US government shuts down after Congress fails to pass funding bill

[beebskadoo]

Just because we have/have had it doesn't mean it's good, efficient, or effective. Just saying.

*cough* Founding fathers *cough* 

I mean there is this outcry to 'get back to the old days' 

Well the old days tore this country apart. The foundation system of our government wouldn't be able to remain stable because the world has changed so much over 200+ years. I'm not saying the direction we're headed is the right one, I'm just saying looking backwards in time isn't exactly Utopian.

[Vitalius]

TL;DR at the bottom. Don't reply to my post if you only read that though. If you have no time to read all that I have to say, I don't have time to read what you have to say. Knowing this, I would consider any reply based on TL;DR spam as it has no purpose.
 

Ha,  they  aren't far left. They have been quite adament that they are in the middle and the others are extreme far right :rolleyes:

I'll be honest, I prefer to think I am a little bit (just a tiny bit) close to the middle. I have more "conservative" views on most issues than "liberal" ones and I say it that way because I don't know what the terms mean anymore (for example, my Mom was very conservative, but when I asked what "we were", she said Democrat, which apparently isn't the conservative party anymore. Flip Flops like that make me go "Why even try to label ourselves?"). 
 

*cough* Founding fathers *cough* 
I mean there is this outcry to 'get back to the old days' 
Well the old days tore this country apart. The foundation system of our government wouldn't be able to remain stable because the world has changed so much over 200+ years. I'm not saying the direction we're headed is the right one, I'm just saying looking backwards in time isn't exactly Utopian.

Fair enough, but I consider it infinitely better than the current state of things myself. I'd rather have an active nation that was willing to tear itself in two over issues rather than a complacent one that would be fine going silently into that sweet night (play quote used here, means "dies without fighting back" basically).

This is one of those things that I am conservative about. I don't like the idea of teaching a nation they deserve things without earning them. Food, water, air, and shelter, sure, that's fine. Everyone needs and deserves that because they are life and life is precious. 

When I listen to my step-brother (who is a druggie) complain about how his friends, who are pretty much just like him in most regards, can get $800 a pay check from Welfare for basically "Existing" and not much else, I tend to think somethings wrong with the current state of things.

An example of where I see my earlier comment in society (the thing about dying without fighting back) is, again, from my step-brother. He is the "good guy druggie" basically. He has the personal will power to not be addicted to anything (he freely admits to me he's tried just about all of it except heroin and things of that nature, i.e. meth), and to have a job (most of the time). He voted for Obama because he wanted weed to be legal. He thought Obamacare was nice, but that was his schtick during the elections.

I look at him in that, and try and imagine how many people are just like him. Who vote for such minute issues and directly influence the nation's course for such petty things. Mind you, he doesn't want a free ride, but to put his decision in perspective, he now is very against Obama. Not just because weed isn't legal in Texas yet, but for other reasons too (I hope, I'm not willing to listen to him long enough to know them, I just know he has them). 

I personally would be fine with there being a law passed to where you could not vote in an election if you could not prove you had a job, or something (considered legitimate) to prove you had a reason not to. You lost your leg? You can vote. You pregnant and on maternity leave? You can vote. Spouse works, but you are stay at home [insert title]? You can vote. No job and no excuse? You can't vote. 

There are probably (good) reasons that doesn't exist, but until I know them I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be that way. I just don't like the idea that passions and very temporary issues are what decides who is President (or congressman/etc) like immigration, legalizing weed, etc etc. 

The other thing I have noticed is that only old people actually vote in the more minor elections (at least where I live, and that makes sense to me that it would be true everywhere). Yeah, there may be a young person doing it every now and then, but it's the old people who end up deciding it by the sheer numbers of them. To give an example of this, I was taught a Government class by a former Mayor of the town the college was in. He explained the minute details of the city to us. In how most of the people who went to have a community vote on city specific issues (and elections for mayor and the like) were mostly people near retirement age.

Obviously, it could be different where you live, but the reasons that is the situation, in my mind, are ones that are universal (i.e. old people are affected a lot more by these things being discussed, most of the of time, they have more free time to vote on them, and there are more of them, plus they come from a time where being an active part of your community was the norm, rather than the exception). 

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme developed by the Congressmen of the day it was made. It was to be temporary. This was understood only by those who made it. Everyone else kept it. And this is not good. Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare cost far more money than they are worth. I realize I'm talking about something that decides whether many people live or die due to funds related to healthcare. However, you have to realize that these programs, and health insurance in general, are the very reason healthcare in the US is expensive. 

Example of that: If I pay for a doctor's bill with cash, I pay anywhere from 10-50% of what Insurance or one of those social programs would pay. They gouge them. So horribly. It is absurd. Healthcare could be cheaper/more affordable if it weren't for the idea of insurance (which is another Ponzi Scheme in my eyes, but for different reasons than Social Security), and these social programs.

All that to say, I don't like the current situation our country is in. I don't like teaching people they deserve something (and a lot, at that) for nothing. They do deserve the basics of life and what is necessary to be a legitimate voter (i.e. access to information, but only if the "only allowed to vote if you work" thing is true), but far too much is given without good reason in my eyes. Anything that does this, no matter what it claims as it's benefits, is far more evil to me than the evil it is trying to fight. Various examples being the many social programs the US government has (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the coming Obamacare, etc). 

The reason for this is based on my knowledge of psychology from college and my experiences in life. It is infinitely harder to remove from a people (as a whole) a detrimental attitude (such as the "I exist, therefore I deserve things.") than it is to avoid teaching such an attitude. Rights and the basic necessities of life (that I previously mentioned) are obviously things people do deserve for existing. All the stuff on top of that isn't as far as I am concerned.

An example of such things is an extreme one from another country but it's just to show what I mean: Guatemala says Internet is a right. Something everyone must have access to. I can understand "access to information" being a right, but just straight up "the entire internet"? No. That's stupid for various reasons. 

People will disagree with me. That is the nature of the topics I discussed and I am fine with that. I have yet to find a reason to change my mind. People "needing" Social Security and the other various social programs, as well as the people who have paid into Social Security and want their money back, haven't changed my mind either. 

