What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[Willie71]

Republican corporatization of America:

 

This is the root of the problems, the starting point which all of the other problems branch out from.

 

[tar]

I never suggested the republicans believe in different things than the democrats. That is Overtone's argument.

[Willie71]

Where have I, as a republican, not paid my dues?

Ten Oz,

 

Diversity has already made us strong. It has however not made us socialist.

 

 

Regards, TAR

Re-read my post. I said the Republican Party, not republicans. They want to use the infrastructure created under the new deal, but not pay appropriate taxes to maintain it. Guys like the Bundys want to take for free, at gun point, things that are maintained through taxes. There is more to the Republican Party, or being a republican, than your personal beliefs on the matter.

[tar]

Thread,

 

Let me suggest here that I am in agreement that there is an elite that runs much of this country. Rich and powerful people that run the place. This is no different than any other country. I am sure there are as well secret clubs where substantial public policy is set. Some of this is done without our knowledge or approval but that does not mean automatically that it is done contrary to our wishes. The place runs, and I am rather sure it does not run because of the people in jail or on meth or in the mental institution, but runs because of the people on the street and on the farm and in the board room and in the church hall and in the clubs and organisations where people get together and apply their honor and their wealth to the forwarding of the nation and its values.

 

Having Christian values is not against the constitution. Not keeping church and state separate IS against the constitution. It is against our principles to tell a person what to believe or to make a law that prevents them from worship or forces them to worship in a particular way. Now if a person would say that the Muslim faith works contrary to our constitution, this is not because it is not Christian, but because Caliphs wield power both political and spiritual. The separation of church and state is not compatible with the faith. I can be an atheist, and a believer in the constitution and religious freedom and still have Christian values. I was brought up Protestant and have the values of the Protestant work ethic, helping the poor and weak and forgiving my enemies and respecting everybody's humanity, whether yellow black or white, all are precious in his sight. I can have the values without hating non-Christians. But I can look down on folk that do not have the values, if I consider the values valuable, and if I consider not having the values, a deficit.

 

Regards, TAR

Willie71,

 

Then I should add, that we are, as individuals, just as important as the collective. Meaning that if the union is "for" anybody in particular it is for each of us. If the collective takes the freedom away from one, it should not be considered a thing done for anybody's good. If the rancher burns a field, it is no different in principle from slash and burn farming in the tropics. It enriches the soil. It is not an act of arsine and the destruction of government property. Well it is the destruction of government property, but when I was in the service, getting a bad sunburn was considered destruction of government property and punishable. For an Oregon rancher, how to take care of the range, for the benefit of wildlife and stock is a thing they could do without the government taking over the land.

 

Regards, TAR

[Willie71]

The bundys are trying to take over the land, not the government.

 

 

The wealthy controlling government is not new, but is taken to much higher levels with the American system which has been shown to you repeatedly throughout this thread. Since the mid 70's, policy has not been aligned with public opinion. This is fact. This has been worsened with citizens United, a bizarre Orwellian name for oligarchy.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Willie71

[tar]

Willie71,

 

But think about it. If we have been doing it for the last 40 years, isn't it therefore pretty much the way we do it? That is, how can you and I ever know what goes on in the board rooms, nor can we tell which public policy was the brainchild of who, and paid for by who, and to who's advantage.

 

Either we trust each other, or not. We can't just start now, and we can't start by throwing out the rich and powerful. Its not sensible and not workable.

 

Regards, TAR

[Phi for All]

Let me suggest here that I am in agreement that there is an elite that runs much of this country. Rich and powerful people that run the place. This is no different than any other country.

 

I want to personally thank you for ignoring everything we've said about just how different our situation in America is compared to other countries. Thank you for once again trying to ignore our problems because they're no different from anyone else's problems. Thank you for showing us that corporate media's favorite tactic of making both "sides" equal is dangerously effective on gullible, fearful, math-ignorant conservatives.

