Political Discussion

Joe Mac said:
I don’t necessarily agree with this. A rising tide raises all boats. What would happen though is that stock prices would initially take a dive and that would hit directors and they bankroll the political classes.

The one that’s going to be interesting going forward is stop consuming and promoting endless consumption based growth or burn.
Click to expand...
Oh, Joe, the logic behind cleaning the environment and those benefits for people and the jobs they do is very clear to people like you and me. It's that initial dive in stock that everyone is afraid of, and that's why no one does anything. No one wants to rock these boats because the most forward thinking we can be is simply to look forward to next quarter. That's the only thing that matters, next quarter's dividends.

No one will make the hard, necessary decisions if those who are making the decisions are only interested in what happens in the next few months instead of the next few years. This short sightedness is causing a lot of insecurity in our actual economy and will likely cause some form of correction in the market in the next few years. And this is why everyone is in a panic, because everyone knows that it can't keep going this way, and yet, everyone is scared to pump the breaks. So we are moving forward with very little strategic thought, because enacting any long term strategy would be hard on us in the immediate future, and possibly for several years. And yes, we would have to stop buying so much stuff--which is against the tenet of the American religion.
 
nolalady said:
Oh, Joe, the logic behind cleaning the environment and those benefits for people and the jobs they do is very clear to people like you and me. It's that initial dive in stock that everyone is afraid of, and that's why no one does anything. No one wants to rock these boats because the most forward thinking we can be is simply to look forward to next quarter. That's the only thing that matters, next quarter's dividends.

No one will make the hard, necessary decisions if those who are making the decisions are only interested in what happens in the next few months instead of the next few years. This short sightedness is causing a lot of insecurity in our actual economy and will likely cause some form of correction in the market in the next few years. And this is why everyone is in a panic, because everyone knows that it can't keep going this way, and yet, everyone is scared to pump the breaks. So we are moving forward with very little strategic thought, because enacting any long term strategy would be hard on us in the immediate future, and possibly for several years. And yes, we would have to stop buying so much stuff--which is against the tenet of the American religion.
Click to expand...

I mean I’m *looks around at apartment full of crap & records* as trapped in the consumer cycle as anyone. I think that given the way our societies are organised right now that it’s very difficult not to be and to stay on an even keel. But equally I feel that if that cycle could be broken that it’d be a positive for us all, especially in mental health terms. Plus it’s always better to put money into skills and crafts rather than just more mass produced junk.
 
The Apple News Plus podcast talked about the economy and it's recovery as the pandemic drags on.

Officials are saying the economy has made a total recovery. And that's true if you go by averages. But as always, it's not that simple.

The Apple News podcast said our economies recover has followed a "K" shape.

Essentially what this means is the average of the economy climbs straight up the left side of the "K". But the actual recovery that is felt by people follow the other two branches of the K.

Climbing up you have the few. The wealthy who have seen their net worths grow at record pace. On the downward slope of the K you have the poor and the working class. They don't feel that there has been any recovery to the economy at all. Jobs are not paying living wages. The cost of housing continues to soar, inflation is soaring. They may have got couple extra dollars an hour raise if they were lucky, but they are worse off than before the pandemic. They are more financially fragile than ever and anything unexpected to put them in financial ruin.

One person they interviewed works a respectable working class job for $17 an hour. His industry hasn't seen real hour pay increases in 40 years. At $17 an hour, the median rent price in his state is now unaffordable.

Republican governors ended expanded unemployment benefits early. Rental assistance is an absolute disaster as there is too convoluted and slow and has red tape leaving many who the program is designed for without aid. The student loan pause expires January 31 and the Child Tax Credits end at the end of this year.

2022 is going to be felt hard by many as inflation continues to soar and all attempts at aid and social safety nets end.

The only bright thing going on right now is for the first time in a really long time workers are gaining power. They are fed up with jobs not paying a living wage. And choosing to not work these jobs. The podcast ended with the question of how long this new found power will last.

As in is it here to stay or will it fade out or be squashed soon. And will it make any real lasting changes.
 
Only in America do we pay you next to nothing if you a tipped worker and then turn around and tell you that you can't accept a large tip.

In Arkansas a waitress was fired after a customer gave her a $4400 tip.

