What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[Willie71]

I've never seen anyone do that.

 

What I see is people rebelling against their parents specific views by claiming a contrary ideology they do not in fact possess, and then returning to the proper label for their ideology later as agreement with their parents matters less.

 

I also have seen hard core conservative Republican college students become more and more liberal as they acquired an education. That's a pretty common pattern.

This is why conservatives believe education indoctrinated syudents. They don't get that facts sway reasonable people.

[overtone]

 

 

I have not earned your scorn, yet I have it, by virtue of being who I am. You are prejudice against people who voted for Bush. You fail to notice that we are your fellow Americans and have as much right to be ourselves as you do.

If you insist on confusing your votes for horrible Republican politicians with your character as a human being, I can't do anything about that. But I do not share your confusion.

 

The current Republican Party is the Party equivalent of a failed State. It is incapable of governing, it is completely corrupt, it has no defensible principles or ideology, and it has an agenda most decent human beings would reject on sight if they saw it. Including you, if your self-descriptions have any basis in reality at all. It has been a force for embarrassing fuckup and disaster, and nothing but fuckup and disaster, since 1980. Furthermore, I can document this contention - the list of embarrassments and disasters and incompetencies and amoral errors and flat-out evils dealt to the US by the Republican Party since 1980 is hundreds of items long and growing week by week.

 

This documentation of events is historical.

[tar]

Overtone,

I have a good feeling about my town and my state and my country. And I trust Republicans and the Republican party to do their part in maintaining the government that maintains my way of life.

 

I do not fear the bankers. I write checks all the time and they are always faithfully accepted. I trust my bank. And I trust where my 401K funds are invested, and I now get a small pension every month that I will continue to get, and that my wife will get if I die, that I trust the financial industry to continuing paying me, as was the contract when my company put money into the plan for 33 years. I know there are decent people acting as my fiduciaries. Much more decent than a gang banger.

 

Your definitions of decent and your curse words toward people I count on and trust, are not reasonable. And Bernie's plans are not workable or desirable as far as I am concerned. If I vote against him, it will not be me blocking progress, it will be me maintaining a reasonable, working system. My way of life is not invalid.

Regards, TAR

Edited January 18, 2016 by tar

[overtone]

And I trust Republicans and the Republican party to do their part in maintaining the government that maintains my way of life.

And that is problem for the rest of us. Because they won't.

 

 

I do not fear the bankers. I write checks all the time and they are always faithfully accepted. I trust my bank. And I trust where my 401K funds are invested, and I now get a small pension every month that I will continue to get, and that my wife will get if I die, that I trust the financial industry to continuing paying me, as was the contract when my company put money into the plan for 33 years.

Living and learning about banking man. Although if the crash of '08 didn't teach you anything, I don't know what would. (Lots of your fellow citizens lost their pensions, in that crash. You were lucky, not safe).

 

Y'know, genuine conservatives don't trust banks. Banks as we know them are inventions of liberalism, and they are supposed to be regulated carefully according to conservative principles as well as liberal ones. One of those conservative principles is this: Trust everybody, and cut the deck.

 

Don't forget that last part: cut the deck.

 

 

And Bernie's plans are not workable or desirable as far as I am concerned. If I vote against him, it will not be me blocking progress, it will be me maintaining a reasonable, working system.

If you vote for a Republican, and win, that will be you voting against maintaining what's left of the reasonable, working system of government you got from the liberals of the Roosevelt administration, and the liberals of the civil rights era. Never mind progress, we're talking loss. You will be voting for a continuation of Reagan's dismantling of the New Deal, so far advanced by W&Cheney. And if you come around eight years later when the obvious consequences have happened to your country, as with W, and try to tell people it was everybody's fault, and both sides are to blame, and we are all in it together, and so forth, I think the words will stick in your throat. I would hope so.

Edited January 18, 2016 by overtone

[Willie71]

Tar, if Obama didn't bail out the banks, you wouldn't have your financial security. Do you get social security? You realize that the republicans wasn't to cut it, and give that money in tax breaks to multinational corporations? These "job creators" push for policy that makes it easier to move manufacturing overseas so they can save money. This is what maintains your way of like?

 

Bernie is pushing to reinstate Glass Stiegle, protecting you from the banks using your savings to gamble with. This works against your interests? He wants to keep jobs in America, which is against your interests? He wants an educated populace to build the technological economy, creating jobs and developing industry, against your interests?

 

I have to ask, are you basing your opinions on a position of ignorance or misinformation, from your own perspective. Ignorance is relatively easy to fix, but misinformation is more entrenched.

[overtone]

 

 

Tar, if Obama didn't bail out the banks,

W was the executive officer in charge of the Democratic Congress pushed bank bailouts. That's why there were no strings on the money - unlike the situation when Obama managed the bailout of GM (which was also launched under W, but not fixed in management details until Obama took office) , the executives of the banks were not regulated or subject to oversight, and so they used a lot of the money to pay themselves big bonuses for their valuable contributions.

