What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[Willie71]

Tar is being treated harshly, but he is not being beat up on. Tar refuses to acknowledge in most instances where he has been shown to be uninformed or misinformed. In spite of this, he holds the mistaken opinion that all beliefs are deserving equal respect and airtime. This is a fiction taken from the American corporate media. Unsupported assertions are not equal to well documented and researched information. Trickle down is a lie. The Southern Strategy is real. The Oligarchy is real. Crony capitalism is real. The welfare queen is a lie. Increasing military force in the Middle East increases terrorism. Bernie isn't taking money from your accounts. Wealth redistribution has already happened. These are not topics where all opinions deserve equal support. There is evidence that can guide policy in the future, and the time is critical to act now. Another term or two of the corruption will affect the entire world. It doesn't matter if it's Hillary, Cruz, or trump, there will be a massive invasion. With Cruz or trump, it's promised to go nuclear. How many hundreds of thousands or millions of lives are worth sacrificing on this bizarre idea that both sides have equal fault? How many children need to get brain damage from lead poisoning? How many seniors need to lose their homes, or be denied health care? How about the rest of us who accept the real threat of climate change who will pay the price for big oil profits? Or our children and grandchildren?

 

It's not just about being nice to Tar. It's not an equal debate at all. We need to stop pretending it is.

[overtone]

So, as Rangerx pointed out, are we going to discuss the actual issues, or just continue to beat up on Tar ?

Well, rangerx listed a slew of situations and pieces of evidence I could just add in to the list behind my as yet unopposed contention that America's biggest problem is the current Republican Party. But they did not draw the obvious conclusion.

 

Instead, at the end of it they posted this:

 

 

In America, liberal and conservative have become the sunni and shiite of the western world and the constitution or bible is wielded like the quran is to the jihadist.

 

Which is nonsense. There is no "liberal" analogue of the American taliban that the Republican Party represents. The quranic wielding of the Bible or the Constitution is by the one political "side", not each of two. In the US, we have seen the rise of fascism as a major political force, and its cooption of one of the two major political Parties - there is nothing comparable among even the authoritarians of the left. The other Party has not been coopted by any such faction. It's not the division, or factionalism, or partisanship, or sectarian fighting, in itself, that is the problem. It's the nature of one of the combatants. Fascism must be fought, opposed, by everybody else - that's a good thing to do.

 

Thing is, the Republican Party does not need to "win" to achieve the major goals of its co-opters. It just needs to prevent the government of the US from functioning as the government of a liberal democratic republic - that is: functioning. So vandalism - e.g. the Citizens United ruling, or 200 filibusters - works as well as achievement. And that's where the threat lies.

Edited February 9, 2016 by overtone

[MigL]

And Tar has refused to aknowledge in most instances where he has been shown to be uninformed or misinformed for at least the last 20 odd pages. Is his acknowledgement that important to you, or can we move on ?

 

And all beliefs may not be deserving of equal respect, but you certainly cannot deny them airtime.

Tar is certainly entitled to his opinions, no matter if wrong or right.

And is allowed to voice them, no matter if wrong or right.

I don't doubt for a minute that he is trying to do what he thinks is best for his country.

 

But we don't need to re-hash this ( and his painful anecdotes ) for 20 more pages ?

Edited February 9, 2016 by MigL

[rangerx]

There is no "liberal" analogue of the American taliban that the Republican Party represents. The quranic wielding of the Bible or the Constitution is by the one political "side", not each of two.

 

That would be true if gun laws were excluded from the discussion, but it's not. Some liberal takes on the 2nd Amendment are every bit as hysterical as conservative views. Pro or against. Truths lay somewhere in the middle.

 

Guns are a huge problem in America and it is not limited to Republicans. People die needlessly because of it, hence the parallel was drawn.

This is why demonization is America's biggest problem, because it encapsulates any issue.

[overtone]

That would be true if gun laws were excluded from the discussion, but it's not. Some liberal takes on the 2nd Amendment are every bit as hysterical as conservative views. Pro or against. Truths lay somewhere in the middle.

So? That's one issue, not a political faction or the organizing issue of a political faction.

 

That issue happens to be polarized exactly as the Republican media operatives have attempted to describe all issues. It's all but unique, in that respect. (And no, the truth does not lie "in the middle". It lies to one side of the entire clusterfuck.)