A customer doing a good deed wanting to type her, and made a toast and an announcement to the restaurant about what he was doing.

Management quickly said she could not keep the tip. That she would have to split it with the other servers, hostess and kitchen staff. Each person who worked at the restaurant would get 7% of the tip for each person with the leftover money going back to the restaurant so nobody got more or less than others. This was a bit unusual because they have never split tips like this in the past. At the end of the night only wait staff would split tips. Nothing went to hostesses or kitchen staff nor anything to the restaurant.

The tip giver was displeased when magment came over in front of him, said this and collected the money. So he asked for the money back.

He later handed directly to the wait staff and they split it. Each getting $2200 as there were only two on that night.

Then they were both terminated by their employer for taking the tip.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Only in America do we pay you next to nothing if you a tipped worker and then turn around and tell you that you can't accept a large tip.

In Arkansas a waitress was fired after a customer gave her a $4400 tip.

A customer doing a good deed wanting to type her, and made a toast and an announcement to the restaurant about what he was doing.

Management quickly said she could not keep the tip. That she would have to split it with the other servers, hostess and kitchen staff. Each person who worked at the restaurant would get 7% of the tip for each person with the leftover money going back to the restaurant so nobody got more or less than others. This was a bit unusual because they have never split tips like this in the past. At the end of the night only wait staff would split tips. Nothing went to hostesses or kitchen staff nor anything to the restaurant.

The tip giver was displeased when magment came over in front of him, said this and collected the money. So he asked for the money back.

He later handed directly to the wait staff and they split it. Each getting $2200 as there were only two on that night.

Then they were both terminated by their employer for taking the tip.
Click to expand...
This country….I thought capitalism and free markets were the motto? Work hard and make your way to success? So disappointing. Hope those employees have grounds to sue for wrongful termination.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Only in America do we pay you next to nothing if you a tipped worker and then turn around and tell you that you can't accept a large tip.

In Arkansas a waitress was fired after a customer gave her a $4400 tip.

A customer doing a good deed wanting to type her, and made a toast and an announcement to the restaurant about what he was doing.

Management quickly said she could not keep the tip. That she would have to split it with the other servers, hostess and kitchen staff. Each person who worked at the restaurant would get 7% of the tip for each person with the leftover money going back to the restaurant so nobody got more or less than others. This was a bit unusual because they have never split tips like this in the past. At the end of the night only wait staff would split tips. Nothing went to hostesses or kitchen staff nor anything to the restaurant.

The tip giver was displeased when magment came over in front of him, said this and collected the money. So he asked for the money back.

He later handed directly to the wait staff and they split it. Each getting $2200 as there were only two on that night.

Then they were both terminated by their employer for taking the tip.
Click to expand...

One of the lower key moments of sobriety/sadness I had as the COVID-19 pandemic goes on is how...entitled some people feel not only to service from other people but also how businesses that facilitate that often mistreat and undercompensate those employees. It's been a year and a half and I'm still kind of flummoxed at it to be honest - the food service/dining industry in the U.S. is far overdue for a reckoning.

On the bright side for those employees, they end up with 2k and likely a better job given hiring needs for that field, but what a disaster. Good on the tipper in several ways.
 
debianlinux said:
This is 100% true without any context for what they would be protecting.
Click to expand...
And this is why these sorts of statements take hold, because they aren't *technically* wrong.

The sloganization of American dialogue has made it to where we encapsulate very broad ideas in the fewest words possible and then refuse to have a discussion because "I've already said it all." These slogans are taken up by both sides and the slogan you use completely defines your stance...except that's not how it really works and also why modern political analysts have such a tough time predicting election outcomes. You can ask poll questions with trigger words that people know how to answer to illicit the societal response they want, but this doesn't actually get to what that individual thinks--it only indicates what we think about the people who respond a certain way to certain slogans.
 
nolalady said:
And this is why these sorts of statements take hold, because they aren't *technically* wrong.

The sloganization of American dialogue has made it to where we encapsulate very broad ideas in the fewest words possible and then refuse to have a discussion because "I've already said it all." These slogans are taken up by both sides and the slogan you use completely defines your stance...except that's not how it really works and also why modern political analysts have such a tough time predicting election outcomes. You can ask poll questions with trigger words that people know how to answer to illicit the societal response they want, but this doesn't actually get to what that individual thinks--it only indicates what we think about the people who respond a certain way to certain slogans.
Click to expand...

