United States: What's the problem?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xmo1, Oct 2, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Which means you are just now encountering bits and pieces of the body of political criticism and analysis produced over the years by the American and liberal European left - the libertarian Left. You have a bit of a journey ahead of you, in those waters.
    Ignorance is not a simple thing. Disinformation, in the US, has proven as dangerous.
    Whoever is already paying double for the consequences of not meeting these needs, can easily afford to pay half what they are paying now and meet them. Anyone who is not paying the current overcharges for gross inefficiency can see their taxes raised.

    Every established, common, working form of "free" healthcare is half the cost of the current US system - if you are so worried about the debt, why are you not jumping at this chance to save trillions of dollars and help pay it off?

    The vacant houses and apartments in the US, already built and paid for, are sufficient to house all of the homeless - thereby saving the high costs of dealing with transient and desperate people who must live by scavenging. Housed bums are cheaper.

    Food is cheap, in the US - could easily be paid for by releasing everyone imprisoned for marijuana possession and excessive bail not paid.
     
    Xmo1 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Agreed, the health system could be streamlined and made more efficient, but I have my doubts the government could do any better.

    Does that also provide the same quality of care? I can't speak from experience, but have been told it doesn't. Also, as an example, the average Canadian pays roughly $4,500 for healthcare each year. That's pretty close to my cost for insurance. And their cost does go up every year.

    The current liability for each taxpayer is $151,000. I just don't have that amount of cash sitting around.

    Can't speak for the rest of the country, but we are in a housing crisis--they can't build them fast enough. Also, are you proposing we buy vacant housing or simply take it?

    Have you been grocery shopping with your wife lately?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    I have seen reports that there are enough houses empty after foreclosure to house all the homeless. The problem is the banks find it better to lose money on them than to accept low rent from occupants who have a need to sleep indoors. Very humane of them.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    We had a neighbor who was squatting in a foreclosed house near us. Nice guy. He fell into some money and bought some property outside the city. I think part of the problem for banks is that once someone is in the house, it's hard to get them out. Sometimes a property owner will pay a tenant to leave.

    The Canadian Healthcare system is probably the worst example. Japan is probably the best example of a well-managed system. But they are a different culture than America, so I don't know that it could be shoehorned into our culture.
     
  8. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Oddly enough, the houses I was referring to were vacant because the bank got the residents out.
     
  9. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501
  10. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Back to a 94% tax rate on those earning more than $200,000 a year...

    "What is the highest income tax rate in US history?
    In 1944-45, “the most progressive tax years in U.S. history,” the 94% rate applied to any income above $200,000 ($2.4 million in 2009 dollars, given inflation). In World War Two, tax law revisions increased the numbers of “those paying some income taxes” from 7% of the U.S. population (1940) to 64% by 1944."
     
  11. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501
    In a population of 326 million people, in a nation surrounded by equally complex populations, shouldn't we be governed by the smartest and most capable? Politicians, remembering that they get that moniker after attaining office and not by field of study, have been at the helm for 240 years. It seems the success of the system has been due to capitalism, but it has brought success to a select few, such as billionaires and their banks. Would the smartest want to govern? What changes would produce the best results: changes in the governing officers, changes in the law, changes in the economy, or something else? I don't know, but I think it's time someone had a look at the question, because right now many of the governing bodies in the world are fully satisfied with destroying things that people have built over time, and I don't like seeing the streets and buildings that I've made with my own hands ruined by some fat cat. Not only that, but they seem to have little inclination towards making and guiding societies that care about people. First, the people and institutions that hold the monetary resources should be solving the monetary problems at the very least. Otherwise, those resources should be taken from them, and put into the hands of those who will.
     