 

Homeowners, meanwhile, got no effective foreclosure relief - even in many cases of fraud and dishonest banking practices (such as robosigning and erroneous foreclosure of properties not in default by banks with no legal title).

 

But Tar got to keep his otherwise probably defaulted pension - and we didn't, or haven't so far, suffered another Great Depression; some of the New Deal was still in place, and held.

[Ten oz]

W was the executive officer in charge of the Democratic Congress pushed bank bailouts. That's why there were no strings on the money - unlike the situation when Obama managed the bailout of GM (which was also launched under W, but not fixed in management details until Obama took office) , the executives of the banks were not regulated or subject to oversight, and so they used a lot of the money to pay themselves big bonuses for their valuable contributions.

 

Homeowners, meanwhile, got no effective foreclosure relief - even in many cases of fraud and dishonest banking practices (such as robosigning and erroneous foreclosure of properties not in default by banks with no legal title).

 

But Tar got to keep his otherwise probably defaulted pension - and we didn't, or haven't so far, suffered another Great Depression; some of the New Deal was still in place, and held.

 

Republicans reflect with great pride on the Silent Generation and Baby Boomers. The 40"s and 50"s are treated as an idealic time in this countries history. Yet FDR was basically a socialist, the top taxe rate in 1950 was 91%, Dwight Eisenhower was to the center left of Hillary Clinton. Repiublicans are always talking about bringing America back, returning to American values, getting the country back, and etc yet have no actually deserve to return any of the tax rates and govt programs from those decades they so celebrate. Perhaps it is the Fox Effect but most Republican supports seem unable to untangle policy from rhetoric. They hate big govt and wasteful spending yet worship Reagan who expanded the the size of govt and broke records with his spending.They are against activist courts yet have the federal society out there training the next generation of conservative judges to be activist judges who apply political ideology to law. Where is the truth? What do Republicans honestly support? Why can't they every just be honest about their views? Is it all just cynicism with a splash of racism or do Republican how true policy positions that are advocated openly?

[Willie71]

W was the executive officer in charge of the Democratic Congress pushed bank bailouts. That's why there were no strings on the money - unlike the situation when Obama managed the bailout of GM (which was also launched under W, but not fixed in management details until Obama took office) , the executives of the banks were not regulated or subject to oversight, and so they used a lot of the money to pay themselves big bonuses for their valuable contributions.

 

Homeowners, meanwhile, got no effective foreclosure relief - even in many cases of fraud and dishonest banking practices (such as robosigning and erroneous foreclosure of properties not in default by banks with no legal title).

 

But Tar got to keep his otherwise probably defaulted pension - and we didn't, or haven't so far, suffered another Great Depression; some of the New Deal was still in place, and held.

 

I stand corrected.

[tar]

Willie71,

 

I base my opinions on watching the world, talking to people, and thinking about stuff.

 

That I would have my theories and feelings based on my experience of the world is completely valid. On many occasions the "facts" that one group goes by are not the way I would characterize the situation.

 

For an example, I once beat a mangy squirrel to death with a shovel. The facts would say I was cruel to an animal. I was at time protecting my young girls from an animal with teeth, that was showing no fear and coming after me. I buried it under a big rock where nothing could dig it up.​

 

​Regards,

characterizations and spin make a difference as to what one considers as going by the facts

 

most situations are complex and have many facets to them, things you gain and things you lose by taking any action or refraining from taking any action

 

I remember once hearing a person talk about an accident they had that morning, and how stupid and wrong the other party was. I later was in another building of my company and hear another individual talking about the accident they were in that morning, and how stupid and wrong the other party was.

 

You guessed it. Same accident.

[Willie71]

Willie71,

 

I base my opinions on watching the world, talking to people, and thinking about stuff.

 

That I would have my theories and feelings based on my experience of the world is completely valid. On many occasions the "facts" that one group goes by are not the way I would characterize the situation.

 

For an example, I once beat a mangy squirrel to death with a shovel. The facts would say I was cruel to an animal. I was at time protecting my young girls from an animal with teeth, that was showing no fear and coming after me. I buried it under a big rock where nothing could dig it up.​

 

​Regards,

characterizations and spin make a difference as to what one considers as going by the facts

 

most situations are complex and have many facets to them, things you gain and things you lose by taking any action or refraining from taking any action

 

I remember once hearing a person talk about an accident they had that morning, and how stupid and wrong the other party was. I later was in another building of my company and hear another individual talking about the accident they were in that morning, and how stupid and wrong the other party was.

 

You guessed it. Same accident.

Doublespeak is still an issue.

 

Family values= cut spending on social programs.

Pre-emotive defense= invasion.

Self protection= murder.

 

We aren't talking about perception. You said you valued your financial stability. You have it because of democrat policy, which is being eroded by republicans. There is no perception there. Republicans want to cut social security, let banks gamble with your savings, and remove health care for seniors. How do those policies help you financially?

