leadership behavior (oops, don't stop reading because I said "insane"). You can't provide a list of liberal craziness to compare, and you ignore the fact that that's a HUGE problem. AND you keep saying it's balanced.

 

You've never shown there's a balance in that kind of craziness, yet you always claim it. We, on the other hand, who have been trying to argue specifically about instances of insanity, are still waiting for you to defend those crazy acts. You don't, so we assume you probably think they're crazy too. YET, you continue to claim it's all good, we're balanced, conservative Republicans are doing the right thing.

 

What's unfair is YOU getting to sit in smug and waffle your way through these discussions. I think it's unfair that you don't address the specifics of what's being argued, and instead get to distract with homilies and never answer why you support the inanity that's being revealed to you.

[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

Edited January 27, 2016 by tar