People can’t have a discussion without using memes
 
I rarely jump into this side, because politics are so divisive these days. But...

Do folks realize that America is the only country in the G-7 group of western powers where Kyle Rittenhouse would not be in jail for life right now? Even in Russia - Brazil - China - Iran - you name it - Kyle Rittenhouse would not only be in jail for murder, in many countries, he would be executed.

But in America, the land where everything is about money, one day he is bawling his eyes out in court, and the next he is a celebrity making unholy money.

Since when is it ok for a 17 year old kid to go out at night with a military weapon?

In what world is that kind of weapon available for purchase to anyone?

Where were his parents? Since when is it ok to let a 17 year old go out as a vigilante? Watching too many Marvel movies?

Why was nobody asking the core question at this kid's trial - why was he out there with a weapon at all?

BTW, Kyle Rittenhouse had the weapon illegally. WTF? Why isn't he incarcerated for that alone?

In what world is a kid with an illegal assault weapon turned into a celebrity?

And when will America stop it's infatuation with stupid people?
 
Last edited:
debianlinux said:
Um, I was thinking that if my employer gave me like, say 25% of the money they pay into insurance for me both of us would be supremely happy with that arrangement.
Click to expand...
Did you know that the United States federal government spends more per capita on public health care than Canada, where the system is completely publicly funded? And that is WITHOUT actually having a public health care system (even impoverised countries have public health care).

Why? Simple. Money.

The United States has a for profit health care system, for those who can afford it, and a second tier public system for those who cannot (with minimal services). Because it has a for profit system, costs are astronomically higher, because everyone along the chain - suppliers, practitioners, hospitals, insurance companies - set their prices and take their cut for shareholders/owners. In a public system, the government sets the prices, and hospitals are public, not for profit entities. Medical clinics, while private for profit entities, don't charge patients but bill the government based on government scale. Drug prices are kept low by more reasonable patent laws and government purchasing power.

Counter-arguments typically revolve around choice and taxes. Some people argue that a public system would mean they can't choose their provider. Elsewhere, this is completely false. In a public system, you can go to whatever doctor or hospital you choose.

The argument that a public healthcare system would necessitate higher taxes is somewhat true, but is out of context. Since the federal government already pays per capita for health care more than publicly funded countries do, it seems to follow that making the system public shouldn't cost more. True, but it would take some time to get the money interests out of health care to realize the efficiencies that can be gained by taking profit out of the chain. But also, it is a fallacy, because Americans pay far, far more for health care off their paychecks or to a private insurer that even a very significant tax hike would cost them. Still, many don't understand that paying $100 more to the government a month is better than paying $300 to a for profit insurance plan.

The sad fact, though, is the fundamental reason the United States does not have public health care is that a significant portion of the population - older and white, primarily - don't care to share their health care with other cohorts of the population. They don't want to mix in a hospital or clinic with the greater unwashed. There is an element of elitism, and tinges of racism mixed in with it. Also, there are those who want to be able to get front of the line premium service when they want it.

In a public system, everyone gets the same access to the same services. If you have a heart attack, or get diagnosed with cancer, the system kicks in immediately, and doesn't care what color your skin is or whether you can write a cheque on the spot. If you have a hernia, you probably have to wait for the next opening on the schedule, but can 'shop around' to see if you can get it done at another hospital quicker. If you are Jeff Bezos and you run to emergency because you have a nasty cut on your thumb, you will get a bandage at triage and sit on your ass for 6 hours to see a doctor, because that cut is a pretty stupid reason to go to emergency and the system will assign resources based on priority - and Jeff Bezo's thumb would be last on the list. The really top surgeons have waiting periods, and they might be six months. So what? Anyone can get that surgeon. In the private system, he would only be catering to the rich.

You have congressmen and senators getting rich off private health care. Joe Manchin. You have billions from the health care industry pouring into political campaigns. You have politicians across the country who have been reaping billions from Covid.

John McCain wanted to take the money out of politics. He was right. When the money is gone, you might get representation for the people, by the people. Until then, it won't happen.
 
RHANDMJ said:
Did you know that the United States federal government spends more per capita on public health care than Canada, where the system is completely publicly funded? And that is WITHOUT actually having a public health care system (even impoverised countries have public health care).

