The new "Normal" in America

reply to post by djr33222


Your medical bills will drop to less than half the day medical insurance is abolished.

Medical insurance is the biggest reason of high cost and fraud in medical care business.

The government can provide subsidized medical care through hospitals and dispensaries to the needy.

Universal healthcare is not needed.

reply to post by GargIndia


So abolishing medical insurance and providing government subsidies for healthcare costs would be your plan...

Well that is pretty stupid because 1. You pay for large health care bills out of pocket, 2. Everyone is paying for those subsidies through tax revenue, 3. It would still not be affordable for many people, and 4. It doesn't stop profit seeking behavior of private practices.

Universal healthcare is not needed.

You should explain why you feel this way.

GargIndia located in India, I'm talking about the US here.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by beezzer

 

And divided we will stay with the communists and socialists in our midst who do not understand even what the problems are....

Who do you think is creating the problems?

The banking industry, namely Wall Street and the City of London, along with the MP's who agreed to remove all legislation requiring transparency and compartmentalization of investments. After the "Big Bang" of the City with computerised trading, the desire to continually make better profits continued, as city traders wanted to maximize their bonuses and retire before their 40's.

To do this, they needed to make as much short term money as possible. The best way to do this was to get publicly owned companies to cut overheads as much as possible. Wages were frozen, back office jobs were offshored, if not entire manufacturing plants. Medium sized companies were bought up, munged together as a corporations before falling apart in the new owners hands. Small companies that had a small stable niche market and a secure pension fund were bought up, asset stripped and sold off. It used to be a tradition that a person could work for a corporation for their entire life and retire in their mid-50's. It didn't help that the city traders wanted to "cream off the pension fund surpluses" (which were actually ploughed back into the stock market), and that one political party wanted to achieve "wealth redistribution". That killed off many final salary pension schemes.

With the demise of all the companies, workers were forced to relocate or emigrate, with the existing homes replaced by either the unemployable underclass, buy-to-let owners for students or asylum seekers from abroad

If you check the ownership of any "high street bank", you'll see there is a complete financial chain going all the way back up to the "too big to fail" Wall Street banks.

reply to post by neo96


It is clear from your posts that you don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

People collecting Social Security based on what they paid in is no different than anyone else getting a claim on an insurance policy. Not everyone gets what they paid in and some people get more than what they paid in. That is how insurance works. At least in Social Security you get rewarded for good behavior, by living a long healthy life and collecting more than those who die young.

Medicaid is a scam that subsidizes illegal immigration that benefits the rich, or in other words, just another form of welfare for the rich.

All that government debt was created almost exclusively under republican presidents. Obama inherited massive deficits, he did not create them. 2009 was GWs last budgetary year.

Most rich people are out to screw everyone out of every dollar they can get. It is how most people get rich. Currently from a government subsidized casino, established by republican policies.

I am not looking for anyone to save me, I want to get the bankers out of my pocket.

I am not stupid enough to think that eliminating the rules that keep the bankers in check is going to help anyone but the bankers. It is the sickness of conservative thinking.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by neo96

 

It is clear from your posts that you don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

People collecting Social Security based on what they paid in is no different than anyone else getting a claim on an insurance policy. Not everyone gets what they paid in and some people get more than what they paid in. That is how insurance works. At least in Social Security you get rewarded for good behavior, by living a long healthy life and collecting more than those who die young.

Medicaid is a scam that subsidizes illegal immigration that benefits the rich, or in other words, just another form of welfare for the rich.

All that government debt was created almost exclusively under republican presidents. Obama inherited massive deficits, he did not create them. 2009 was GWs last budgetary year.

Most rich people are out to screw everyone out of every dollar they can get. It is how most people get rich. Currently from a government subsidized casino, established by republican policies.

I am not looking for anyone to save me, I want to get the bankers out of my pocket.

I am not stupid enough to think that eliminating the rules that keep the bankers in check is going to help anyone but the bankers. It is the sickness of conservative thinking.

You call that facts ?

LOL.

reply to post by sonnny1


In reality the Reagan admin was ran by Bush. Reagan was only the mouth piece.

Nobody fought the cold war, it was a scam to ramp up the military industrial complex, when was the only place to get a job in the eighties.

reply to post by seabag


Clinton most definitely ended the Reagan era deficits.

The deficit had been cut in half by Clinton and a Democratic congress before the Republicans ever took over congress in 95. The republican congresses first budget didn't get put in place until 96, and deficit reduction was already well in place.

What the republicans did with their deregulation schemes was create the dotcom bubble followed by the housing bubble. Clinton's big mistake was compromising with the republicans and signing into law the horrific mistake of repealing Glass-Steagal, which was the biggest goal of the republican controlled congress.