 

Squirrels aren't carnivorous predators. Thought I would mention that. The squirrels at my cabin throw acorns at the dogs, steal their food, and try to steal stuff from the pantry. I wouldn't characterize them as scary. An entertaining nuisance, but not scary.

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, what would you like to see done to improve this country? Should we pass a flat tax, make community college free, privatize social security, legalize pot, repeal the affordable healthcare act, invest more into clean energy, build keystone, build high speed rail, defund the EPA, amnesty, a great Mexican border wall, or what? Life lessons and emotional appeals aside what do you actually what to happen? Many politicians campaign on what they think is bad but having an opinion is not equal to having a plan.

 

I will start with some of the things I would like to see happen jut to move the conversation. And of course no single candidate represents these things 100%. Elections are always about finding the person which is most electable that will do the largest portion of what you hope:

 

- Legalize pot federally, allow it to be purely a states issue, and decriminalize all drugs. By decriminalize I mean treat with rehab and fines rather than prison. Reason being we have the worlds largest prison population and half of it is nonviolent drug offenses. That is costing local govt billions upon billions and rending millions of our citizens unemployable.

 

- Immigration reform needs to happen. Doing nothing only keeps in place a system that isn't working. Having millions of working adults office the books only hurts GDP and creates more work for multiple enforcement agencies. Bush's guest worker program was actually pretty good imo. If people are here and working give them a permit and let them stay.

 

- Free community college; I am conflicted on this issue. I think too many young people do pursue degrees in things that do not benefit themselves directly or society broadly. I also think a lot is learned from hardwork and too many young adults today put work off too far into adulthood in pursuit of education for education sake. That said the debt weighing the next generation down is a real thing and must be addressed. Ultimately I don't have to approve of everything people choose to go to college for. more than ever a degree, at least a 2yrs degree, is an absolute must for anyone starting a career. we have to help otherwise the debt will eventually stall other investments housing, start ups, and sarting families.

 

- Taxes need to be raised for the highest marginal earners. For all the talk about "job creators" imo govt investment is the greatest job creator of all. It has been government investment that has made Satelites, jet engines, the internet, and etc possible. Fed Ex, Uber, and so many more use roads built by our govt and GPS created for our military . Metros, subways, trolleys, buses, and etc shuttle workers around allowing for commerce. No one in the United States is getting wealthy without the foundation which has been laid in tax dollars. I do not view a tax as a penalty. I view it as a usage fee.

 

- Foriegn policy, nothing in a vaccum! We are part of a world community and should cooperate with our allies. Talk to other nations. Talk, talk, talk, talk, and then when talks fail talk a few more times to ensure that our last resort is truly a last resort. If violence is a must than we shouldn't be left without allies going it alone.

[Phi for All]

I will start with some of the things I would like to see happen jut to move the conversation.

 

I wanted to say how reasonable, smart, and hopeful your list is. There's no fear there, just a desire for fairness and a return to greatness via rational routes. Not nostalgic but rather practical about our history.

 

If you boiled this down for Red Scare conservatives to "We want to invest in the People of this country, to support the backbone of America", it might even appeal to the Fearful. We just need them to see that corporations aren't People, they employ People. Right now, corporations are ticks in our ears, lying while they suck some more blood. Along with taxes, I'd like to get some regulatory teeth back. I sure would like to see us fix our backbones enough to deal with this corporate/media incest we've allowed to happen.

[tar]

Ten Oz and Phi for All,

r

I like your list Ten Oz and think it reflects a thoughtful approach that treats everybody as us and looks for the ways we all win. I am not liking your approach though Phi, because is has the word "them" in it.

 

Here is where I believe we have to look at the reasons why we think of another fellow American in the third person. Everybody is potentially the guy or girl sitting next to you at the fair on the bench or across from you in the ferris wheel.

 

The people we think of as "them" are the spouses of our second cousin, or our neighbors, or the parents of the guy our daughter is going to school with.

po

President Kennedy said its not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

 

Just before I was yelled at for not voting for a policy that would help me personally. I don't think that way. I have always worked...up till a year ago, and have always been responsible for myself and my family. The country gives me the framework within which to operate in peace and freedom. Laws to regulate commerce and keep people from selling me snake oil and such. Laws that hold people responsible for keeping their promises to each other. Laws that protect my private property and my person from injury and loss.

 

I am not in favor, generally for arbitrary redistribution of wealth. Several years ago, I was laid off, and got a job with my old company in a different department 4 months later. During those 4 months I considered what I could do, of value to others. What offering could I put together that would represent a product or service that other people needed or wanted. I took my GMAT and was accepted into Fairleigh Dickenson to potentially pursue a certificate in Organisationl Psychology...I worked on some ideas to present an offering to firms that would help organizations handle stress and change and maintain intrinsic value and human judgement in a business world increasing ruled by metrics and profit, and. faceless automated decision making,.. I never came up with the offering. It is hard to do business. There are many rules you must follow, many taxes you must pay, many benefits you must offer your workers...