 

And thanks for being consistently inconsistent. You, above just about anyone else I know, epitomize the Republican Party ethic of ignoring everything they stand for when it comes to personal responsibility, a strong military, Christian values, and smaller government. Nobody else in the world gets to be as two-faced as an American conservative Republican.

[tar]

Look at the Arab Spring. We threw out the old, and corrupt and got ISIS and a power vacuum.

 

If we have a Sanders revolution, who takes charge?

Phi,

 

You are welcome. Glad to be of service.

 

Regards, TAR

[Willie71]

Willie71,But think about it. If we have been doing it for the last 40 years, isn't it therefore pretty much the way we do it? That is, how can you and I ever know what goes on in the board rooms, nor can we tell which public policy was the brainchild of who, and paid for by who, and to who's advantage.Either we trust each other, or not. We can't just start now, and we can't start by throwing out the rich and powerful. Its not sensible and not workable.Regards, TAR

I do not trust people who polute drinking water to have greater profits, who fear monger about Muslims so more bombs can be sold, or people who will price fix the cost of drugs, eliminating competition (free market principles.) there is amp,e evidence that they do not value the wellbeing of the average citizen, but see them as dupes to exploit.

 

Other countries are less corrupt, have better regulations, and as a result have higher standards of living, higher levels of health and education, and higher levels of life satisfaction. It's like you think it's either the American way, or USSR type fascism/communism. Democratic socialism has historically provided the highest standards of living in the world.

Look at the Arab Spring. We threw out the old, and corrupt and got ISIS and a power vacuum.If we have a Sanders revolution, who takes charge?Phi,You are welcome. Glad to be of service.Regards, TAR

Is this a trick question? Sanders wants a coalition of nations, primarily Arab nations to deal with their problems. He doesn't believe in American Exceptionalism, imperialism, or manifest destiny. He doesn't believe that there are Old Testament prophesies unfolding in the Middle East as we speak, nor that gog and Magog need to be dealt with in the Middle East (like Bush did.) put someone like Cruz, Carson, or Huckabee in power, and they will make decisions based on the Old Testament, rather than military intelligence, and modern understandings of strategic interventions.

[tar]

Willie71,

 

Well I don't agree with you characterizations. There is of course truth in what you say, but the fear mongering about Muslims so you can sell more bombs is not the only way to characterize the situation. I am not sure, in the Sanders movement, exactly how socialist you want to get. How much of industry and business should the government be taking over? And my main point in this thread, that I usually don't get a good response to, is the question of why you assume the worst possible intentions when it comes to a businessman, and the best possible intentions when it comes to a low level government employee.

 

Are you and Phi arguing for socialized medicine and government takeover of hospitals and drug companies, or are you arguing for a non-repeal of Obamacare. Do you want insurance in this at all, like the different schedules in medicare and supplemental insurance and all the complications of in network and out of network and which procedures are contracted at which prices depending, or do you want anybody, anytime to walk into a clinic and get personalized care for free, on the government. How much of this tab do you think businesses should pick up? Will there be private businesses at all, or will the government own the means of production? Each of the nations you say are doing it right have different systems. Different wealth. Different industries and different owners of those industries. And different cultural demographic distributions. For instance Qatar has a great system for their citizens but treat their imported workers in a different manner.

 

So what are you arguing? Obamacare is good? Or a repeal would be bad? Or we need socialized medicine? If the latter, can you spell it out a little better, as to who would be making the decisions, and who would be footing the bill?

 

Regards, TAR

for instance, about your characterization, is Sweden exiting 80 thousand refugees in order to sell more bombs?

And whatever we have done in the last few years has not fixed our reliance on prescription drugs and drug abuse in general. I don't have the citations, but just listening around the abuse of prescription pain medication has caused a heroine problem in my town. The access to free drug programs might be an effect, might be a cause, or might be a cure. If Obamacare should be making the situation better, I am not sure its working.