  12. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    I believe the power of wealth needs be controlled. Capitalism is great, but left on its own, it will try to manipulate the environment to its exclusive advantage. If we could manage it without stifling its energy, we might have something.
     
    billvon and Xmo1 like this.
  13. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Shit like this is the problem:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-raped-12-old-awarded-114904992.html
     
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    that is terrible because his sentence was light and was freed to repeat. the other aspect that's terrible is the likes of that girl who chose to keep a child of rape. that bottomline is nothing less than condoning rape on a most basic and thorough evolutionary scale, no different than rewarding the rapist by loving and raising it's seed. i don't have sympathy for females like that when they have the choice to have an abortion these days. honestly, in her case there is nothing to sympathize with except to realize no wonder rapists do what they do because either way if it's consensual or not, you have those of lesser or less fine-tuned ethics where they will carry that seed willingly so she is not really a victim.

    the reason why he needed to be stopped was not because of her but because of him offending others who would be disgusted totally and would probably kill the baby as soon as it was born if not for abortion.

    so her reasoning is she should quit school and sacrifice her life to raise the offspring of a rapist because it's half her seed as well. though it's not pc, realistically he picked the right one in this case. there are people like this as well as women who have rather muddled morals where they don't even mind being in relationships with men who sexually abuse their relatives as disgusting as that is. it's just as mentally sick to want to raise the child of your rapist though society doesn't say that.

    if she didn't have a choice that would be different.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  15. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    And it will destroy the environment to make a buck. Bad idea.
     
    billvon and Xmo1 like this.
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Did you bother to read the article?

    Specifically this line: The victim decided to keep the child as she did not want the “baby to be a victim too” and left school to live with relatives and worked to support herself.

    I am starting to feel that empathy is a foreign concept for you birch, but damn, some of your recent posts have been the kind of shit I'd expect to see from some angsty high-school freshsman attempting to be Edgey McEdgelord.

    No, she didn't want to terminate a living thing - the baby didn't have a choice in this matter, and she didn't want to create a second victim in all this.
     
  17. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    All of us live on the environment, G. Industry harvests it for us. Managing how it is used is a positive step; however, there is no escaping our need for resources. We can shut down our lumber mills at home. but we just shift the burden to other nations. I haven't bought lumber in ages, but last time checked, that being offered by Home Depot came from Canada.
     
  18. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    I've seen two foreclosures in my area. They can take a long time. For sure, to rent the property out to those in need would be great; but is a bank really geared towards being a landlord? Are they in the business of managing rentals or managing mortgages? I would think that their most pressing concern would be to recover their money as quickly as possible after someone defaults on their loan. I've never rented property or worked in the banking industry, so I'm working on my understanding of the two. Maybe someone here has an insider's understanding.
     
  19. RADII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    136
    So far all I hear out of you is a lot of egalitarian hogwash with not an ounce of reality or actionable logic contained therein. Typical Sophomoric Philosophy 201 after having read too much Kant, de Tocqueville & Maslow.

    Is the circular reasoning in that series of statements intentional? "The problem seems to be in identifying the problems..." In all of this, your single contribution is to state "the problem ... [is] the problem..." Brilliant.

    That is the only problem you've identified clearly, & it is solely your own. No judgement, but why the extra hyperbole, instead of saying "I need dentures which I can't afford & I'm pissed as hell!" The rest of that is pablum.
     
  20. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    i understand all this. I also respect her choice as everyone has a right to make their own life choices but that was just my opinion on these types of matters. the reason i made that statement is because there is more than one victim in the situation and there is a duality where a decision can still have elements of immorality even if it may not appear that way. depending on the person, it can go either way as to what is the best decision. just as there are those who may not even be sensitive to the rights of the victim to abort if it was a totally patriarchal society. if it was just about life at any cost, then there wouldn't be any sensitivity towards the rape victim that ends up pregnant but most people do understand why someone would opt for a different choice. otoh, there is another innocent victim that had no choice in the matter either. i am not saying my opinion is right or wrong but neither do i think the opposite decision is necessarily a higher moral road. it is just often interpreted that way.

    i already knew the expressed opinion was going to be viewed as insensitive but neither do i know this particular individual and what their opinion may be if another chose to make the opposite decision and judge them as victimizing another (unborn) thereby resulting in insensitivity as well to the rape victim demoting/subjugating their rights in the situation. so 'insensitivity' can go both ways. the only difference is that i expressed my thought where it could be criticized.

    i was using this news bit as an example of how morality is determined and how even an assumed sacrificial decision is not always more moral than it seems whereas the opposite decision is more often criticized. this is because the focus is on the spin of the poor female who has so much heart to love despite the perpetrator's actions. sounds all peachy and pollyanna except for the reality that it also on some level, whether admitted or not, does reward the act as well no matter how you dice and slice. but either way, there is a negative consequence somehow literally or figuratively or both.