 

Here is where I don't like your "them" Phi, when you call the very people that have put together an offering and an organization and deliver a product or service, the enemy.

 

So one of the things I would like to see, is a relaxation of the rules for how to make money. Most businesses are glorified lemonade stands, and should be as easy to start. Someone with an idea, should be able to start on a shoe string, and not require huge investments or loans, and lawyers and hr departments and government oversight, and insurance and permits and licenses from everybody.

 

I am not talking about wild west, I am talking about not making it so hard for a business to comply with government regulations, that they fail as businesses.

 

So, I would ask that the workability of a plan be considered before laws are made that hamstring people and make decisions for people that should be their own area of responsibility and action. My theory here is that if you can trust the regulators, you should just bypass them and trust the people.

 

If we are together to dream and hope and endeavor to make a better place, it has to be us that do the thing. It cannot be us forcing "them" into compliance.

 

So, when it comes to things like universal health care, you have to wonder who is going to pay. If we wind up paying higher taxes and higher premiums and higher deductables...then we have not been "given" anything. If the reason for universal health care is to prevent a family from being destroyed by catastrophic illness, but it destroys everybody in the process, then what is the purpose. All the plans say we are going to rob from the rich and give to the poor. It has to first be workable. Can YOU pay for it, or can it only be done if a rich guy pays for it?

 

When the 150 billion was part of the Iranian deal, I wondered if it was like extortion or protection money. It is probably just funds we withheld as part of the sanctions, so it is not ours to begin with, it rightfully belongs to Iran...but same idea should be remembered when considering plans that tax higher income at unfair rates. It is not "our" money, it belongs to the individual or the firm, not to the state. The state should take, or be given taxes, certainly, as a "right to use" fee, that everybody, coming to the party needs to pony up. But it does not belong to us as a collective. It is better to have a means of production, than to eat up the principle.

 

So, Ten Oz, my plan would be to enforce our current laws, preach personal responsibility, teach your kids math and science and the arts, keep them from drugs, keep yourself from drug, question the medical profession and ask them to develop protocols on their own to solve problems without pills. Make healthcare less expensive. Fewer lawsuits, Less restriction on doctors and teachers as to how they should ply their trade. Hold people responsible for their own actions. Make laws that 90 percent of the population agree with and try not to create winners and losers.

 

Let people use their own judgement and think of everybody as US.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

So, when it comes to things like universal health care, you have to wonder who is going to pay. If we wind up paying higher taxes and higher premiums and higher deductables...then we have not been "given" anything.

And if you -

 

as the economic analysis suggests,

as common sense indicates,

as the partial experience of sectors of the US have demonstrated (the Republican Congress had to pass a law preventing Medicare from lowering drug prices in the US),

and as everyone else in the entire First World of medical care - everyone else, all 34 countries, without a single exception - have found to be the case in reality -

 

wind up paying lower taxes and lower co-pays and lower premiums and lower deductibles, while receiving better medical care

 

by adopting any of the 34 single payer based / nonprofit / taxpayer grounded national health care systems in current superior existence, or even just expanding Medicare as already developed in the US,

 

then you will have been provided, by a competent government, a very valuable service well worth your support. Amirite?

 

 

My theory here is that if you can trust the regulators, you should just bypass them and trust the people.

"The people" regulate the behavior of banks, and corporations, by establishing a government and employing regulators whose job it is to do the full time and highly skilled work necessary. That's how it's done. There is no other way to do it. There is no substitute for competent government acting in the service of the ordinary citizen.

 

 

So, Ten Oz, my plan would be to enforce our current laws, preach personal responsibility, teach your kids math and science and the arts, keep them from drugs, keep yourself from drug, question the medical profession and ask them to develop protocols on their own to solve problems without pills. Make healthcare less expensive. Fewer lawsuits, Less restriction on doctors and teachers as to how they should ply their trade. Hold people responsible for their own actions. Make laws that 90 percent of the population agree with and try not to create winners and losers

You voted for W. Twice. Thereby almost destroying any hope you had of ever seeing that agenda in practice in the US. Did you learn anything?

 

If you vote for any of the current batch of Republican politicians running for any office in this country, you will have voted for lower standards of teaching science and the arts, further spread of drug abuse and crime and incarceration, less equitable enforcement of current laws, greater immunity of the rich from personal responsibility, rejection of any efforts to "question" the medical profession, further and even larger increases in the expense of health care, greater reliance on litigation and lawsuits in health care and all other professional fields, and government so obviously devoted to creating winners and losers that entire factions of the American public simply check out - set up communities and societies that operate outside and contrary to the government of the State. A Second World country, headed for Third World. The richest Third World, banana republic country ever seen on the planet.

 

And if you think your pension will survive another Republican Crash like we saw in 1929 and 2008, you will be disappointed. Raiding pension funds is child's play for an unregulated Wall Street.

