Jump to content

What Is Americas Biggest Problem?


Pozessed

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Endy0816
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

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 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This book has some good info.

url deleted

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Are you complaining about it?

Yes. The irony.

It's like republicans constantly complaining about gun laws when it's still relatively easy to get a gun as long as you're law abiding. It's like them complaining about tax raises, when they wouldn't want to have to pave their own roads in their town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sammy Boy said:

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.

This book has some good info.

url deleted

!

Moderator Note

Nope nope nope nope.

if you can't comply with rule 2.1 then please save us the time and effort of banning you and just leave. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2017 at 1:16 PM, 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.

"A last-ditch effort by Senate Republicans to repeal and replace ObamaCare is gaining steam, suggesting lawmakers could face another vote on ending the former president's signature law later this month.

Supporters do not appear to have the 51 votes necessary to pass the bill yet, but pressure is growing on Republicans to back the measure, which could replace much of ObamaCare with block grants for states.

In a crucial boost for its chances on Monday, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) offered his support.

"Congress has 12 days to say 'yes' to Graham-Cassidy. It's time for them to get the job done," he said, referring to the bill's two main co-sponsors, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.)."

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/overnights/351244-overnight-health-care-new-gop-obamacare-repeal-bill-gains

 

This is sort of along the lines of my concerns. While Bernie Sanders has many debating the pros and cons of medicare for all which currently has no chance of even earning a vote in Congress muchless passing the GOP are taking another crack at the ACA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

In a crucial boost for its chances on Monday, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) offered his support.

In case anyone's wondering why support from a state governor for a senate bill matters here, it's because Ducey is from Arizona, the same state Senator John McCain represents, and McCain previously said he'd vote for or against GOP healthcare bills based on what Ducey wants for his state.

McCain famously turned his thumb downward in dramatic fashion on the senate floor just a few short weeks ago and saved millions of Americans from losing their coverage. It's not very promising that he'll repeat that show of strength and character this time  

The fact that McCain has stated he will align with the wishes of his state governor on this, coupled with the fact that this bill is being driven by his absolute best friend in congress...essentially a brother in everything but genetics... Senator Lindsay Graham... coupled with the fact that citizens seem to have lost interest in this topic and news coverage is absent (focused instead on hurricanes and North Korea and DACA and Trumps speech at the UN and ad infinitum...) has many quite worried we'll have a much different outcome with healthcare protections this time.

We all know the old saying: If at first you don't succeed, try 73 more times, lie about what you're doing, do it when nobody's watching, and act contrary to the wishes of the majority until you do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also don't forget to vote before the full CBO score can come out. 

 

Quote

But the CBO reported Monday that one of the most important parts of their previous healthcare analyses will not be included for the GCHJ bill because of a time crunch. Perhaps most importantly, the analysis will not contain an estimate of the legislation's effects on insurance coverage.

 

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Republicans learn that batshit crazy is a pre-existing condition, they'll blame the liberals for inventing the term.

Even after Trump is long gone, they'll still blame liberals by claiming Trump was just a liberal all along.

That's how batshit crazy works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.