Speaking of following the numbers. If every time stricter gun control is mentioned, the sale of guns goes way up, I would think the best way to take guns off the street would be not to mention stricter gun control.

Edited January 28, 2016 by tar

[Phi for All]

And my main point in this thread, that I usually don't get a good response to, is the question of why you assume the worst possible intentions when it comes to a businessman, and the best possible intentions when it comes to a low level government employee.

It's not necessarily about intentions. It's because a modern business model always calls for growth, which means it's really good at making money, and employing people, and GROWING, but shouldn't be applied to sectors where growth is a bad thing, like with law enforcement and the prison system. We're the biggest warden in the world, we don't need to grow that sector. Even Republicans like John McCain, who tried privatizing prisons in AZ, have said it's not cost-effective.

 

I've also argued in the past that the Germans have a better national system for maintaining roads. They contract privately, but the company has to guarantee no potholes for 10 years. Et voila, they get the Autobahn, some of the sweetest roads on the planet. Here, we put asphalt down every year because we don't let it cure, resulting in huge maintenance costs. It's not about government take-over of commerce. It's about using public funds where they're most cost-effective and efficient. I've tried to emphasize that, and you usually go off on a tangent about redistribution of wealth, another idiotic misrepresentation of my stance.

 

I'm glad you're asking questions, but historically you're not going to take anything on board. 27 pages and you can still say you don't get a good response to this question. The responses have been detailed and excellent. They just don't fit with what you believe.

 

Are you and Phi arguing for socialized medicine and government takeover of hospitals and drug companies, or are you arguing for a non-repeal of Obamacare.

I've swung back now, after seeing how many stupid concessions we had to make to Republicans to get Obamacare passed. The most effective way we can have a national healthcare service is to abolish the age limits on Medicare. Simple, and if we can get a few administrations that won't starve it because they want it to fail, I think this system is already better than the hodgepodge we have now, and farfar better than the Nixon/HMO disasters that have led to us paying twice what smart countries pay.

 

So no takeover of anything. Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, and we should really kill Bush II's treasonous crippling of our country's bargaining power with the drug companies. Your employer would tell you about your choices of insurance, the private one they've always had, and the Medicare option. You can decide whether you want to pay $5000 a year for Medicare coverage, or $8000 for private health insurance.

[Willie71]

Tar, the actual numbers of deaths at the hand of radical Muslims is way out of proportion to the military spending to deal with the problem. Yes, fear mongering gets people to sign off on the obscene military budget, and give up their rights under the patriot act. An average of 15 people per year inside the US are killed by muslim radicals. That is the number identified by the CIA. That results in 30 billion in bombs for Syria next year. That is just Syria and bombs, not ships, planes, soldiers etc. How many hundreds of thousands of Americans die each year because of inadequate medical care, but you can't spend a few billion on improving the situation? What type of sick psychopath thinks this is reasonable?

 

Do you know what democratic socialism is? Government takeover of industry? No way. Public services such as health care, corrections, medical research, social services, veterans affairs shouldn't be profit based. When working with vulnerable populations, the social safety net needs to be in place. There needs to be checks and balances to prevent corruption, or misspending, but a profit motive in a monopolistic system guarantees shitty services. The cycle of cutting services/increasing premiums and deductibles never ends.

 

 

Prescription drug abuse leading to heroine abuse? Republican policy that gave big pharma the power to regulate itself and set prices with no negotiation was a crappy idea. Pushing highly addictive substances in cases where they weren't warranted results in clients who are dependent on the doctors who get kickbacks from big pharma, and make profit on the suffering, and big pharma rakes in the cash. This is why a profit motive is a bad idea with a vulnerable population. This is what happens with the deregulation idea republicans continue to push. It's an ethical nightmare to concurrently run a business and provide health care. I know this first hand as I am a private health care provider for a service our conservative government defunded years ago.

 

 

Another example of turning over public services to the private sector. What could go wrong? Hmmm, permanent mental disabilities in thousands of people?