Edited January 19, 2016 by overtone

[Phi for All]

I am not liking your approach though Phi, because is has the word "them" in it.

 

That's a pretty typical fear response. Find something you can spin as common sense, then proceed to let it keep you in ignorance and fear forever. "I'm not gonna listen to anything else after you said 'them'". I'm not surprised.

 

Same with the "teach personal responsibility" BS. Sounds so good, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, go it alone, don't ask for help from anybody, all the great people did it this way! Bullshit. We're a cooperative species that's smarter than anything else on the planet. We have obligations if we're going to use those brains responsibly, and a first good step would be using our strengths instead of letting people cagier, more tricksy than you talk you out of it.

 

We thrive when we work together. Personal responsibility is SO much more powerful when it includes the people who helped you get where you are. I'm so sick of seeing decent people being fooled again and again by lies from lying liars. We're social creatures, and you/them are just going to have to realize it and figure out how you're going to deal with the truth.

 

Public funds have the greatest potential for overall benefit in our society. You/them remain blind, even when it's explained ad nauseam that universal healthcare, as practiced by every top country except us, is cheaper than what we do now, and provides everyone with a higher level of overall care. We could have a system like that, except for you/them bastards. You'd rather suffer through a half-assed, more expensive system just so you can keep the medical insurance middlemen in business, and not rock the boat, and keep being skeptical of EVERYONE ELSE THAT MAKES IT WORK. I'm not a violent guy, but I'd really like to slap you across the face for that. You/them are eternal fearful skeptics, always saying it won't work while you cover eyes and ears as it's being explained to you how it could. And you/them do that with everything you're afraid of; welfare, immigration, the prison system, abortion.

 

If you want to stop this us vs them mentality, then start supporting a more mature look at today's issues, and stop letting the media turn everything into an argument over the fence. Life has more shades of gray than you're willing to allow, and that's seriously hampering your critical thinking skills.

 

I think you feel the need to break your objections down to very specific, very subjective and personal anecdotes because none of your arguments really hold up in the general case. You've always cherry-picked isolated stories that support you while missing the point of general trends and observable reality. And that's more "them" tactics. It's how your pundits get you guys to put your brains in neutral while they go joy-riding with your judgement.

 

Please don't take this personally. I'm so fed up with folks defending positions for "skeptical" reasons, and shutting themselves off from reasonable perspectives. This country is doing massively well but the People have been cut out of the equation. That's not going to change without some backbone decisions, and some smart people taking a stand, while the rest of you/them figure out what you really do believe in so you can see how badly you're being represented in your own country.

[iNow]

I am not in favor, generally for arbitrary redistribution of wealth.

Wealth is always being redistributed. You're simply repeating an ignorant talking point put out there by the vested interests looking to confuse the issues. So, let's clear that confusion...

 

For the last several decades, wealth has been taken from the poor and redistributed upward. This is partially why the wealth of the top one tenth of one percent has grown so substantially while wages of the middle and lower classes have stagnated and dropped. Wealth is always being redistributed and our best option is to find ways of doing so fairly. The only institution that can do so is the one that sets the rules, namely our government.

 

Instead of acknowledging this remedial fact, however, you choose to blindly repeat a bumper sticker and to ignore the fact that wealth is continually redistributed in all economies at all times... That the only thing that matters is the rules by which this occurs and how deeply embedded equality and fairness are in the process. Comments like yours above do little more than show just how profoundly you misunderstand the system about which you speak and how blind you are to the inherent naïveté in your position.

 

Instead of bumper sticker wisdom, consider taking a deep breath, stepping back, and realizing that shared prosperity has a far greater ROI for us all, that the rising tide truly does lift all ships and that continuing the current status quo of the rich robbing the poor has a deleterious effect on everyone, both in the short-term and the long. It's time to stop chanting and repeating this mindless propaganda about the supposed horrors of wealth redistribution since it's already happening, everyday and for as long as records have been kept, just unfairly and in the wrong direction for the last several decades (see also: corporate welfare).

 

This is not about punishing or coveting the rich, so please don't bother strawmaning me with any nonsensical assertions or suggestions like that. This is about recognizing the role of the wealthy in sustaining and protecting the foundation that allows them to enjoy and expand their riches. Without a sturdy foundation the skyscraper crumbles, and that's true whether you happen to be in the penthouse or the poorhouse. We are discussing foundational issues, or at least some of us are.

 

So, when it comes to things like universal health care, you have to wonder who is going to pay. If we wind up paying higher taxes and higher premiums and higher deductables...then we have not been "given" anything.

This is partially why it's hard to take you seriously. It's basic math, but you forget how numbers actually work the moment the bogey man of higher taxes is introduced into the conversation.