 

One issue does not a political faction make. "There is no "liberal" analogue of the American taliban that the Republican Party represents"

 

 

This is why demonization is America's biggest problem, because it encapsulates any issue

Demonization does not "encapsulate" very many issues in the US, since it applies only to the Republican Party's approach to them. In that respect, demonization is an aspect of why the Republican Party is America's biggest problem.

 

Or to repeat:

 

 

In the US, we have seen the rise of fascism as a major political force, and its cooption of one of the two major political Parties - there is nothing comparable among even the authoritarians of the left. The other Party has not been coopted by any such faction.

Edited February 9, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

@ rangerx, I grew up as a rather ignorant suburbanite. As a kid I believed that the United States was the only free country in the world. That every country outside of the United States dystopian. I was a stupid kid. As I grew up, traveled, met people, studied, and so on I came to realize that the view of the world I had grown up with simply did not exist. It wasn't that it had been wrong; it had never actually been at all. It was a fiction which collasped under the tinest bit of investigation.

 

Is the United States part of the world or do we lead the world? The delineation use to be absolute in my mind. Today I view the concept as silly. We are part of the world and we lead ourselves. Comparisons to greatness, greatest counrty ever, to an extent ignores any need for improvement. If the ship (USA) is perfect so when anything grows wrong the issue must be with the crew. It is that attitude that allows us to have the world's biggest prison system and police shooting our countrymen dead in the streets. What ails our communities are individual bad people: drug dealers, welfare queens, theives, homeless people, etc. Just clean them up; wipe them from our towns and all will be utopian. We project that outwards to the world. Just rid it of extremists, drug lords, and laziness and all will be fine.

 

I believe many of us in the United States struggle to create any empathy for others in the world because we have cast ourselves as separate. I see Canadians like MigL and Willie71 posting, clearly empathising with U.S. positions, and I am reminded how un-American of them that is. Despite a shared history, geography, language, mutal interests, and etc Canada is foriegn to the average American. With California being foriegn to Texas Canada may as well be somewhere in the Middle East. We do not empathize with the world. It is always the U.S. perspective first and second followed at a distance by everything else. Heck, we struggle to empathize with ourselves. As you pointed out we justify killing each other over our us vs them paranoia.

 

We (USA) can be great without needing to be separate. We can focus on improving without being self hating. We should empathize with others because we are all human and all on this one planet. Is the USA exceptional, YES! Is being exceptional exclusively a trait of the USA, NO! There are many exceptional countries and people in the world.

[StringJunky]

@ rangerx, I grew up as a rather ignorant suburbanite. As a kid I believed that the United States was the only free country in the world. That every country outside of the United States dystopian. I was a stupid kid. As I grew up, traveled, met people, studied, and so on I came to realize that the view of the world I had grown up with simply did not exist. It wasn't that it had been wrong; it had never actually been at all. It was a fiction which collasped under the tinest bit of investigation.

 

Is the United States part of the world or do we lead the world? The delineation use to be absolute in my mind. Today I view the concept as silly. We are part of the world and we lead ourselves. Comparisons to greatness, greatest counrty ever, to an extent ignores any need for improvement. If the ship (USA) is perfect so when anything grows wrong the issue must be with the crew. It is that attitude that allows us to have the world's biggest prison system and police shooting our countrymen dead in the streets. What ails our communities are individual bad people: drug dealers, welfare queens, theives, homeless people, etc. Just clean them up; wipe them from our towns and all will be utopian. We project that outwards to the world. Just rid it of extremists, drug lords, and laziness and all will be fine.

 

I believe many of us in the United States struggle to create any empathy for others in the world because we have cast ourselves as separate. I see Canadians like MigL and Willie71 posting, clearly empathising with U.S. positions, and I am reminded how un-American of them that is. Despite a shared history, geography, language, mutal interests, and etc Canada is foriegn to the average American. With California being foriegn to Texas Canada may as well be somewhere in the Middle East. We do not empathize with the world. It is always the U.S. perspective first and second followed at a distance by everything else. Heck, we struggle to empathize with ourselves. As you pointed out we justify killing each other over our us vs them paranoia.

 

We (USA) can be great without needing to be separate. We can focus on improving without being self hating. We should empathize with others because we are all human and all on this one planet. Is the USA exceptional, YES! Is being exceptional exclusively a trait of the USA, NO! There are many exceptional countries and people in the world.

