What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

EdEarl · April 22, 2016

Death is inevitable, corporations, jobs, and parties didn't exist for most of human existence. The hyperbole catches my attention, but I can't assimilate this long conversation...dyslexic effect.

I think democracy and stratification of society are our big problem. The rich want regulations to keep their booty. The poor feel powerless. When government favors the rich, and assist the rich who want to own everything, sooner or later the disenfranchised will revolt. As long as there is greed, someone will attempt to dethrone the king, even if billions of people die of starvation.

Democracy has worked because it allows voters to feel they have some power; it satisfies some human needs. However, democracy is practiced by humans and they can pervert the better intentions of democracy; thus, it is also part of the problem. I realize the US is a republic, not a democracy, but that doesn't make much difference. Perhaps it allows perverting the system easier.

IMO it is necessary to think outside the box. I'm concerned technological and cultural changes are too rapid for adaptation by some subcultures and they will resist necessary changes. We can hope younger generations will reverse the trends of their elders, and the US will become a kinder gentler society.

Endy0816 · April 23, 2016

They have introduced pretty extensive banking regulations. Dodd-Frank if anyone cares to look.

I'm more concerned that we're going to see few new entrants to the market as a result and that a number of smaller banks have already been rolled into larger banks to prevent the domino effect.

We're Europeanizing the number of banks, though admittedly in some ways they are Americanizing theirs in terms of additional regulation.

In some ways it is good. Fewer banks makes regulation easier. Regulating the flow of money allows countries to freeze accounts, track people, restrict monetary exchange. There is just going to be predictable negatives as well as positives.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Endy0816

EdEarl · September 6, 2017

If you live in the US and want to get money out of politics, join wolf-PAC.com. They are making progress on a constitutional amendment, but have a long way to go.

MigL · September 13, 2017

So B Sanders proposes a universal health care system for the US based on the Canadian model.
Unfortunately this will go nowhere because it has no Republican support, and only a handful of Democratic supporters.
( maybe because B Sanders isn't a 'real' Democrat like H Clinton ??? )

What is wrong with you Americans ?

iNow · September 14, 2017

It has support. Only a handful of cosponsors, but more than usual. I think it's a test balloon. They're taking the temperature of the populace. Some of the more anxious members of congress are waiting to see if they'll get a lollipop for supporting this or if the voters are gonna shove the thermometer up their...

Sensei · September 14, 2017

IMHO, one of the biggest structural American problems is that high quality university education is not for free.

It creates castes, rich people class who can afford going to university without a blink of an eye, middle class which have to take huge loans and then years and years return them, and poor people who can't afford education. They are excluded from gaining knowledge. And in capitalistic country model they are almost locked in this state for generations. Only the best percent of percent or less will get some kind of scholarship and try to break this madness cycle.

Better education is equal to higher income in the future. How rich people are getting richer? They just need to make paid education and wait..

Edited September 14, 2017 by Sensei

Ten oz · September 14, 2017

Democrats do not have the votes to pass a Medicare for all bill. The federal budget is currently on continuing resolution but Dems have an up hill battle ahead of them to protect ACA subsides for 2018's budget when those negotiations heat up in ahead of December. Dems also will need all hands on deck to battle Republicans on taxes and spending on numerous agencies like NASA, EPA, and and etc. Then there are also sensitive negotiations going on regarding DACA and border protection spending. With everything Dems need to protect and attempt to get done in the coming months I think Sanders bill is a selfish stunt aimed at ensuring his base, a base which is a subgroup of the Democratic base, stays energized in him specifically above the party itself. It is a way to demand a leadership position in a party he refuses to even declared himself a member of.

I would love Medicare for all. However we are not starting from scratch and those who support Medicare for all are in the minority of Congress. We shouldn't argue for the perfect to the detriment of the good. Protecting the ACA will help the millions who were able to obtain healthcare under it. We should not leave those millions SOL while attempting to score Political theater points arguing for what we can't deliver. Protecting ACA subsidies isn't sexy as Medicare for all but protecting subsidies can be accomplished and would make a tangible and immediate difference in people's lives. Sanders is adding a dimension to the healthcare debate which potentially distracts from what matters and leads to a place where some Democrats won't feel the have to protect the ACA. Why go to the mat and fight for the ACA if their are easy Political points to be scored supporting the idea of Medicare for while the reality of the ACA is burned to the ground.

zapatos · September 14, 2017

I was listening to NPR on the way to work this morning and one of the Senate Democrats stated that they are under no illusion that Sander's proposal has any chance of passing. Instead what they are trying to do is begin a national conversation around healthcare in the hopes that eventually the country will be knowledgeable enough to move toward a better system. An ancillary benefit is that they get to compare this open, all-inclusive approach, to that of the Republicans' recent approach to the health care debate.