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by Willie71

[tar]

I am not sure that a low number of deaths at the hands of Muslim terrorists at home, due to a war against them abroad, is an argument for not fighting the war abroad. It instead could be a strong argument to keep up our efforts.

[Phi for All]

I am not sure that a low number of deaths at the hands of Muslim terrorists at home, due to a war against them abroad, is an argument for not fighting the war abroad. It instead could be a strong argument to keep up our efforts.

 

Atta boy, keep terrorism strong! Looks like a growth business model at work to me!

[tar]

Phi,

 

I get it, that people die because they don't have health insurance. But some of the same people are poor. So I get it that poor people are more subject to life threatening things than rich people. But people can work for a company that provides health insurance options, and at least work to buy the insurance, or to have the money to pay the doctor.

 

You say my choice is to pay 8000 a year or 4000 a year. But if I am to have 4000 worth of health care this year, why could not one of my choices be to save up money, pay for no insurance and jus pay the hospital the 4000 to do the operation and give me some pills?

 

I go back to the purpose of insurance. To protect yourself from big expenses by continually paying a smaller amount, along with everybody else, so that if you should happen upon the big expense, the insurance company will pay. The risk is spread out among all the policy holders, and just one guy unfortunately gets the injury, by is covered by the premiums of the group.

 

Many of the health care issues and mortality issues that are had in the states are a result of obesity or smoking, or gang violence or accidents or teen pregnancy or drug related injuries and bad behavior. Behavior. Things a person has control over themselves. Decisions that people make without asking me whether I think it safe or a good idea they do the thing. Driving drunk or taking angle dust, or what ever is a recipe for disaster. If a person behaves in these manners and does not have money to pay the doctor to patch him up, he is being rather irresponsible.

 

If I am young and healthy and responsible, why must I pay huge sums to ensure irresponsible people have health care?

 

If a person chooses to be homeless and drunk I might put a dollar in his cup, or help out at a soup kitchen or give him some can goods at thanksgiving. I do not exactly see why I need to support his chosen way of life, in the form of providing him with the best health care facilities in the world, t00hat took effort and money to build.

 

But my current prob0lem is what happened yesterday. I had gone to a doctor to look at a weak ankle I had turned badly 4 or 5 years ago. He said my ligaments were stretched and short of surgery he prescribed physical therapy and gave me a name. I attended the place and got some excercises and some electric stimulation and on the fourth visit yesterday found I owed 40 dollar copay for each previous visit because my out of network deductible was so high. I had not checked if the gplace was in network, because the doctor that was in network had written the scriptt and given the name. My bad, but my wife's family plan does not have a copay, so I asked why the 40 dollars and for a bill and a description of what the cost of each visit was, and what they were going to get from my insurance company. I paid the 120 cash but could not determine how much the treatments had cost. She said the initial visit was probably 500 dollars!!!!! for going to a gym???? So I was concerned that I owed 1500 dollars and asked for a bill and an itemization and she said I didn't have to worry about it because they had not submitted it to the insurance company yet I would not have to pay any more than the 120??? She was using the term deductible and copay and such in a manner I could not make sense of, and I left without fully understanding why she could say that I had paid what I owed, AND that the visits had cost some undetermined amount at something around a 500 dollar a pop rate. If insurance rates are high, because people get 500 dollar gym visits 2 and 3 times a week for a weak ankle, then I understand why our system sucks. It has little to do with income inequality and more to do with people that use the system to charge rates for services way beyond what they would be if the patient was dealing directly with the provider. As in, I do not go to the place anymore. I can do the exercises with the rubber band they gave me, in the comfort of my family room, for approximately $0.

Phi,

 

Let me ask you this. Was killing Bin Laden a good idea or a bad one?

 

Regards, TAR

[Willie71]

Tar, you must know how insurance works, no? You pay your premiums so you will not have to fork over $100,000.00 in an emergency. That's why people have insurance.