Just to clarify one last thing before the horribly long post is done, we won't have those social programs for long. Either they will be completely abolished, or vastly cut back. We have no other choice. I could explain why, but to keep this post as short as possible, I won't. PM me if you want an in depth explanation of why. Or I will just post it here if enough people are interested.

TL;DR:
Basically, social programs are evil, and little can convince me otherwise. I give reasons in the long post above, so don't just flame me for saying that if you didn't bother to read my whole post. People need to be more, and stay, involved in the issues of our nation, and we won't have said social programs for much longer. I personally think you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you don't have a job, or a legitimate reason to not have one. Again, reasons and context in the above long post. I'd prefer you read it instead of this.
 

[beebskadoo]

I'll be honest, I prefer to think I am a little bit (just a tiny bit) close to the middle. I have more "conservative" views on most issues than "liberal" ones and I say it that way because I don't know what the terms mean anymore (for example, my Mom was very conservative, but when I asked what "we were", she said Democrat, which apparently isn't the conservative party anymore. Flip Flops like that make me go "Why even try to label ourselves?"). 

 

Fair enough, but I consider it infinitely better than the current state of things myself. I'd rather have an active nation that was willing to tear itself in two over issues rather than a complacent one that would be fine going silently into that sweet night (play quote used here, means "dies without fighting back" basically).

This is one of those things that I am conservative about. I don't like the idea of teaching a nation they deserve things without earning them. Food, water, air, and shelter, sure, that's fine. Everyone needs and deserves that because they are life and life is precious. 

When I listen to my step-brother (who is a druggie) complain about how his friends, who are pretty much just like him in most regards, can get $800 a pay check from Welfare for basically "Existing" and not much else, I tend to think somethings wrong with the current state of things.

An example of where I see my earlier comment in society (the thing about dying without fighting back) is, again, from my step-brother. He is the "good guy druggie" basically. He has the personal will power to not be addicted to anything (he freely admits to me he's tried just about all of it except heroin and things of that nature, i.e. meth), and to have a job (most of the time). He voted for Obama because he wanted weed to be legal. He thought Obamacare was nice, but that was his schtick during the elections.

I look at him in that, and try and imagine how many people are just like him. Who vote for such minute issues and directly influence the nation's course for such petty things. Mind you, he doesn't want a free ride, but to put his decision in perspective, he now is very against Obama. Not just because weed isn't legal in Texas yet, but for other reasons too (I hope, I'm not willing to listen to him long enough to know them, I just know he has them). 

I personally would be fine with there being a law passed to where you could not vote in an election if you could not prove you had a job, or something (considered legitimate) to prove you had a reason not to. You lost your leg? You can vote. You pregnant and on maternity leave? You can vote. Spouse works, but you are stay at home [insert title]? You can vote. No job and no excuse? You can't vote. 

There are probably (good) reasons that doesn't exist, but until I know them I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be that way. I just don't like the idea that passions and very temporary issues are what decides who is President (or congressman/etc) like immigration, legalizing weed, etc etc. 

The other thing I have noticed is that only old people actually vote in the more minor elections (at least where I live, and that makes sense to me that it would be true everywhere). Yeah, there may be a young person doing it every now and then, but it's the old people who end up deciding it by the sheer numbers of them. To give an example of this, I was taught a Government class by a former Mayor of the town the college was in. He explained the minute details of the city to us. In how most of the people who went to have a community vote on city specific issues (and elections for mayor and the like) were mostly people near retirement age.

Obviously, it could be different where you live, but the reasons that is the situation, in my mind, are ones that are universal (i.e. old people are affected a lot more by these things being discussed, most of the of time, they have more free time to vote on them, and there are more of them, plus they come from a time where being an active part of your community was the norm, rather than the exception). 

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme developed by the Congressmen of the day it was made. It was to be temporary. This was understood only by those who made it. Everyone else kept it. And this is not good. Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare cost far more money than they are worth. I realize I'm talking about something that decides whether many people live or die due to funds related to healthcare. However, you have to realize that these programs, and health insurance in general, are the very reason healthcare in the US is expensive. 

Example of that: If I pay for a doctor's bill with cash, I pay anywhere from 10-50% of what Insurance or one of those social programs would pay. They gouge them. So horribly. It is absurd. Healthcare could be cheaper/more affordable if it weren't for the idea of insurance (which is another Ponzi Scheme in my eyes, but for different reasons than Social Security), and these social programs.

All that to say, I don't like the current situation our country is in. I don't like teaching people they deserve something (and a lot, at that) for nothing. They do deserve the basics of life and what is necessary to be a legitimate voter (i.e. access to information, but only if the "only allowed to vote if you work" thing is true), but far too much is given without good reason in my eyes. Anything that does this, no matter what it claims as it's benefits, is far more evil to me than the evil it is trying to fight. Various examples being the many social programs the US government has (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the coming Obamacare, etc). 

The reason for this is based on my knowledge of psychology from college and my experiences in life. It is infinitely harder to remove from a people (as a whole) a detrimental attitude (such as the "I exist, therefore I deserve things.") than it is to avoid teaching such an attitude. Rights and the basic necessities of life (that I previously mentioned) are obviously things people do deserve for existing. All the stuff on top of that isn't as far as I am concerned.

An example of such things is an extreme one from another country but it's just to show what I mean: Guatemala says Internet is a right. Something everyone must have access to. I can understand "access to information" being a right, but just straight up "the entire internet"? No. That's stupid for various reasons. 

People will disagree with me. That is the nature of the topics I discussed and I am fine with that. I have yet to find a reason to change my mind. People "needing" Social Security and the other various social programs, as well as the people who have paid into Social Security and want their money back, haven't changed my mind either. 

Just to clarify one last thing before the horribly long post is done, we won't have those social programs for long. Either they will be completely abolished, or vastly cut back. We have no other choice. I could explain why, but to keep this post as short as possible, I won't. PM me if you want an in depth explanation of why. Or I will just post it here if enough people are interested.