 

Sure, you might pay 2-4% higher taxes, but by doing so you'd no longer pay insurance premiums, no longer have co-pays, no longer have crazy high deductibles, and overall costs for service would in parallel be driven down due to the greater bargaining power provided by a single payer system. You wouldn't have higher taxes AND higher premiums AND higher deductibles. The premiums and deductibles would vanish if we paid the higher tax, and anyone telling you otherwise is a liar or a fool and should be unceremoniously dismissed as such without delay.

 

The average family would save $5-6,000 per year in such a universal system, but you somehow become blind to that because the payment is shifting from a premium paid to a private insurer instead to a premium paid to the government (i.e. a tax).

 

Anybody who can do basic arithmetic should support this. If you agree that getting five oranges for $2 is better than getting five oranges for $5, then you should agree that universal single payer healthcare is the best path forward and is better than the current system wherein we pay 3x as much as any other country on the planet and all for lower quality outcomes and millions upon millions far fewer people covered, an immoral number of whom go without any coverage whatsoever despite our overspending.

 

Anyone who claims to be a conservative should support getting more for less, should support higher quality and quantity for lower cost, but unfortunately this issue has become too clouded and too muddied by the special interests and the powers that be and the populace has somehow magically become too stupid and too incapable of critical thought and reason to realize just how profoundly the wool's been pulled over their eyes and how consistently they're choosing to vote against their own self-interests, and consequently the interests of all of us included in the larger whole.

 

I now eagerly await your completely ill-focused meandering reply that fails to address any of my core points above and which instead introduces some random stream of consciousness anecdote about some fella named Bob or some cat named Clevis or some other irrelevant narrative you for some unknown reason feel is worth any of our time.

Edited January 19, 2016 by iNow

[Ten oz]

 

So, Ten Oz, my plan would be to enforce our current laws, preach personal responsibility, teach your kids math and science and the arts, keep them from drugs, keep yourself from drug, question the medical profession and ask them to develop protocols on their own to solve problems without pills. Make healthcare less expensive. Fewer lawsuits, Less restriction on doctors and teachers as to how they should ply their trade. Hold people responsible for their own actions. Make laws that 90 percent of the population agree with and try not to create winners and losers.

 

Let people use their own judgement and think of everybody as US.

 

Regards, TAR

Aside from enforcement of current laws how is the rest to be achieved? You say question the medical profession and ask for better protocols but stop short of any suggestion on how such can be done regulatory wise then go on to say less lawsuits and regulation on how they apply their trade. It seems contradictory. Holding people more responsible while taking away legal channels like lawsuits and regulation doesn't make sense. We all want kids learning math and science but how will your suggestion be achieved; more money, different testing standard, new curriculum?

 

This is an election year and some of the things we hope for may actually be addressed by the people we elect. Free community college is being talked about, Obama's DOJ hasn't gone after any of the states that have legalized pot, immigration reform has been on the table for a decade with multiple administrations making pushes, and taxes are always an issues. Surely there is actually policy being pushed you are interested in and niot merely loose ideas about personal responsibility. Not to say being responsible isn't important it just isn't executable policy. Being responsible isn't a plan.

[Willie71]

Tar, these companies, and people with personal responsibility don't use any of the public services built during the new deal? They don't use the roads, bridges, sewage systems, postal system or other tax funded services, and therefore should not pay taxes? Myopic nonsense. It isn't wealth redistribution. That's an Orwellian reframe.

 

Do these companies and individuals who have personal responsibility not use the highly subsidized fuel and oil that is taken out of regular people's taxes for corporate welfare? How about the fact that the republicans dismantled collective bargaining, and many people work full time, two incomes per household, yet still need food stamps to feed their family. These job creators are showing record profits, while you blame people for not having enough personal responsibility, since your tribe screwed them over.

[Phi for All]

Aside from enforcement of current laws how is the rest to be achieved? You say question the medical profession and ask for better protocols but stop short of any suggestion on how such can be done regulatory wise then go on to say less lawsuits and regulation on how they apply their trade. It seems contradictory. Holding people more responsible while taking away legal channels like lawsuits and regulation doesn't make sense. We all want kids learning math and science but how will your suggestion be achieved; more money, different testing standard, new curriculum?

 

Brain in neutral, pundits behind the wheel.

 

I'm noticing lots of parallels between conservatives and crackpots. Both seem to latch on to isolated bits of data without bothering to stitch them together to form information that actually informs them. If they bothered, they might see how none of the bits they like hearing really go together, and may actually be counterproductive to their overall ideal. And because they didn't use any critical thinking skills to reach these conclusions, they're firmly, 100% convinced they're right.

Tar, these companies, and people with personal responsibility don't use any of the public services built during the new deal? They don't use the roads, bridges, sewage systems, postal system or other tax funded services, and therefore should not pay taxes? Myopic nonsense. It isn't wealth redistribution. That's an Orwellian reframe.

 

Do these companies and individuals who have personal responsibility not use the highly subsidized fuel and oil that is taken out of regular people's taxes for corporate welfare? How about the fact that the republicans dismantled collective bargaining, and many people work full time, two incomes per household, yet still need food stamps to feed their family. These job creators are showing record profits, while you blame people for not having enough personal responsibility, since your tribe screwed them over.