Very good. An influential proportion of Americans need to realise that no country, like no person, is an island that can act or be affected without consequence to themselves, or them to other nations. It's becoming quite clear that those formerly isolated nations, Russia and China, are gradually acknowledging ,via their responses to events, that they too are not islands.

 

 

[Phi for All]

Very good. An influential proportion of Americans need to realise that no country, like no person, is an island that can act or be affected without consequence to themselves, or them to other nations. It's becoming quite clear that those formerly isolated nations, Russia and China, are gradually acknowledging ,via their responses to events, that they too are not islands.

 

It's a mature outlook for a nation, and one that's been stymied over the last 50 years or so. Many of us want to remove the obstacles that bar the way to such maturity.

 

We've expressed a desire to see all People start their lives in health, and an acceptable minimum of education, prosperity, and opportunity. If some of our People wish to judge others, they should do so only after they remove their foot from the necks of those they judge. People should get all the education they can handle, and if we make that investment, People will return on it a hundredfold. We know this from history. We have evidence to support this stance.

 

We think there are smart times to use public monies, particularly to remove the profit angle that can defeat good programs. We think it's a grown-up, intelligent way to deal with developing our democratic republic, by starting with the fairest, smartest foundations for success.

 

We think too much power has been put in the hands of business, power that has corrupted their intent and has allowed them to govern themselves with disregard for the country that charters them. We think it's time to reign them in, and get back to a ratio of productivity to wages that respects workers and owners alike, and brings those monies back into a thriving economy.

 

We believe we need to restore the power of our government to keep honesty as part of our national character. We're heavily corrupt, and we need to stop the practice of allowing money to lobby for special favors that really don't help the People. No more sleazy politics.

 

And we think the folks who don't want our country to grow up, those who fear an intellectual, empowered, People-driven America, are wrong. They stand in the way of maturity with their fear of the future, holding onto the door frame screaming inanities, lies, and misconceptions. They block everyone else's way, despite all the historical evidence that growing up is a good thing. It's so irrational, and causes so much damage, we often wonder if it's them, or those manipulating them, that are the biggest problem we have.

 

It's like having someone sic a pack of dogs on you. The dogs are the ones you're cursing as you run, and they'll still be responsible for tearing you to shreds, but it's the handler that manipulated those dogs to attack, and he's the one that needs dealing with. But that's difficult when the dogs growl when you mention better conditions, or that they don't need a handler.

[Willie71]

And Tar has refused to aknowledge in most instances where he has been shown to be uninformed or misinformed for at least the last 20 odd pages. Is his acknowledgement that important to you, or can we move on ?

 

And all beliefs may not be deserving of equal respect, but you certainly cannot deny them airtime.

Tar is certainly entitled to his opinions, no matter if wrong or right.

And is allowed to voice them, no matter if wrong or right.

I don't doubt for a minute that he is trying to do what he thinks is best for his country.

 

But we don't need to re-hash this ( and his painful anecdotes ) for 20 more pages ?

Interesting that you challenge the people who provide evidence, and not Tar. I did not say opposing opinions do not deserve airtime. What I said is that they don't deserve equal airtime, as the corporate media in America allows. Why do climate change deniers with no scientific, or minimal scientific background, and obvious ties to industry that stand to lose billions, get equal airtime to the people who spent decades collecting the data, checking it, verifying it, trying to falsify it? Just one example of hundreds of examples.

That would be true if gun laws were excluded from the discussion, but it's not. Some liberal takes on the 2nd Amendment are every bit as hysterical as conservative views. Pro or against. Truths lay somewhere in the middle.

 

Guns are a huge problem in America and it is not limited to Republicans. People die needlessly because of it, hence the parallel was drawn.This is why demonization is America's biggest problem, because it encapsulates any issue.

Which presidential candidates represent the idea that all guns should be confiscated, by force if needed? Or that all gun owners are criminals just because they own a gun? That is the equivalent of the rounding up of 11 million people and deporting them? Name the candidate who is campaigning on this premise.

[iNow]

Indeed. That's another example of one of America's biggest problems: Prioritization of hyperbole and narrative over facts.