Shit...um where to begin

As to your brother and people similar to him, I would say most people are like him in they see one thing about a candidate that they like and go for it. Most initial promises for any politician are just bullshit scripted PR campaigns in order to get more votes. I don't like where the country is either BUT we can not just get rid of these programs like a lot of people want. I agree that the welfare system is REALLY broken and most people would agree, but it helps a lot of people and cutting support would lead to hundreds of thousands of adults and children SOL. You can not make it on minimum wage, it's just not possible. 

We are a country controlled by corporations and corrupt politicians, and it's killing us. The Education system sucks and has tried to be reformed several times all failing. But they want people to be stupid in order to pass more bullshit laws. The prison system is horrible, it's run by private prisons that are running a business, and judges and politicians love that. 

I mean a lot of things are broken, but I'll give Obama credit because at least he has a plan to 'fix' some things. But the fact that the government is closed and we have politicians blaming the other party, and people are just mudslinging and name calling rather than doing their fucking job is just pathetic. The US is broken and neither party can fix it. Just saying. 

[beebskadoo]

Pen Jillette for President!

[Vitalius]

Shit...um where to begin

As to your brother and people similar to him, I would say most people are like him in they see one thing about a candidate that they like and go for it. Most initial promises for any politician are just bullshit scripted PR campaigns in order to get more votes. I don't like where the country is either BUT we can not just get rid of these programs like a lot of people want. I agree that the welfare system is REALLY broken and most people would agree, but it helps a lot of people and cutting support would lead to hundreds of thousands of adults and children SOL. You can not make it on minimum wage, it's just not possible. 

We are a country controlled by corporations and corrupt politicians, and it's killing us. The Education system sucks and has tried to be reformed several times all failing. But they want people to be stupid in order to pass more bullshit laws. The prison system is horrible, it's run by private prisons that are running a business, and judges and politicians love that. 

I mean a lot of things are broken, but I'll give Obama credit because at least he has a plan to 'fix' some things. But the fact that the government is closed and we have politicians blaming the other party, and people are just mudslinging and name calling rather than doing their fucking job is just pathetic. The US is broken and neither party can fix it. Just saying. 

Thank you for reading the whole thing. 

Which is better? Short term suffering for those who would be affected by instantly getting rid of Welfare, or long term suffering by way of teaching a people they deserve something for no reason beyond "I exist. Therefore I should have it."  Again, I consider the second evil far greater than the first because it will do harm to far more people (entire generations of them). The fact it is reinforced by our society, among many other things, isn't helping.

Agreed on all points beyond that. Independent is the way to go. 

[beebskadoo]

Thank you for reading the whole thing. 

Which is better? Short term suffering for those who would be affected by instantly getting rid of Welfare, or long term suffering by way of teaching a people they deserve something for no reason beyond "I exist. Therefore I should have it."  Again, I consider the second evil far greater than the first. The fact it is reinforced by our society, among many other things, isn't helping.

Agreed on all points beyond that. Independent is the way to go. 

See the thing goes both ways. Have a family that goes on welfare, the system is broken and the family stays on welfare for generations.

Have a family on welfare, get rid of their welfare benefits, poverty ensues, the family lives below the poverty line for generations and nothing can be done because education is shit and minimum wage is garbage. there is no short term suffering until education is fixed and job opportunities are available. That won't get fixed untill new jobs roll in, which won't get fixed because our tax system is garbage, which won't get fixed untill our government fixes it. so yeah...

Either way it's a fucked up situation and a lot of people will be effected negatively

[Vitalius]

See the thing goes both ways. Have a family that goes on welfare, the system is broken and the family stays on welfare for generations.

Have a family on welfare, get rid of their welfare benefits, poverty ensues, the family lives below the poverty line for generations and nothing can be done because education is shit and minimum wage is garbage. there is no short term suffering until education is fixed and job opportunities are available. That won't get fixed untill new jobs roll in, which won't get fixed because our tax system is garbage, which won't get fixed untill our government fixes it. so yeah...

Either way it's a fucked up situation and a lot of people will be effected negatively

Well, what happens when Welfare is gone? More money is free to be distributed in other things. 

So long as that doesn't just "disappear" (i.e. someone high up takes it for stupid reasons/causes), perhaps it can be used to create jobs. 

Simply put, the money can be spent a better way. Like giving the families something to do beyond the "existing" part. Something that can maybe give back to society beyond keeping people around. Not that life isn't precious, but at the end of the day, bills must be paid (the metaphorical bills of a society that wants/needs to grow). Spending it on keeping people out of poverty is fine, just do it in a more cost effective way. Because welfare is pretty terrible in that regard.

Obviously, it isn't that easy. Things like this never are. However, I feel like taking the route of "abolish welfare and use the funds for something more productive" is far better than "keep welfare and let it languish in a broken system that can only get worse."

Of course it would be best to use the funds to be productive in the lives of the people they are taken from, but then again, you have to realize that some people stay in that situation for the welfare. Which is where the system is specifically broken. That ability needs to be disabled. ASAP. Because that's the problem I am specifically talking about and have issue with. Many of them (ambiguous term used to number them was intentional) are fine with their current situation (i.e. not having to work), don't want to better themselves, and basically being leeches when they don't have to be. 

They are the ones I'm not worried about losing this money. Of course there are the legitimate cases of people who really do need it, but the whole reason I have this stance is because I feel like the leeches outweigh the legitimate cases enough to be a concern.

[Kuzma]

TL;DR at the bottom. Don't reply to my post if you only read that though. If you have no time to read all that I have to say, I don't have time to read what you have to say. Knowing this, I would consider any reply based on TL;DR spam as it has no purpose.

 

I'll be honest, I prefer to think I am a little bit (just a tiny bit) close to the middle. I have more "conservative" views on most issues than "liberal" ones and I say it that way because I don't know what the terms mean anymore (for example, my Mom was very conservative, but when I asked what "we were", she said Democrat, which apparently isn't the conservative party anymore. Flip Flops like that make me go "Why even try to label ourselves?"). 

 

Fair enough, but I consider it infinitely better than the current state of things myself. I'd rather have an active nation that was willing to tear itself in two over issues rather than a complacent one that would be fine going silently into that sweet night (play quote used here, means "dies without fighting back" basically).