 

It's downright bizarre, and shows why a thread like this was necessary. These conservatives defend W's overhaul of Medicare just because they hate the concept. This hate allowed them to shift their brains to neutral, let the pundits take over, and support an administration that was favored because W was a businessman (like Trump), and of course THAT'S what we all need! Then they continued to support him when he kicked America in the teeth and took away their power to negotiate for Medicare drugs. What a GREAT BUSINESS DECISION, thank God for W! I'm sure any CEO in the country would get a huge bonus for giving away that much of their company's power.

 

Stick-your-head-in-the-sand mentality doesn't protect anything. Conservatives forget that we can't breath like that.

[Lyudmilascience]

I think its a tie between the amount of debt in general, America's debt, college debt, credit card debt, or the other problem, the distribution of wealth, the wealthier people getting even more wealthier, i guess this covers debt then so maybe thats the main problem.

[tar]

All,

 

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. I hear all the talking points, and personally find the chicken in every pot talk just as unworkable as building a wall to keep people out.

 

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 know whether you are arguing that Obama care is bankrupt and we should move to universal health care or you are arguing that what we had before Obama care was not as good as what we have after.

 

If we are talking about reality, lets talk about reality. We have already replaced private insurance with marketplaces and forced everybody to buy health insurance. Is that sufficient, or do we need Bernie to bring us into compliance with proper socialized medicine?

 

Regards, TAR

 

If I am to not like halfway socialized medicine, why would I like fully socialized medicine. And is fully socialized medicine possible in the U.S. ?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/19/bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-proves-t

Edited January 19, 2016 by tar

[Phi for All]

If I am to not like halfway socialized medicine, why would I like fully socialized medicine. And is fully socialized medicine possible in the U.S. ?

 

What we have now is certainly better than before ACA, but it still allows middlemen to profit unnecessarily in an industry we can easily do without, healthcare insurance. We simply don't need to pay for those double digit profits, not when (AGAIN) we have examples of single payer universal systems we could follow to a tee and get the same results from.

 

Why don't you get that?! Your link is just another bunch of refuted objections, fearful and denying, pretending there's a problem paying for universal healthcare. Is it that you don't know how to use numbers? Is it that you don't understand why private profit jacks up our costs for no reason? Why do you ignore all the success from the other countries? Why don't you understand the simple math involved in costs between private and publicly funded healthcare? I thought iNow explained it perfectly, so a child could understand, but he was right, you ignored him.

 

The UK spends half of what we do on healthcare. Somehow, you gave your brain to the profiteers and their prophets, and let them convince you that we're not as smart as the United Kingdom, that we can't do what they do, that we're somehow fundamentally different and require healthcare that's more expensive and has a higher mortality rate, fewer doctors per patient, and fewer hospital beds. You support raping the People for profit for an industry that has no more relevance in this society. Leeches, ticks, sucking us dry when public funding is SO much more efficient and beneficial to our society when it comes to health.

 

I don't expect you to understand this at all. You just don't have the skills, and all I really want is for people like you to stay out of the way, and stop being such obstacles. I realize there's no hope for you, that you're very comfortable listening to the lying liar's lies, that they somehow make you feel better about yourself by replacing intelligence with "common sense", that wonderfully deceptive "logic" that works so well on people who've shifted their brains to neutral and handed the keys to the documented crazies.

[waitforufo]

Wealth is always being redistributed. You're simply repeating an ignorant talking point put out there by the vested interests looking to confuse the issues. So, let's clear that confusion...

 

For the last several decades, wealth has been taken from the poor and redistributed upward. This is partially why the wealth of the top one tenth of one percent has grown so substantially while wages of the middle and lower classes have stagnated and dropped. Wealth is always being redistributed and our best option is to find ways of doing so fairly. The only institution that can do so is the one that sets the rules, namely our government.

 

Instead of acknowledging this remedial fact, however, you choose to blindly repeat a bumper sticker and to ignore the fact that wealth is continually redistributed in all economies at all times... That the only thing that matters is the rules by which this occurs and how deeply embedded equality and fairness are in the process. Comments like yours above do little more than show just how profoundly you misunderstand the system about which you speak and how blind you are to the inherent naïveté in your position.

 

Instead of bumper sticker wisdom, consider taking a deep breath, stepping back, and realizing that shared prosperity has a far greater ROI for us all, that the rising tide truly does lift all ships and that continuing the current status quo of the rich robbing the poor has a deleterious effect on everyone, both in the short-term and the long. It's time to stop chanting and repeating this mindless propaganda about the supposed horrors of wealth redistribution since it's already happening, everyday and for as long as records have been kept, just unfairly and in the wrong direction for the last several decades (see also: corporate welfare).