 

Nobody representing the parties is saying all guns should be confiscated or that gun owners are criminals merely because they own a gun. Can you find people out there who think those things? Yes, of course, but they don't represent that overall party or anyone of merit in a position of authority like we see on the Republican side.

 

The closest is Hillary Clinton who says little more than the below but gets attacked rabidly for trying to shit on the 2nd amendment and forcibly make citizens into slaves.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sticking-resolution-clinton-has-nothing-say-trump-n490836

On gun control - another hot-button issue that has split the presidential field - Clinton again stressed "what we can do together."

 

"I do support comprehensive background checks, and to close the gun show loophole, and the online loophole, and what's called the Charleston loophole, and to prevent people on the no-fly list from getting guns," said Clinton. "What I am proposing is supported by a great majority of the American people and a significant majority of gun owners."

[Phi for All]

The closest is Hillary Clinton who says little more than the below but gets attacked rabidly for trying to shit on the 2nd amendment and forcibly make citizens into slaves.

 

It's clear that any objections to ANY of her specific points are based solely on kneejerk, misconceived concepts that ignore any specifics. When those specific initiatives are posed individually, without being attached to Ms Clinton, the overwhelming majority of Americans and gun owners agree to those specific initiatives.

 

Why is it wrong to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies if it comes from Hillary Clinton? The Republican Party is known for rejecting intelligent ideas if they come from a Democrat, and there is NO similar behavior from the Dems. More evidence the GOP is NOT serving it's constituents with reasoned leadership, and is thus an enormous problem for America.

[Ten oz]

 

It's clear that any objections to ANY of her specific points are based solely on kneejerk, misconceived concepts that ignore any specifics. When those specific initiatives are posed individually, without being attached to Ms Clinton, the overwhelming majority of Americans and gun owners agree to those specific initiatives.

 

Why is it wrong to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies if it comes from Hillary Clinton? The Republican Party is known for rejecting intelligent ideas if they come from a Democrat, and there is NO similar behavior from the Dems. More evidence the GOP is NOT serving it's constituents with reasoned leadership, and is thus an enormous problem for America.

Gun sales spike after every major shooting or when any politician mentions gun control. Clearly gun advocate believe a change is coming. If they didn't believe any of the gun control messures discussed were popular or legal pre the 2nd Admendment they wouldn't respond as they do.They behave as if change is imminent. In my opinion that is an acknowledgement. They scream out against change but clearly releaze the argument for it is strong.

[iNow]

Encourage us all not to turn this thread into another gun conversation. The focus should remain on debunking the false equivalence being asserted.

[MigL]

Playing devil's advocate again, Ten oz, I agree with what you said in post # 31.

 

But if you can equate what is wrong with America ( and Tar's position ) with...

" Just rid it of extremists, drug lords and laziness, and all will be fine"

...then I could easily mistake Overtone's position as...

'Just get rid of Republicans, greedy CEOs and capitalism, and all will be fine'.

Obviously neither is a solution to America's problems.

 

Could it be the system itself that allows politicians/CEOs/big business to take advantage of the general populace, while at the same time, not providing opportunities so that disenfranchised/disadvantaged people turn to drugs/crime/laziness ?

 

And having previously bragged about the Canadian health care system, I was shocked to see us just above the US in iNow's posted rankings. I knew we had major issues with wait times for certain treatments, such that a lot of people opt to visit the US for treatment of serious problems,and pay out of pocket. I didn't realize we actually had it that bad.

I guess I haven't needed major health care. Yet !

[Phi for All]

...then I could easily mistake Overtone's position as...

'Just get rid of Republicans, greedy CEOs and capitalism, and all will be fine'.

 

Why would making that mistake be easy? AFAIK, overtone has NEVER said we need to get rid of capitalism. Nobody has, so why does it keep being brought up? Maybe because it's an easy strawman to attack? Much easier than addressing the real issue, which is when is capitalism more effective, and when is using public funding better?

 

Isn't this really akin to asking "Why do you hate our troops?" when someone complains about a war? When we say there are problems that need to be addressed in corporate dealings with our government, aren't you just whining "Why do you hate capitalism?"

[iNow]

And having previously bragged about the Canadian health care system, I was shocked to see us just above the US in iNow's posted rankings. I knew we had major issues with wait times for certain treatments, such that a lot of people opt to visit the US for treatment of serious problems,and pay out of pocket. I didn't realize we actually had it that bad.