This is one of those things that I am conservative about. I don't like the idea of teaching a nation they deserve things without earning them. Food, water, air, and shelter, sure, that's fine. Everyone needs and deserves that because they are life and life is precious. 

When I listen to my step-brother (who is a druggie) complain about how his friends, who are pretty much just like him in most regards, can get $800 a pay check from Welfare for basically "Existing" and not much else, I tend to think somethings wrong with the current state of things.

An example of where I see my earlier comment in society (the thing about dying without fighting back) is, again, from my step-brother. He is the "good guy druggie" basically. He has the personal will power to not be addicted to anything (he freely admits to me he's tried just about all of it except heroin and things of that nature, i.e. meth), and to have a job (most of the time). He voted for Obama because he wanted weed to be legal. He thought Obamacare was nice, but that was his schtick during the elections.

I look at him in that, and try and imagine how many people are just like him. Who vote for such minute issues and directly influence the nation's course for such petty things. Mind you, he doesn't want a free ride, but to put his decision in perspective, he now is very against Obama. Not just because weed isn't legal in Texas yet, but for other reasons too (I hope, I'm not willing to listen to him long enough to know them, I just know he has them). 

I personally would be fine with there being a law passed to where you could not vote in an election if you could not prove you had a job, or something (considered legitimate) to prove you had a reason not to. You lost your leg? You can vote. You pregnant and on maternity leave? You can vote. Spouse works, but you are stay at home [insert title]? You can vote. No job and no excuse? You can't vote. 

There are probably (good) reasons that doesn't exist, but until I know them I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be that way. I just don't like the idea that passions and very temporary issues are what decides who is President (or congressman/etc) like immigration, legalizing weed, etc etc. 

The other thing I have noticed is that only old people actually vote in the more minor elections (at least where I live, and that makes sense to me that it would be true everywhere). Yeah, there may be a young person doing it every now and then, but it's the old people who end up deciding it by the sheer numbers of them. To give an example of this, I was taught a Government class by a former Mayor of the town the college was in. He explained the minute details of the city to us. In how most of the people who went to have a community vote on city specific issues (and elections for mayor and the like) were mostly people near retirement age.

Obviously, it could be different where you live, but the reasons that is the situation, in my mind, are ones that are universal (i.e. old people are affected a lot more by these things being discussed, most of the of time, they have more free time to vote on them, and there are more of them, plus they come from a time where being an active part of your community was the norm, rather than the exception). 

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme developed by the Congressmen of the day it was made. It was to be temporary. This was understood only by those who made it. Everyone else kept it. And this is not good. Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare cost far more money than they are worth. I realize I'm talking about something that decides whether many people live or die due to funds related to healthcare. However, you have to realize that these programs, and health insurance in general, are the very reason healthcare in the US is expensive. 

Example of that: If I pay for a doctor's bill with cash, I pay anywhere from 10-50% of what Insurance or one of those social programs would pay. They gouge them. So horribly. It is absurd. Healthcare could be cheaper/more affordable if it weren't for the idea of insurance (which is another Ponzi Scheme in my eyes, but for different reasons than Social Security), and these social programs.

All that to say, I don't like the current situation our country is in. I don't like teaching people they deserve something (and a lot, at that) for nothing. They do deserve the basics of life and what is necessary to be a legitimate voter (i.e. access to information, but only if the "only allowed to vote if you work" thing is true), but far too much is given without good reason in my eyes. Anything that does this, no matter what it claims as it's benefits, is far more evil to me than the evil it is trying to fight. Various examples being the many social programs the US government has (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the coming Obamacare, etc). 

The reason for this is based on my knowledge of psychology from college and my experiences in life. It is infinitely harder to remove from a people (as a whole) a detrimental attitude (such as the "I exist, therefore I deserve things.") than it is to avoid teaching such an attitude. Rights and the basic necessities of life (that I previously mentioned) are obviously things people do deserve for existing. All the stuff on top of that isn't as far as I am concerned.

An example of such things is an extreme one from another country but it's just to show what I mean: Guatemala says Internet is a right. Something everyone must have access to. I can understand "access to information" being a right, but just straight up "the entire internet"? No. That's stupid for various reasons. 

People will disagree with me. That is the nature of the topics I discussed and I am fine with that. I have yet to find a reason to change my mind. People "needing" Social Security and the other various social programs, as well as the people who have paid into Social Security and want their money back, haven't changed my mind either. 

Just to clarify one last thing before the horribly long post is done, we won't have those social programs for long. Either they will be completely abolished, or vastly cut back. We have no other choice. I could explain why, but to keep this post as short as possible, I won't. PM me if you want an in depth explanation of why. Or I will just post it here if enough people are interested.TL;DR:

Basically, social programs are evil, and little can convince me otherwise. I give reasons in the long post above, so don't just flame me for saying that if you didn't bother to read my whole post. People need to be more, and stay, involved in the issues of our nation, and we won't have said social programs for much longer. I personally think you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you don't have a job, or a legitimate reason to not have one. Again, reasons and context in the above long post. I'd prefer you read it instead of this.

I read through all of that and when it comes down to it I think the whole retirement age people voting more is more of a society thing because most adults and teenagers of voting age will go after work to vote on issues regardless of how busy or tired they are but that's just my two cents.

Also I agree, the US system is broken >_< why have a president that's been voted in as leader if he can't pass anything , personally I count very few things as necessities of life but food, water, clothes , shelter, education and health care are the only things I think people should be guaranteed in a first world country, after that they should be on their own to do whatever they want. Personally I love the NHS in the UK because although there are some horror stories that come out from it , it's still there; I can not imagine what it would have been like for my family if we had to pay an ungodly premium for every single one of the medical problems my sister had before she passed away; I equally can not imagine what it would have been like for me when I broke my leg and was stuck in hospital for almost 12 hours without any means of contacting my mum.