 

This is not about punishing or coveting the rich, so please don't bother strawmaning me with any nonsensical assertions or suggestions like that. This is about recognizing the role of the wealthy in sustaining and protecting the foundation that allows them to enjoy and expand their riches. Without a sturdy foundation the skyscraper crumbles, and that's true whether you happen to be in the penthouse or the poorhouse. We are discussing foundational issues, or at least some of us are.

 

Perhaps you should more clearly describe how wealth is redistributed today, why that current redistribution is unfair, and why a government remedy required?

 

You state "Wealth is always being redistributed." How is this being done? What are the fair ways and unfair ways? Are only government ways fair?

 

You state "For the last several decades, wealth has been taken from the poor and redistributed upward." How was it taken? Why is it unfair?

 

You state "wealth is continually redistributed in all economies at all times...". How is this being done? When is it fair and when is it unfair?

 

You state "Instead of bumper sticker wisdom, consider taking a deep breath, stepping back, and realizing that shared prosperity has a far greater ROI for us all, that the rising tide truly does lift all ships and that continuing the current status quo of the rich robbing the poor has a deleterious effect on everyone, both in the short-term and the long." Where do you feel that the current wealth redistribution, that you have yet to define, is not producing ROI for us all? How are the rich robbing the poor?

 

You state "see also: corporate welfare". Show me a company that is receiving corporate welfare that is not employing people that pay taxes, and does not also pay corporate taxes. Don't you just want corporations to pay even more taxes? Show me a company that receives more in direct subsidies than it pays in taxes. Perhaps green energy companies, but anyone else?

 

You state "This is about recognizing the role of the wealthy in sustaining and protecting the foundation that allows them to enjoy and expand their riches." How are the wealthy not doing this? Why is it their responsibility?

 

Finally please describe who these wealthy people are. Are you talking about TAR? Are you talking about people who simply lived a typical middle class life and are preparing or prepared for retirement? Perhaps you are only talking about billionaires. What is the threshold be to a wealthy person? Is a 21 year old with one million dollars wealthy. How about a 67 year old with one million dollars, socially security, and no pension?

 

Don't corporations have stockholders. Aren't many of those stock holders middle class people? Middle class people who were encouraged by their government to invest in IRAs and 401k plans. Aren't some of those stock holders widows and orphans? If you reduce there investment wealth or income, won't you just have to provide them with government redistribution to make up for it?

 

Finally, how is fairness assured in your government redistribution plan. Are government officials never corrupt? Are government officials never in the pocket of special interest groups or lobbyists? Isn't that your complaint about corporate welfare?

 

Perhaps if you explain these things more people, particularly people in the middle class, will better appreciate your government redistribution ideas and plans.

Edited January 19, 2016 by waitforufo

[iNow]

If we are talking about reality, lets talk about reality. We have already replaced private insurance with marketplaces and forced everybody to buy health insurance.

Your version of reality is... uhm... unrealistic. Private insurance remains the primary option. Were you not aware of this? That's pretty basic stuff.

 

Since you're interested, let's also explain here that the marketplaces just give shoppers a place to compare plans across those private insurers. Amazon and eBay didn't replace individual sellers. They gave them a platform for a larger population of customers to engage with them. The same is true of the health marketplace, which itself only applies to people not currently provided private insurance through their employer. It helps them find coverage and compare plans and prices.

 

Finally, the individual mandate is the only way to spread the risk pool, reduce the prices, and ensure people aren't gaming the system. If you want people with preexisting conditions not to be discriminated against and if you want your rates lower when you need extreme care, then you also need premiums to be paid by the healthy... since some day they too will need help.

[mp][/mp]

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 know whether you are arguing that Obama care is bankrupt and we should move to universal health care or you are arguing that what we had before Obama care was not as good as what we have after.

It's not a difficult chain of logic. Obamacare is better than what we had, but is still not as good as universal healthcare offered by nearly every other advanced nation on the planet, neither in terms of cost or coverage or quality. None of this means that we should go back to what we had before which was worse than the current situation with Obamacare.

[tar]

Phi,

 

You are proving my point. You are speaking about me as a documented crazy without the required skills to have an opinion. Like your way or the highway. Like I do not have human judgement and a will of my own.

y

 

Other success stories in how health care is run are not without drawbacks. All portions are worth discussion.

 

Other countries healthcare is done with a combination of government run programs paid for by high taxes and private insurance. In most cases there is a high employer paid component. That is high fees paid by the employer, for each employee.

 

Speaking of numbers, there is little difference between paying a person more money so they can pay for their doctor's visit, or paying them less money, so you can give the money instead to the government who will pay the doctor.

 

It still comes down to doing something that creates wealth, or providing someone with a good or service. Otherwise you have nothing to tax and no employers.

 

My main idea against Overtone in this thread is that she looks for help from the same people she faults. I think you are falling to the same illogic.

Greece is number 14 in healthcare and probably among the 36 template countries that we should emulate according to you. They are however currently under some financial constraints and after a year your socialized benefits run out.

 

Regards, TAR