Ten oz · September 14, 2017

My fear is that participating in a "National Conversation" about policy which can't currently happen replaces the harder work of protecting ACA subsides in the budget battle currently underway. If the left base is willing to award brownie points for politicians who support legislative ideas which aren't actually policy they may not feel pressured to fight for the less understood and harder to get applauded for nuanced ACA battles. The GOP plan to kill the ACA. A national conversation about Medicare for all while the GOP drowned the policy we currently have in the bathtub doesn't stroke me as immediately useful. It argues for the fantasy world perfect to the detriment of the real world good.

zapatos · September 14, 2017

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

My fear is that participating in a "National Conversation" about policy which can't currently happen replaces the harder work of protecting ACA subsides in the budget battle currently underway. If the left base is willing to award brownie points for politicians who support legislative ideas which aren't actually policy they may not feel pressured to fight for the less understood and harder to get applauded for nuanced ACA battles. The GOP plan to kill the ACA. A national conversation about Medicare for all while the GOP drowned the policy we currently have in the bathtub doesn't stroke me as immediately useful. It argues for the fantasy world perfect to the detriment of the real world good.

I hardly find Medicare for All to be either 'fantasy world' or 'perfect', although I understand your concern about losing focus. But Medicare for All is a long term goal. I'm hopeful it won't distract too much from current work as there are no artificial deadlines or really any hope at all at making that sort of change in the near future. We'll always have short term goals. If we don't go after the long term problems simultaneously because we can only concentrate on short term goals and nothing else, we'll never get any big ticket items done.

In addition, if we don't have the conversation until the Democrats are back in control, they possibly won't have enough time to discuss it, win broad support, and enact legislation before the Republicans regain power.

I'll be disappointed if we cannot have a conversation while at the same time passing ACA related legislation.

Ten oz · September 14, 2017

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I hardly find Medicare for All to be either 'fantasy world' or 'perfect', although I understand your concern about losing focus. But Medicare for All is a long term goal. I'm hopeful it won't distract too much from current work as there are no artificial deadlines or really any hope at all at making that sort of change in the near future. We'll always have short term goals. If we don't go after the long term problems simultaneously because we can only concentrate on short term goals and nothing else, we'll never get any big ticket items done.

In addition, if we don't have the conversation until the Democrats are back in control, they possibly won't have enough time to discuss it, win broad support, and enact legislation before the Republicans regain power.

I'll be disappointed if we cannot have a conversation while at the same time passing ACA related legislation.

It is a fantasy is the present day Congress and realistically Democrats aren't going to back in control of both houses of Congress for a while. Meanwhile there are some deadlines looming. The continuing budget resolution is only good till December. Democrats have the rest of Sept and then Oct and Nov to secure ACA subsides for the rest of 2018's budget. Failure to do so will damage state markets and cause many to lose coverage. I understand the benefits of pursuing the long game with Medicare for all but in the short term (next 2 and a half months) Dems need to be talking about the ACA. Especially when the ACA has never been more popular.

I agree with everything Sanders promotes. I voted for Sanders in the primary. That said, in retrospect, I don't think anything Sanders has done over the last 2 years have been helpful to achieving any of the policies he promotes. Rather his efforts have arguably moved those goals further away. End of the day we would be much closer to Medicare for all and be able to discuss it in a climate where the White House would support it had Clinton won and she nearly did and might have had Sanders himself done somethings different. That isn't to say all is his fault; it isn't. Russia, DNC, Clinton herself, voter supression, and etc all contributed. That said Sanders and his supporters should perform some deep introspection and analyze whether or not they are helping solve any of the problems they want to have National conversations about. I personally don't think they are.

iNow · September 15, 2017

23 hours ago, iNow said:

It has support. Only a handful of cosponsors, but more than usual.

Turns out a full third of the senate democratic caucus cosponsored it. Many more than I previously thought.

Ten oz · September 15, 2017

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Turns out a full third of the senate democratic caucus cosponsored it. Many more than I previously thought.

I suspect so many cosponsored to avoid conflicts with Sanders and/or his supporters. Even after Sander's supported Ellison lost the DNC to Perez Dems still made a point to give Sanders a seat at the table and followed Sanders lead is the special Elections (which demand lost). Dems are trying hard to avoid in fighting.

EdEarl · September 15, 2017

The ambivalence of US voters concerning Medicare for All is evidence of the successful campaign the conservatives have waged against progressive ideas. Almost every country in the world has a successful government run medical services program. People are dying from lack of medical care in the US. Anyone who opposes Medicate for All is culpable. The time for it is now, not eventually.

Sammy Boy · September 15, 2017

I'd say it's Jewish monopolization of finance which they use to monopolise media and academia to push fake news and fake science in purely Jewish interests, while calling people "anti Semitic" for pointing out this neutral fact and their anti White pro Jewish lies. You might as well call Gandhi "anti British" for objecting to selfish British rule.