I think that you are indeed correct all the forced health care systems in the US currently that currently cost stupid high amounts are flawed but would you give up 30% of your wage to know that your children would have education no matter what? That if you ever became unemployed for a period of time , you could still eat? That you would always have a high quality health care service ready if you ever became sick or injured and that nobody would ever have to live in a certain degree of poverty? Personally I would, I would if it was 50% and I would if it were 70% - just to have that security to know if there ever became a time in which I could not work , I could still live I think that's the main reason a lot of people move to Britain for a "better" life because tbh it can get very very tough to live here but no matter what, tax payers will keep you alive and once you get on your feet, you too will be helping keep people alive.

It may be socialist to a degree but personally I see a socialist country with a capitalist economy as it is in the UK is perfect

[beebskadoo]

Yes the money would be freed up and could be spent in a better way. 

I have 3 other siblings and  I am the youngest. My mother worked 2 jobs and was gone all of the time. She supported us by herself. My dad was a piece of shit drug addict and wasn't around to give support. Without the wellfare system I would not be where I am today. It helps a lot of people and provides a buffer. long story short, my mother is in a better position today than she was then. It's not a pretty story but it is a success story in some aspects. Not everyone abuses it, but a lot of people do. Believe me all I have to do is take a trip to Walmart and open my eyes. But the reason it's abused is because it's broken and it needs to be fixed before it can be shrunk down. 

A big problem is single mothers. First off, people need to stop reproducing if they can't afford it (I don't have that worry ). Fix: Education, reformed welfare system, and safe sex education in school. Teaching abstinence does not work! 

When people are taught to be more responsible with what they have, then they can worry about raising a family. It's just common sense.

[beebskadoo]

I count very few things as necessities of life but food, water, clothes , shelter, education and health care are the only things I think people should be guaranteed in a first world country

See a lot of politicians don't see most of those things as essential. 

I am on the fence about it. I believe that they all should be a right to have, but in doing so it evokes government control, and they just fuck everything up. So fix the government and it should be ok.

[Kuzma]

See a lot of politicians don't see most of those things as essential. 

I am on the fence about it. I believe that they all should be a right to have, but in doing so it evokes government control, and they just fuck everything up. So fix the government and it should be ok.

I understand how the US system works but it is so fucking fragmented it is not even funny! Personally I think there should be no president because he is practically a figure head at this point - if you look back to FDR with the depression he had to handle in office,he was given unprecedented power to sort the mess out - I am yet to see a single other president (besides Bush post-9/11 but that was just a joke) receive the kind of power they NEED to sort things out.

[beebskadoo]

I understand how the US system works but it is so fucking fragmented it is not even funny! Personally I think there should be no president because he is practically a figure head at this point - if you look back to FDR with the depression he had to handle in office,he was given unprecedented power to sort the mess out - I am yet to see a single other president (besides Bush post-9/11 but that was just a joke) receive the kind of power they NEED to sort things out.

Not gonna touch that one......................

[Vitalius]

I read through all of that and when it comes down to it I think the whole retirement age people voting more is more of a society thing because most adults and teenagers of voting age will go after work to vote on issues regardless of how busy or tired they are but that's just my two cents.

Also I agree, the US system is broken >_< why have a president that's been voted in as leader if he can't pass anything , personally I count very few things as necessities of life but food, water, clothes , shelter, education and health care are the only things I think people should be guaranteed in a first world country, after that they should be on their own to do whatever they want. Personally I love the NHS in the UK because although there are some horror stories that come out from it , it's still there; I can not imagine what it would have been like for my family if we had to pay an ungodly premium for every single one of the medical problems my sister had before she passed away; I equally can not imagine what it would have been like for me when I broke my leg and was stuck in hospital for almost 12 hours without any means of contacting my mum.

I think that you are indeed correct all the forced health care systems in the US currently that currently cost stupid high amounts are flawed but would you give up 30% of your wage to know that your children would have education no matter what? That if you ever became unemployed for a period of time , you could still eat? That you would always have a high quality health care service ready if you ever became sick or injured and that nobody would ever have to live in a certain degree of poverty? Personally I would, I would if it was 50% and I would if it were 70% - just to have that security to know if there ever became a time in which I could not work , I could still live I think that's the main reason a lot of people move to Britain for a "better" life because tbh it can get very very tough to live here but no matter what, tax payers will keep you alive and once you get on your feet, you too will be helping keep people alive.

It may be socialist to a degree but personally I see a socialist country with a capitalist economy as it is in the UK is perfect

I can understand your insight regarding the NHS. However, again, I have some second-hand experience regarding this. My manager was a medical trained officer in the Air Force. He knows a lot about Europe (and specifically the UK's) health care systems due to this (and the fact he traveled a lot). 

For people like you, NHS is great. For people who have issues that need extensive searching to find, it's the "horror stories". The example he gave was that doctor's, usually, prefer to diagnose someone as having a more minor problem (i.e. something simple like a treatable disease) rather than search for a more major one (like cancer) because, that costs money. And since the whole idea of making a "profit" is thrown out the window, spending less money is good. Going to the doctor for a symptom, leaving with medication, then dying later due to your cancer not being found soon enough is the best example of this.

It could have changed since then (my manager has been retired from the AF for a while), but that's the idea. For you, again, it's great. Breaking your leg is very obvious. No way around not getting treated for it. Cancer, not so much.

Yes. I would put that 30% into my bank account and use it when I needed it. That is what saving money is. If you think I'd trust the government with it, .... no. The US government is beyond the point of me ever doing that. Hell, if I could somehow figure out a way to legally not pay the taxes regarding SS and the other social programs, I would. Simply because I never plan to pull from them as they will be gone long before I need them. 

You are basically asking the government to do your job of managing your money. Which is not a good idea. Because they won't be any better than you will about doing it. At least in the US. Maybe the UK is different, but whatever.

As for the whole "helping people who need it", I believe wholeheartedly that should not be something the government ever gets into. That should literally be a social program. Like a Charity or something similar put on by the community that government does not touch beyond making laws to prevent corruption and the like within such a program.

Basically, take government out of the act of giving aid to people and I am fine with it. Never put your money in the government's hands unless it's for something that makes sense, like schools, roads, infrastructure, and things of that nature that a society needs but cannot handle itself.

People? People a society better be able to handle itself, because it is made of them (after all).