Thus we arrived at this new norm where white on blue crime is allowed to rein unchecked, because people foolishly bought into the whole dereg scam.

reply to post by neo96


Those are indeed the facts.

As previously posted links prove, and as anyone who knows history can ascertain.

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by neo96

 

I think the military should have guns, police can have their tasers and clubs. We need to do everything possible to make this society less violence oriented, petty, and polarized. I couldn't care less if a few criminals commit violent acts with guns. The number of gun-related crimes would go down drastically - this is just common sense.

And we'll see how many criminals want to carry a gun illegally if it were an automatic life sentence.

Let's think the logic through on this, shall we? In paragraph one, you disarm the police. In paragraph two, you impose a life sentence for carrying a firearm. Exactly how is a disarmed police force going to arrest armed criminals with nothing to lose, since that arrest dictates a life sentence? I can say with certainty that if you are going to imprison me for life, you simply are not going to take me alive. If I am armed, and you are not, even the attempt to take me alive is ill-advised.

That's one of the problems with Utopias - dreamers are not logical thinkers.

Don't talk bad about welfare, you should care about your fellow man. YOU should care, not the government. Just the fact that you think higher taxes is the government stealing from you and giving to subhumans who don't deserve assistance is the problem right there.

Give me a compelling reason WHY I should give a crap about "my fellow man". It will have to be a VERY compelling reason to get me to agree that impoverishing myself to enrich him is somehow a good idea.

You don't want universal health-care, free college education, or a much more peaceful society?

I have an idea for you to push that will accomplish all of your utopian wishes. Mandatory daily doses of Thorazine for all citizens. Can't get it done without instituting universal health care, so there's a sop for ya. Education would be MUCH easier to accomplish, since individual capacities to be educated would be greatly truncated - thus dropping your second hammer on us - and of course incidences of violence would drop dramatically, resulting in your "peaceful society".

There ya go - run with it! Just consider it my contribution to the movement!

I feel like Americans are just uber greedy, resentful and envious of other people, afraid of their neighbors, etc... and this stuff really gets in the way of a better country.

Mandatory Thorazine will fix that, too !

Chemistry for a Brighter Future!

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Good. Give the Government EVERYTHING you own then.

I will. Back in the days of small tribal groups the chieftain was the government. Men would hunt, women would gather, other people would craft goods and they would all literally give everything they had to the chief who would redistribute it how he saw fit. Why? Because men had no use for an excess of meat, women an excess of plants and berries, and craft makers and excess of crafts. Once these items were given to the collective each person got everything they required based on overt need but also based on other important factors.

This system worked fine long before corporate capitalism.

In what tribe did this system prevail in? Certainly not mine. In my tribe, no one HAD to "obey" the chief, much less give over their produce to him. If a warrior didn't like what the chief said, he just went and did what he wanted to anyhow. It worked pretty well at keeping the chief in check. "If you order a man to do what he does not want to do, you are no longer a chief".

That was among the Shawnees - so what tribe are YOU talking about that was of such a totalitarian nature?

This is certainly important. I think there are many rights more conducive to happy living other than every person having the right to own a large capacity firearm.

Since when do YOUR rights override MINE? Isn't that irrational far of firearms REALLY just evidence of your irrational fear of your neighbor? You trust that scary neighbor to somehow come into line and suddenly not be a danger to you? I'll bet that if you look in his garage, you'll find a claw hammer. In his kitchen, probably a variety of scary knives. A dangerous man is a dangerous man, regardless of his preferred tool. So why would these scary neighbors of your suddenly become docile? Is Thorazine involved?

Marxism is an ideology. So is capitalism. In theory they are both good but in practice they can be mismanaged. And to a certain extent both have absurd assumptions and leave plenty of room for tyrants to take over.

ANY unguarded system of government leaves that door open, The key there is "unguarded", and who you trust to be the guardians. the People themselves have always proven to be the best guardians of their own interest, not ANY government. Governments are notoriously unable to govern themselves.

Socialism has a lot of negative connotations added to it. It was actually the first form of governance and is very natural for the human species in my opinion. Certain European countries utilizing welfare state system and socialist principles have a quality of life that exceeds our own.

Again, I want to see some meat here. What gives you the peculiar notion that "Socialism was actually the first form of governance"? WHAT gives you the peculiar notion that it is "natural for the human species"? IF it IS "natural", why is it not the norm, nor ever has been?

Originally posted by poet1b

Nobody fought the cold war, it was a scam to ramp up the military industrial complex, when was the only place to get a job in the eighties.

Bull#.