    when one cares for another, the most important aspect that is considered is their quality of life and there is a conscientiousness to that, not just whether someone is alive. true morality seems to hinge on the aspect of suffering, not just a state of life or death. otherwise, we wouldn't put down living beings out of compassion so they do not suffer. creating a real victim is keeping a child you do not care for and abusing it. it is much more humane to abort or to give up to someone who will care. this references back to conservatives who are against abortion yet don't care one iota of the quality of that life experience. when one truly loves or cares, the latter is most important because that is the basis of real ethics.

    her interpretation that abortion itself is creating another victim is her own opinion. what's positive is that she evidently would care for her child so it's not like she would be resentful or abusive toward it. if that were the case, then it would be more ethical to abort or give up for adoption as it's not in any way responsible or deserving of ill treatment for an action it did not commit. this is despite the aspect of rewarding the rapist by the continuance of it's progeny which is the pivotal and unavoidable monkey wrench when it comes to the innocent victim.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  21. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501
    This was a response to someone proposing the answer to what's the problem was lawyers, whom he wanted to kill. I refuted that, and you are refuting me. So you also are supporting the idea of killing lawyers. That's disgusting, and unintelligent, but to each his own. To your response: You seem to have a problem translating a simple message into something your brain can properly understand, so here it is: What is the problem with the United States? There are many problems. Pick one. Suggest a solution.

    See above. I'm not going to take the time to respond. You can spend the rest of the day trying to figure it out.
     
  22. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501
    Let me restate the question:
    As life in a vast universe full of vacuum and fire our primary consideration should be to cherish and protect that life. There are enemies: volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, virus', asteroids, and especially our own ignorance. What's the problem?

    Can we keep it simple, rather than pasting the Congressional Record?
    So far, it's lawyers, and I don't know - questionable judicial decisions, failure of the public to choose leadership that will do the right thing, and stupidity.
    It's important to have discussions like this. The Networks have discussions (we know who they are, right). Like the Mayor said, people need help. People are dying. Please, if you are posting propose a workable problem (at minimum), and solution if you think you have one.

    What do I think? We all know why this world is turning into a shthole, and soon may be bombed out of existence. It's because of racism in business practices, to wit: "We're not going to put a store in this neighborhood." It's due to the 'effete snobs,' to wit "She just printed her fortune yesterday dahlink." It's due to greed of those who invest in 140 million dollar houses for themselves, ride around in limo's, fly gulf streams, and talk with fake haavaad accents, while garbage piles up around them. It's due to corruption, where a large percentage of college graduates choose to follow the dark arts for the money (recruited for their field of study by less than honest businesses). And, of course it's due to corruption - in the finance industry and at the stock market to begin with, which is supported by withdrawing personnel and money to prosecute it. Read up on SEC lawsuits - and it's de-funding. There's a stinking mess.

    There is a saying in the U.S. that you can pry my shotgun out of my cold dead hands. Seems the guys above have the same respect for their money. That is, they are willing to create harm if anyone gets between them and it, regardless if it's the right thing to do. Further, they will pummel anyone who even tries. Even this, a simple discussion, will be trod upon to silence opposition to the status quo. I'm surprised it hasn't already been locked and trashed.

    So what's the solution? Recognize that the world is run by would be bullies who don't care about any life except their own. You know what? Bullies have parents, and the parents are us. So, act like good parents and tear up the bed. Throw out the weak old soup. Get angry enough to forcefully demand change. Do it 24-365. Do it before Nero destroys another civilization, ours.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  23. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    501
    Aye. Great answer too when you said: "I believe the power of wealth needs be controlled. Capitalism is great, but left on its own, it will try to manipulate the environment to its exclusive advantage."

    Like shutting down labor unions, destroying tariffs, under taxing multinational corporations, building roads and facilities for multinational corporations with taxpayer dollars, selling public land to wealthy families for pennies on the dollar, selling American land and resources to foreign sheikdoms, and on and on.

    My problem and solution is 'infrastructure first.' We need to be spending our resources on our domestic needs - right now, today. The Army Corps of Engineers should be the nation's greatest employer.
     

Share This Page