Yes the money would be freed up and could be spent in a better way. 

I have 3 other siblings and  I am the youngest. My mother worked 2 jobs and was gone all of the time. She supported us by herself. My dad was a piece of shit drug addict and wasn't around to give support. Without the wellfare system I would not be where I am today. It helps a lot of people and provides a buffer. long story short, my mother is in a better position today than she was then. It's not a pretty story but it is a success story in some aspects. Not everyone abuses it, but a lot of people do. Believe me all I have to do is take a trip to Walmart and open my eyes. But the reason it's abused is because it's broken and it needs to be fixed before it can be shrunk down. 

A big problem is single mothers. First off, people need to stop reproducing if they can't afford it (I don't have that worry ). Fix: Education, reformed welfare system, and safe sex education in school. Teaching abstinence does not work! 

When people are taught to be more responsible with what they have, then they can worry about raising a family. It's just common sense.

Agreed, and I understand that it helps people like you. 

However, the "it's broken, and it needs to be fixed before it can be shrunk down." is said because you don't want it to hurt the ones who rely on it now. I get that. However, I also think such mentality will only leave it to languish because, as it is, it will never be fixed. The problem is too complex for that imo because the problem is a combination of the attitude of our society, and the workings & state of our government. Fixing both won't happen anytime soon, if ever. And fixing one or the other won't stop the problem now that it already exists.

Which is why I default back to my earlier choice. Temporary fix now and forever for everyone (i.e. Welfare stays) that is abused, or long term fix for everyone (i.e. welfare is ended but funds are used to go towards a similar goal that provides work for said people) that produces something long lasting in society (not just attitudes, but infrastructure, for the new jobs, among other things).

One other thing, I think teaching abstinence doesn't work for people who aren't intelligent enough to utilize such knowledge. That goes back to our education system, but I think that if people were generally smarter, they'd plan better and have the will to control themselves more by way of logic/reason. Teaching it then would work. 

It also ties into welfare. Because being a single mother means you get welfare. This produces people that have kids so they don't have to work. That is how they abuse the system. I had people like this in my high school. They were the stereotype. Family in poverty, taught by their parents to have kids in high school so they won't have to work. ... That's the attitude I hate with a passion.

Plus, as the information age pushes forward, I expect there to be less babies made in general. I grew up playing video games, and generally being into things that meant a lot of time alone. Due to this, I am very introverted. I don't spend time around people unless necessary (work and things of that nature). Less time spent around people and less social understanding of communication in person generally mean I am pretty safe from "accidentally" making a family unless I specifically seek such a thing. 

I expect more people to be like me as the things that I am interested in becomes more readily available to them. Mind you, I think this brings a host of other problems into our society, but hey, overpopulation is by far the absolute worst thing for our future, and anything else that comes with a solution or relief for such a thing is worth it imo.

[mr moose]

What happens if the stalemate continues, In Aus. we have the GG to dismiss and innefective government, the UK has the queen. What do you have?

[Vitalius]

What happens if the stalemate continues, In Aus. we have the GG to dismiss and innefective government, the UK has the queen. What do you have?

A shitload of diapers. /multiple level joke

But seriously, we just wait. That's all we can do. It's out of the hands of the American people, and we don't have your law to oust the inactive government. I honestly wholly wish we did have that law.

Question regarding it: If they are thrown out of government, can they be re-elected? I hope not. The kind of thing that puts real fear into them, that they might lose power, would be great at breaking a stalemate and forcing action/compromise.

Then again, people who are on their final term (if those exist in Aussie politics), would be able to use that, since they can't be re-elected anyway, as a powerful weapon. And yet again, since it's a government-wide thing, getting an entire group of congressmen (or wtv you have) on his side would be next to impossible. Like forming a suicide pact. "If one of us goes down, we all go down." "But don't you have cancer? We are all in our 30's and healthy though..." "Shut up. Just die with me, ok?" <-- equivalent of how it'd go I think, with a health/die analogy to being ousted/never being elected again.

[mr moose]

A shitload of diapers. /multiple level joke

But seriously, we just wait. That's all we can do. It's out of the hands of the American people, and we don't have your law to oust the inactive government. I honestly wholly wish we did have that law.

Question regarding it: If they are thrown out of government, can they be re-elected? I hope not. The kind of thing that puts real fear into them, that they might lose power, would be great at breaking a stalemate and forcing action/compromise.

Then again, people who are on their final term (if those exist in Aussie politics), would be able to use that, since they can't be re-elected anyway, as a powerful weapon. And yet again, since it's a government-wide thing, getting an entire group of congressmen (or wtv you have) on his side would be next to impossible. Like forming a suicide pact. 

 

No final terms in Aus, you can run as many times as the people will vote for you.  You guys need a double dissolution policy. where if the government has it's legislations quashed by the senate twice then an election can be called.

[beebskadoo]

I can understand your insight regarding the NHS. However, again, I have some second-hand experience regarding this. My manager was a medical trained officer in the Air Force. He knows a lot about Europe (and specifically the UK's) health care systems due to this (and the fact he traveled a lot). 

For people like you, NHS is great. For people who have issues that need extensive searching to find, it's the "horror stories". The example he gave was that doctor's, usually, prefer to diagnose someone as having a more minor problem (i.e. something simple like a treatable disease) rather than search for a more major one (like cancer) because, that costs money. And since the whole idea of making a "profit" is thrown out the window, spending less money is good. Going to the doctor for a symptom, leaving with medication, then dying later due to your cancer not being found soon enough is the best example of this.

It could have changed since then (my manager has been retired from the AF for a while), but that's the idea. For you, again, it's great. Breaking your leg is very obvious. No way around not getting treated for it. Cancer, not so much.

Yes. I would put that 30% into my bank account and use it when I needed it. That is what saving money is. If you think I'd trust the government with it, .... no. The US government is beyond the point of me ever doing that. Hell, if I could somehow figure out a way to legally not pay the taxes regarding SS and the other social programs, I would. Simply because I never plan to pull from them as they will be gone long before I need them. 

You are basically asking the government to do your job of managing your money. Which is not a good idea. Because they won't be any better than you will about doing it. At least in the US. Maybe the UK is different, but whatever.