You actually do pretty well in terms of efficiency, though (4th only behind UK, Sweden, and New Zealand in terms of % of people reporting spending a lot of time on paperwork or disputes related to medical bills, at 5% compared the US' 18%): http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5812898/five-ways-the-american-health-care-system-is-literally-the-worst

[Willie71]

10 years of conservative governments have chipped away at our health care system. We used to do much better. Harper was moving toward a for profit system.

[Phi for All]

10 years of conservative governments have chipped away at our health care system. We used to do much better. Harper was moving toward a for profit system.

 

That's what they do. And then they act injured when we remark on how eroded things have become because of their actions and policies.

 

They piss all over good programs, and then claim the fault should be evenly spread, presumably because we all pee. And they think that makes sense.

[MigL]

You're generalizing again Phi.

Health care in Canada is a provincial responsibility, with the federal government making a contribution to keep the provinces from straying too far from 'universal' health care.

And Willie should know this.

I can only speak for Ontario, in which wait times have improved somewhat in the last 10 yrs, but overall quality of service has gone down.

Eye exams aren't even covered anymore for people over 18 yrs of age.

And our province has been liberal for the last 10 yrs ( a scandal ridden party which is under two separate police investigations ).

Willie might have a different outlook being from Alberta, as their provincial government was Conservative for the last 10 yrs.

( then again Alberta is where our pick-up truck driving rednecks are found ; just kidding Willie )

 

I don't think the former Conservative PM, S. Harper, had much to do with any decline or improvement.

[Willie71]

We had 40 years of conservative governments in Alberta. The federal government is involved in health care, and Harper is on record saying he felt no obligation to fix the problems with health care. This was a major part of both my medical ethics and health care management courses last year.

 

If you are interested, here is some information:

 

https://www.leadnow.ca/defend-our-health/

[iNow]

Alberta was strong, IMO, because of oil. Oil is down like 80% at this point, hence so too is the ability of Alberta to fund and/or expand social programs.

[Willie71]

Alberta was strong, IMO, because of oil. Oil is down like 80% at this point, hence so too is the ability of Alberta to fund and/or expand social programs.

The problems with health care cuts started in 1991. This oil slump is largely irrelevant as we have a government willing to run a deficit to improve health outcomes.

[iNow]

Thx for the correction. My understanding of Calgarys fiscal dynamics is most certainly recent and topical.

[MigL]

Before you hang it all around S. Harper's neck, Willie, remember that it was a former Liberal finance minister in 1993, who later became PM for a short while, that reduced Health care transfer payments to the provinces from 50% to 16%. It was P. Martin, owner of Canada Steamship Lines, whose ships are registered in Liberia to avoid Canadian taxation, and who used private health care. He is after all, a billionaire.

In Ontario this was conveniently blamed on the Conservative premier, M. Harris, and still is to this day.

 

This of course doesn't absolve the terrible Conservative government Alberta has had since R Klein ( the drunk ) retired.

They managed to squander away and turn to deficits what should have been surpluses of good times, and should have been turfed a long time ago.

In these harder times, even the socialist NDP may have a hard time turning things around.

 

See, even us 'nice' Canadians have bad politicians.

[Willie71]

Our liberal party was pretty corrupt in the 90's. Many of us felt like we didn't have an option at all. I boycotted voting in the 90's because there wasn't a viable option, or if I did vote, I went Green Party, or other nonconformist vote. In Alberta it was always a landslide for the conservatives who came into power about the same time I was born. I didn't even understand there could be a different type of government in my teen years, and the federal government largely ignored the west. Fort McMurray was almost a ghost town when I was a kid (where the tar sands are.) it was too expensive to produce that oil. We became important on the national stage when oil went above $60.00/barrel.

 

Populism has been surging in Canada over the past few years, and in Alberta over the past 5 or so years. For the Americans who say it can't be done, they are wrong.

 

Calgary has been hit much harder by the recession than Edmonton (I live 1/2h outside of Edmonton) as we have a much more diversified economy. Edmonton used to be the oil capital, but we were banished from Alberta by Klein when we voted liberal in the early 90's. Conditions were made very favourable for the oil companies in Calgary at that time. We will eventually hit recession in Edmonton too, as all of the surrounding communities are in recession, but we are a bit protected for now.