I fought the Cold War.

I did not sit on my ass in a "peacetime army" (or any sort of National Army, for that matter) and collect a check just to have a job.

I was out in the bushes.

Fighting.

The Cold War.

reply to post by nenothtu

Give me a compelling reason WHY I should give a crap about "my fellow man". It will have to be a VERY compelling reason to get me to agree that impoverishing myself to enrich him is somehow a good idea.

It is a good thing these decisions won't be made by people like you.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by poet1b

Nobody fought the cold war, it was a scam to ramp up the military industrial complex, when was the only place to get a job in the eighties.

Bull#.

I fought the Cold War.

I did not sit on my ass in a "peacetime army" (or any sort of National Army, for that matter) and collect a check just to have a job.

I was out in the bushes.

Fighting.

The Cold War.

I should have known you were a black belt undercover CIA operative during the Cold War that single-handedly forced Gorby to surrender.

Originally posted by djr33222

I should have known you were a black belt undercover CIA operative during the Cold War that single-handedly forced Gorby to surrender.

edit on 9-8-2013 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)

There's no particular reason you should have any idea what or who I am, and you still don't.

Colorful belts are for pussies who don't have enough ass to keep their pants up.

I could possibly expound a bit more on my history if you would kindly define what your notion of an "operative" is. Would I have to draw a check every month signed by a station chief or something? No, I never actually signed on to the CIA in any sort of full-time way - but would I tell you if I had?

Never saw Gorby in person - that blemish on his forehead kinda freaked me out. No particular reason I would want to defeat him anyhow - he's the guy who gave us perestroika and glasnost. Brezhnev, on the other hand, was a right prick... but I never met him, either.

But I DID have a run in or two with some Russians.

There was more to the Cold War than you will ever be able to fathom, and no one stayed in their own yards.

You talk communism from a text book, in an academic way - as if it EVER pans out that way. I saw it in action.

It wasn't a pretty sight. I've walked through entire villages that were razed to the ground so that the peasantry could be "relocated" to collectives, and would stop returning home, since "home" was no longer there. It took longer than the trip you take between your locker and "Communism 101".

PoliSci is for people who never see the sharp end, and never have to see the misery their grand notions of equality visit upon the peasantry. It's for the people who stay in their ivory towers.

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Give me a compelling reason WHY I should give a crap about "my fellow man". It will have to be a VERY compelling reason to get me to agree that impoverishing myself to enrich him is somehow a good idea.

It is a good thing these decisions won't be made by people like you.

Unfortunately for you, you don't know that "these decisions" WON'T be made by people like me.

People like me can become very vocal in some of the most unexpected ways when our own are being put under the gun.

And we ave very good decision makers when properly motivated.

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by GargIndia

 

So abolishing medical insurance and providing government subsidies for healthcare costs would be your plan...

Well that is pretty stupid because 1. You pay for large health care bills out of pocket, 2. Everyone is paying for those subsidies through tax revenue, 3. It would still not be affordable for many people, and 4. It doesn't stop profit seeking behavior of private practices.

Universal healthcare is not needed.

You should explain why you feel this way.

GargIndia located in India, I'm talking about the US here.

I worked in US for five years, and I know more than 100 people who still stay there. I am very well aware of the issues.

Have you ever thought why medical care is so much cheaper in Asia compared to USA. Even in "developed" country like Singapore? I do not think you did.

Profiteering by "private practices" is bull. The fact is market forces always make things affordable, if market forces are allowed to play. Things become expensive when "mafia" comes into picture and forced shortages are created.

I lived in Singapore, USA and Canada. All these three countries have different medical care systems. I had no medical insurance in Singapore. I did not need medical insurance in Singapore. Why? Because medical care was so affordable.

You guys think your system is best because you have not seen any other. The fact is your system is exploitative and wasteful.

Medical insurance does not reduce medicare expenses. It just adds one more layer of administrative expenses. It also puts too much leverage in the hands of big sharks (due to concentration of money) who can game the system.

Every working professional in USA is paying like $600-$800 per month for medical insurance. Do you think you get that much benefit out of it?

Every person must be made accountable for his health. It is very easy to get sick by eating bad foods, not exercising, taking drugs etc. Why should healthy and conscious people take the burden of unwise people?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Give me a compelling reason WHY I should give a crap about "my fellow man". It will have to be a VERY compelling reason to get me to agree that impoverishing myself to enrich him is somehow a good idea.

It is a good thing these decisions won't be made by people like you.

Unfortunately for you, you don't know that "these decisions" WON'T be made by people like me.

People like me can become very vocal in some of the most unexpected ways when our own are being put under the gun.