Atta boy, keep terrorism strong! Looks like a growth business model at work to me!

 

You might find this interesting. Someone from within the military industrial complex is interviewed by Abby Martin. He explains the business of war. I don't think a republican minded individual could watch this without their head exploding. It contradicts every piece of propaganda they gave bought into for decades.

 

[/toutube]

[overtone]

If Flint Michigan is mostly black and has bad water, why is the first assumption that white people don't care about black lives. Why can't we hold the citizens of Flint responsible for their own water. Water filters and water testing kits have existed.

Joke? Parody?

 

 

You may feel I misread your posts, and blame you for hating republicans when you just hate the Koch brothers and the military industrial complex and Bush and Cheney and Reagan and Fox and the purchased press and lobbyists, but if I would associate with the Koch brothers and be impressed by their wealth and power or have been a soldier and part of the military industrial complex, and have voted for Bush and watched Fox and read newspapers and known people with long guns behind their front door, and known people exploring the nation for gas and oil and part of the fracking industry and such...then I am your enemy and the guy you constantly rail against for ruining the county and being the biggest problem in America

What's with all this yak about "hate"?

 

And what do you suppose it would take to get you to read the following words: -> Republican Party <- . Note the capital letters. They are present throughout my posts. There's no way you could have missed them.

 

 

 

Personal responsibility.

Strong military.

Christian values.

Smaller Government.

Private insurance.

Less government interference in private business.

Free market operation.

The right to bear arms.

Fight against Global terrorism.

Private property and protection of personal wealth.

 

The Republican Party has demonstrated a complete lack of concern for any of those except two: protection of the personal wealth of the very wealthy, protection of the rights of white people to carry firearms.

They've trashed the military, ballooned the size of the government, abetted violence and greed rather than "Christian" values, gone far out of their way to interfere in many aspects of private life, set up cartels and undermined free markets everywhere, exacerbated the threat of global terrorism to the point that the Islamic versions now threaten to take over entire countries;

and over it all, the most flagrant and spotlit and baroque pile of horsepucky on the current political scene, the notion that this Republican Party stands for "personal accountability".

There is nothing more obviously lacking in the modern Republican Party than personal accountability. This is an entire Party built on denial of everything its officials and politicians have ever done, revision of its own history and behavior, and enforced amnesia concerning anything it cannot deny or revise. There is no more striking feature and characteristic of the modern Republican Party than its total lack of even a pretense of personal accountability. Nobody in that Party is held accountable by that Party for anything they've ever done or said - not its officials, not its pundits, not its politicians, not its major funders, not its associated media organizations and figures, none of 'em.

Edited January 29, 2016 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

After watching Willie71's link I have a problem with your constant venom against the Republican party. The "empire" currently has a democrat and a populous democrat at the helm. Obama is the one that drew the red line in the sand, Obama is the one that signs the orders to kill ISIS leaders, standing in another sovereign nation, with highly expensive technology that minimizes blowing up innocents. The drones our president uses to do our bidding are not sent by just me or by just the republican elite, they are sent by you as well. Root out horrible stuff that the Empire does, but NEVER, if you want to make any sense to me, and have me view you as intellectually honest and of good intention, suggest that I am not just as responsible for what Obama does as for what Bush did. Same Empire. If you can not associate yourself with it, if you can not see that it is your strength and your power that is evident then you are being silly.

 

For instance, if you don't like the way your company is doing something you say something, or you be silent. But there is no value or purpose in quitting, except to protect your pride and integrity, and say you will not be associated with such a place. And here, exactly here, is my argument in this thread. You are certain that without the Republican party the last 50 years would have gone differently and the world would be a utopia. No crime, no drugs, no misunderstandings, no distrust, no religious quarrels, no strongmen, no corruption, no whatever kind of evils you feel the Republican party has inflicted upon the world. Then Willie71 shows the video were a Republican says we have to stop the war machine and the Empire, by revolution...but that is exactly what our state department, and a democratic party controlled state department said about Syria and the red line in the sand. If the empire has created the revolution in Syria to sell more bombs, create death and destruction and kill children...then the democratic party is just as much a dupe as the followers of the Republican party.