 

Agreed, and I understand that it helps people like you. 

However, the "it's broken, and it needs to be fixed before it can be shrunk down." is said because you don't want it to hurt the ones who rely on it now. I get that. However, I also think such mentality will only leave it to languish because, as it is, it will never be fixed. The problem is too complex for that imo because the problem is a combination of the attitude of our society, and the workings & state of our government. Fixing both won't happen anytime soon, if ever. And fixing one or the other won't stop the problem now that it already exists.

Which is why I default back to my earlier choice. Temporary fix now and forever for everyone (i.e. Welfare stays) that is abused, or long term fix for everyone (i.e. welfare is ended but funds are used to go towards a similar goal that provides work for said people) that produces something long lasting in society (not just attitudes, but infrastructure, for the new jobs, among other things).

One other thing, I think teaching abstinence doesn't work for people who aren't intelligent enough to utilize such knowledge. That goes back to our education system, but I think that if people were generally smarter, they'd plan better and have the will to control themselves more by way of logic/reason. Teaching it then would work. 

Plus, as the information age pushes forward, I expect there to be less babies made in general. I grew up playing video games, and generally being into things that meant a lot of time alone. Due to this, I am very introverted. I don't spend time around people unless necessary (work and things of that nature). Less time spent around people and less social understanding of communication in person generally mean I am pretty safe from "accidentally" making a family unless I specifically seek such a thing. 

I expect more people to be like me as the things that I am interested in becomes more readily available to them. Mind you, I think this brings a host of other problems into our society, but hey, overpopulation is by far the absolute worst thing for our future, and anything else that comes with a solution or relief for such a thing is worth it imo.

Ok, You live in Texas, it has the highest Teen pregnancy rate in the country and the highest reoccurring Teen pregnancy rate in the country. The education system is broken and being torn apart but your Governor seems to think things are fine and dandy ( I could be wrong but that's the vibe I get) Ok, what do you do in a situation where education blows dick and the Teen girls blow dick? (sorry had to make a joke ) Fix education and initiate real sex education. Abstinence Ed DOES NOT WORK. 

look at Africa, a similar dual approach is being taken on the battle against HIV. People are getting educated about HIV, and Contraception is made available. Yeah the HIV rate is still going up but it's not as fast as it was. It has been proven to work.

The information age has reduced crime rates. Look at the 90's. in areas where internet adoption was on the rise the sexual crime rate went down down down. Why? PORN! yep, all of the free downloadable porn your heart can handle right at your fingertips!  But look at the entirety of my argument, many politicians are blaming the internet for violence and saying abstinence only education is the way. Well it has been proven the opposite occurs. Politicians are out of touch with reality. They don't understand how the world works! I mean come one, they're getting payed 150K right now to sit on their ass and literally not do their job....something is seriously wrong with that.

I apologies in advance for my rambling, it's really late and that's when my ADHD kicks in.

[Vitalius]

No final terms in Aus, you can run as many times as the people will vote for you.  You guys need a double dissolution policy. where if the government has it's legislations quashed by the senate twice then an election can be called.

Imagine trying to get them to pass a law for that. I doubt it would happen. It's basically a law saying "You either compromise or GTFO." Putting a further requirement on them, the lawmakers. I doubt it would end well or get passed. I'd love it if it existed though. Inaction is just as bad as bad action (i.e. making stupid/inane laws that are explicitly to hurt the populace.)

 

 

Ok, You live in Texas, it has the highest Teen pregnancy rate in the country and the highest reoccurring Teen pregnancy rate in the country. The education system is broken and being torn apart but your Governor seems to think things are fine and dandy ( I could be wrong but that's the vibe I get) Ok, what do you do in a situation where education blows dick and the Teen girls blow dick? (sorry had to make a joke ) Fix education and initiate real sex education. Abstinence Ed DOES NOT WORK. 

 

look at Africa, a similar dual approach is being taken on the battle against HIV. People are getting educated about HIV, and Contraception is made available. Yeah the HIV rate is still going up but it's not as fast as it was. It has been proven to work.

 

The information age has reduced crime rates. Look at the 90's. in areas where internet adoption was on the rise the sexual crime rate went down down down. Why? PORN! yep, all of the free downloadable porn your heart can handle right at your fingertips!  But look at the entirety of my argument, many politicians are blaming the internet for violence and saying abstinence only education is the way. Well it has been proven the opposite occurs. Politicians are out of touch with reality. They don't understand how the world works! I mean come one, they're getting payed 150K right now to sit on their ass and literally not do their job....something is seriously wrong with that.

 

I apologies in advance for my rambling, it's really late and that's when my ADHD kicks in.

Just to clarify, Texas spends a shit ton on Education. To what effect that has, no idea. But their whole "thing" (the constitution of Texas, among other law making things) really emphasizes education. In the wrong circumstance/situation, abstinence ed doesn't work. If applied correctly, I believe it can work. 

Agreed, they are out of touch with reality. However, anything that basically enables indulging of desires that we supposedly and apparently have no control over is something I am against for the same reasons I am against welfare. It teaches an unhealthy attitude to a society. 

I really think they shouldn't be paid at all. I don't understand why they are. You only get to be a congressman/senator/President if you have deep pockets anyway. Why do they need the money? Government should be something you volunteer for (but are still elected to positions of course), effectively. 

It's fine. I understand. I have ways of handling my ADHD myself. Plus, I have had sleep in the past few hours. 

[beebskadoo]

Imagine trying to get them to pass a law for that. I doubt it would happen. It's basically a law saying "You either compromise or GTFO." Putting a further requirement on them, the lawmakers. I doubt it would end well or get passed. I'd love it if it existed though. Inaction is just as bad as bad action (i.e. making stupid/inane laws that are explicitly to hurt the populace.)

 

 

Just to clarify, Texas spends a shit ton on Education. To what effect that has, no idea. But their whole "thing" (the constitution of Texas, among other law making things) really emphasizes education. In the wrong circumstance/situation, abstinence ed doesn't work. If applied correctly, I believe it can work. 