And we ave very good decision makers when properly motivated.

edit on 2013/8/9 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

You are a wise man. Hope there were more like you.

Actually collective agriculture can be far more productive than small farms, as agriculture is an industry in every aspect. Big industry is more successful than small industry, as you may have seen.

The problems are always in implementation. The theory may be good but practice is what determines success.

Originally posted by GargIndia

Actually collective agriculture can be far more productive than small farms, as agriculture is an industry in every aspect. Big industry is more successful than small industry, as you may have seen.

The problems are always in implementation. The theory may be good but practice is what determines success.

That's exactly right. Agricultural collectivization is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. As you observe, the implementation of it is what will make or break it. Larger farms are more productive, because they leverage the power of bulk - bulk purchasing of supplies, and concentration of shipping points for outbound produce. The problem comes with forced collectivization. In Nicaragua, the smallholds were forcibly collectivized - not just the big foreign owned fruit farms. Lands were seized from peasants ("campesinos" there) for the collectives, and people were relocated to provide the forced labor. it wasn't limited to agriculture - Miskito, Sumo, and Rama Indians had entire villages wiped out in an attempt to force them into mining labor and the like. They elected to scoot out across the Rio Wanks into Honduras, set up refugee camps, and the Contra Wars were the result.

We have agricultural collectives and co-ops in the US, too, and they work fairly well. The big difference is that they are not forced. People elect to join them or not, and their lands and livestock are not seized by the state in a bid for forced collectivization.

John Titor - whoever he really was - made an observation that applies to these circumstances. He said that when you take a farmer's livelihood away, he has nothing to do then but hide in the woods and shoot at his oppressors all day long. That was what happened in Nicaragua, and it would be far worse if it were ever attempted in the US. In the Soviet Union, when collectivization of farms was implemented, the peasants actually killed off their livestock to resist the collectivization in the beginning, so it wasn't all that different there. The results of the mismanaged and forced collectivization there was 5 million human corpses.

It has to be voluntary, and that is where communism and socialism fails every time - they force it, "for the good of the collective". People balk at that. If the system is not voluntary, there is no freedom in it. History shows that eventually, ANY people will revolt against slavery. It happened in ancient Rome several times, in the US, In Soviet Russia, in Nicaragua, and at innumerable points around the globe and through time.

As soon as what is going on in the US now is widely perceived as slavery, as the death of freedom, it will happen here again... probably on a much wider and more destructive scale than the last Civil War.

That is the reason for the big push for "gun control" in the US currently. They don't give a rat's ass about the safety of the public, nor is it really "for the children" they could give a crap about out kids beyond what slave labor they can get out of them. The REAL reason for it is to protect the tender backsides of what the collectivists refer to as the "bourgeoisie" - those people who always rise to the controlling positions of power, whether nominally socialistic or not. The "ruling class", the "Committee", the people who tell the "proletariat" what to do, and crack the slave driver's whip to make sure they do it.

reply to post by nenothtu


Under Reagan?

You and Clint stormed the beaches of Grenada together? You are a real hero. Were you in the movie? (Note to self, request better emoticons)

Maybe the Korean war could be called a part of the cold war, but that was a long time before Reagan took office.

Vietnam, possibly the same, but looked more like a war of imperialism.

By the time Reagan took office, the USSR was a paper dragon, and the U.S. public had already decided that they have no stomach for propping up corporate puppet dictators in third world countries under the fear of communism.

Bush did invade Panama, when his puppet got out of control.

reply to post by GargIndia

Actually collective agriculture can be far more productive than small farms, as agriculture is an industry in every aspect. Big industry is more successful than small industry, as you may have seen.

The problem with big Ag, big industry, and big institutions in general, is that they develop giant bureaucracies, become enormously wasteful, stagnate, become enormously inefficient, abusive, and eventually nothing but giant parasites.

In economics there is such a thing as "economies of scale," which means when a business gets too big for the market it is supposed to fail, but the answer for these big institutions has been to gobble up innovative new companies, to keep the ancient beasts alive.

Of course the problem is the same for government. In the U.S., city, county, and state governments are worse than the fed gov..

Eventually, the people in these institutions are only concerned with justifying their existence in the system, to keep that paycheck coming with the nice benefit package, not to mention fat retirement programs. They distance themselves from anything that might make themselves responsible for their own actions, while doing everything in the power to bring down those who do try to be productive. This is more than anything, the ugly mess of the new norm.

If you have done any research into what motivates people to be productive, you would see that independence is the biggest motivator. Giant institutions kill that independence. What ever gains they get from the advantages of large scale production is killed within a short time by the disease of bureaucracy.