 

And my question stands. After the Sanders revolution, who will fill the power vacuum? Will China and Iran and England and France and Russia fight for our forests and our mines and our energy reserves and our farmland?

 

Regards, TAR

[DrP]

QUOTE: "certain that...the last 50 years would have gone... no drugs, no misunderstandings, no corruption.." etc.

 

I don't think anyone has said that at all.

 

QUOTE:"will China, Iran, England, France fight for our forests and our energy reserves..?"

 

Whot?

[Willie71]

Tar, the democrats are not innocent either. They are less problematic than the republicans, as they use less racist/bigoted propaganda, and do have some socially progressive views. Economically, the new way democrats are right wing, but not as far right as the republicans.

 

 

As to the power imbalance under Sanders, his plan is to restore self governance to the region. This is a three generation solution. Stopping the invasion which fuels the instability is just one step of many. I'll link another Abby Martin video on the politics in Syria which is quite complicated.

 

Tar, thank you for watching the video and not dismissing it outright. The fellow being interviewed was part of the machine responsible for the Iraq war, and seemed to be telling the truth on what happened.

[tar]

and most importantly who you going to get the weapons from to fight the revolution, and who exactly do you intend to kill to defeat the Empire?

my point being that it is our machine you want to turn off

[Willie71]

The politics of Syria. Interview by Abby Martin.

 

[tar]

Willie71,

 

"They use less racist/bigoted propaganda."

 

I do not think I am either racist or bigoted. Others have put those intentions behind my actions. The spin or propaganda about me being racist is coming from the characterizations of my statements and actions as bigoted.

 

As if, if I put up a Christmas light I must hate Jews.

 

I received some neg reps for talking about Flint and suggesting the residents of Flint have some responsibility for the quality of their water, and for the poisoning of their children. They have more responsibility as residents of the town, than I do, sitting here in West Milford NJ, NOT using fertilizers or insecticides so other people in the state can have clean, healthy water...and I have a well that is affected by what my uphill neighbors, or at least those that live above the water table put in the ground. Nobody but me tests my water (after the CO) and I pay to replace the well pump when it goes, and ensure the proper protocol is followed to avoid bacteria getting down there and such. I am not respo6nsible for Flint water, because I am white, unless you say I am part of a racist nation that keeps black people as slaves and mistreats the slaves and gives them bad slave quarters to live in. I am pretty sure we fought a war to correct that situation, and I was part of the hippy movement in the sixties that helped bring blacks to the front of the bus and allowed girls to wear jeans to school like the boys and so on.r

If there is institutional racism still in this country, part of that is acting as if white people should be the wards of black people. I believe that black people are no different than white people, but by the color of their skin and the lack of inherited wealth. I inherited no wealth, so I am on equal par with a black man in Flint. I do not owe him clean water. He needs to find it himself, with the help of his neighbors, and government. The people he votes for, run his town...well actually there was a manager that ran the town, but I don't know what that was about. It still is racist to think that blacks are not able to think for themselves and act on their own behalf. The responsibility for their water is theirs first, and my responsibility next.

 

Regards, TAR

I apologize. I actually did inherit some wealth. My wife's mom died and when her sister and her sold the house we got some money we used as a down payment on our house. I guess I did get a leg up.

Edited January 29, 2016 by tar

[Willie71]

Tar, again, Republican Party, ie. Cruz, Carson, Trump. Not you specifically. If you aren't racist, maybe you aren't aligned with the Republican Party?

[tar]

Willie71,

 

What kind of logic is that?

 

Maybe if you are not a whacko liberal commie drug addict you are not aligned with the democratic party?

 

Regards, TAR