Agreed, they are out of touch with reality. However, anything that basically enables indulging of desires that we supposedly and apparently have no control over is something I am against for the same reasons I am against welfare. It teaches an unhealthy attitude to a society. 

I really think they shouldn't be paid at all. I don't understand why they are. You only get to be a congressman/senator/President if you have deep pockets anyway. Why do they need the money? Government should be something you volunteer for (but are still elected to positions of course), effectively. 

It's fine. I understand. I have ways of handling my ADHD myself. Plus, I have had sleep in the past few hours. 

They're high school students. They're gonna have sex...just saying. It's always been like that, people have and will always be sex fiends. Teaching them about responsibility comes with the territory of teaching about contraception and proper sex education. I mean I'm s adamant about this because of my early life circumstances. I know their is a bigger picture to be seen but hey, we all have our passions.

We don't have control over desires, we do however have control over the decisions we make. 

As for not getting paid, the majority of politicians have massive bank accounts, the money they make for doing their political job is just spending money for strip clubs, hookers and blow. so I am gonna have to moderately agree on them not being payed.

[Vitalius]

They're high school students. They're gonna have sex...just saying. It's always been like that, people have and will always be sex fiends. Teaching them about responsibility comes with the territory of teaching about contraception and proper sex education. I mean I'm s adamant about this because of my early life circumstances. I know their is a bigger picture to be seen but hey, we all have our passions.

 

We don't have control over desires, we do however have control over the decisions we make. 

As for not getting paid, the majority of politicians have massive bank accounts, the money they make for doing their political job is just spending money for strip clubs, hookers and blow. so I am gonna have to moderately agree on them not being payed.

I went through High School and am still a virgin. I mean, sure, someone in high school will probably always have sex, but the idea that there's no way to fight how many (percentage) do, to me, is just accepting defeat and submitting to the problem. The problem you want to fix is teen pregnancy/overpopulation. So do I. But I don't want to concede teaching them it's ok to listen to/act upon their desires because they simply can't help it when I know for a fact they can. I'm not saying I'm perfect or whatever by saying I'm still a virgin. I have my problems with it too, but again, I know from experience with those problems that there are solutions that don't involve indulging in the desires. 

In regards to those solutions, the whole "idle hands are a devil's workshop" saying or wtv applies here. I'm not just saying that from a religious perspective. It applies whether you are religious or not. If you are busy with life, all the time, you aren't going to be occupied with such desires. Our society is so "efficient" (in the sense that so much is done by so few people), that it's entirely possible to have hours upon hours of free time every day. I know this from working 12 hour shifts or being generally busy, consistently (like for weeks on end). Such things just don't come up when your life is like that. 

Agreed, to an extent. If you tell a desire to screw off long enough, it will go away. I know that from experience. Desires/passions are minute. Wait long enough and they do go away. They might come back, but just as sure as you can be that they will come back, you can be sure they will be gone if you wait. Succumbing to them (i.e. making decisions to satisfy them) just reinforces them and thereby makes them stronger, harder to ignore, and occur more often.

That is just my experience with them, but I feel like the situation is similar, if not the same, with most people. If not all of them. 

My problem with teaching people it's fine to indulge them so long as you do it safely is that there is always spill over. Points where people apply that to things you can't/shouldn't apply it to. By nature, attitudes follow the slippery slope argument. "Oh, if people do this, then this is surely to follow." which makes my advocacy of fighting certain ones hard. This is a situation where I have no example to give of them applying it to things they can't/shouldn't apply it to, but I still feel that is true. Maybe I just can't come up with an example and will think of one later. Oh well. 

I just want it to be understood that although the slippery slope argument is a fallacy in regards to certain issues, it isn't false entirely as it does indeed apply to some things accurately. But again, I can't come up with examples right now. I don't know why. Tired I guess.

[silencerbob]

blah blah blah

[Vitalius]

blah blah blah

Basically a 100% accurate summary of this whole situation.

[Wingingchase]

I love america we are to bull headed to get ANY thing done

[wpirobotbuilder]

Just because we have/have had it doesn't mean it's good, efficient, or effective. Just saying.

Of course, but that's certainly no reason not to try.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure precisely what the >10 years outcome of the ACA going into effect will be, and I would never try to pin simple terms like "Good" or "Bad" on it. The American healthcare system is not a simple problem and there will not be a simple solution, but it is probably the singe largest drag on the economy and needs to be grappled with meaningfully, and the ACA is the first piece of real domestic policy that is designed to address it in some way.

 

If the ACA succeeds as intended, providing healthcare to more people with overall lower costs, then it will be celebrated for a long time by the general public. If it fails miserably, then the public will turn against it. Regardless, the political landscape is likely to change in favor of either the Democrats or Republicans based on the outcome.

 

I do believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with the premise of the law. If there was a Republican option that could provide healthcare to more people at a lower cost then there would be nothing inherently wrong with that law either. Whether or not the implementation of the ACA succeeds is something we are never going to know until it happens.

[Vitalius]

Of course, but that's certainly no reason not to try.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure precisely what the >10 years outcome of the ACA going into effect will be, and I would never try to pin simple terms like "Good" or "Bad" on it. The American healthcare system is not a simple problem and there will not be a simple solution, but it is probably the singe largest drag on the economy and needs to be grappled with meaningfully, and the ACA is the first piece of real domestic policy that is designed to address it in some way.

 

If the ACA succeeds as intended, providing healthcare to more people with overall lower costs, then it will be celebrated for a long time by the general public. If it fails miserably, then the public will turn against it. Regardless, the political landscape is likely to change in favor of either the Democrats or Republicans based on the outcome.

 

I do believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with the premise of the law. If there was a Republican option that could provide healthcare to more people at a lower cost then there would be nothing inherently wrong with that law either. Whether or not the implementation of the ACA succeeds is something we are never going to know until it happens.

If you've read my prior posts, you may see why I still consider ACA bad. If it does lead to lower costs, it will also lead to the problem my manager saw in the UK healthcare since that goes along with what allows lower costs. 

I am not a fan of insurance in any form. Healthcare is essentially that, but with a different name.