Why? Simple. Money.

The United States has a for profit health care system, for those who can afford it, and a second tier public system for those who cannot (with minimal services). Because it has a for profit system, costs are astronomically higher, because everyone along the chain - suppliers, practitioners, hospitals, insurance companies - set their prices and take their cut for shareholders/owners. In a public system, the government sets the prices, and hospitals are public, not for profit entities. Medical clinics, while private for profit entities, don't charge patients but bill the government based on government scale. Drug prices are kept low by more reasonable patent laws and government purchasing power.

Counter-arguments typically revolve around choice and taxes. Some people argue that a public system would mean they can't choose their provider. Elsewhere, this is completely false. In a public system, you can go to whatever doctor or hospital you choose.

The argument that a public healthcare system would necessitate higher taxes is somewhat true, but is out of context. Since the federal government already pays per capita for health care more than publicly funded countries do, it seems to follow that making the system public shouldn't cost more. True, but it would take some time to get the money interests out of health care to realize the efficiencies that can be gained by taking profit out of the chain. But also, it is a fallacy, because Americans pay far, far more for health care off their paychecks or to a private insurer that even a very significant tax hike would cost them. Still, many don't understand that paying $100 more to the government a month is better than paying $300 to a for profit insurance plan.

The sad fact, though, is the fundamental reason the United States does not have public health care is that a significant portion of the population - older and white, primarily - don't care to share their health care with other cohorts of the population. They don't want to mix in a hospital or clinic with the greater unwashed. There is an element of elitism, and tinges of racism mixed in with it. Also, there are those who want to be able to get front of the line premium service when they want it.

In a public system, everyone gets the same access to the same services. If you have a heart attack, or get diagnosed with cancer, the system kicks in immediately, and doesn't care what color your skin is or whether you can write a cheque on the spot. If you have a hernia, you probably have to wait for the next opening on the schedule, but can 'shop around' to see if you can get it done at another hospital quicker. If you are Jeff Bezos and you run to emergency because you have a nasty cut on your thumb, you will get a bandage at triage and sit on your ass for 6 hours to see a doctor, because that cut is a pretty stupid reason to go to emergency and the system will assign resources based on priority - and Jeff Bezo's thumb would be last on the list. The really top surgeons have waiting periods, and they might be six months. So what? Anyone can get that surgeon. In the private system, he would only be catering to the rich.

You have congressmen and senators getting rich off private health care. Joe Manchin. You have billions from the health care industry pouring into political campaigns. You have politicians across the country who have been reaping billions from Covid.

John McCain wanted to take the money out of politics. He was right. When the money is gone, you might get representation for the people, by the people. Until then, it won't happen.
Click to expand...
The counter argument around choice is also quickly falling to the wayside. With large monopolies taking over our healthcare space, we are being "steered" (and yes, in the health insurance industry we "steer" people to providers) to certain low cost providers. We have "access" to any provider, but most providers and services are very costly and we all have high deductible health plans (HDHP), that we can't actually go to most of the doctors we have "access" to nor can we get most of the services we have "access" to. The health insurance industry has now come up with a term for those people with health insurance who are unable to use it due to cost; they are called the under insured. Thus, I have "access" to life saving cancer treatment, but as recent analysis into cancer cost found, 42% of all people that paid for cancer treatment for two years or more end up burning through all their assets (and this analysis was done prior to the adoption of HDHP and CAR-T oncology therapy). So the argument of choice is a fallacy for the majority of the people getting medical services. They are absolutely limited by what and who their insurance will cover--and this list is getting smaller and smaller.

There's a bit of a fallacy with the per capita spend thing. Yes, we do pay the most per capita in health care spend, but a broader analysis showed that the reason the Brits (in particular the Brits because they were so close to us regarding health outcomes) spend more on other social safety nets so their spending does eventually equal ours, but theirs includes things like public transportation and other social services that are just too "commie" for us Americans to stomach. But the integrity of your argument still stands in that the Brits are able to fund so many more social services per capita than Americans largely due to our for profit system.
 
Both my grandmother and aunt said over Thanksgiving that would would not ever want the government to take over our healthcare.

I asked them why. And there only answer is, "the government should not be involved with healthcare".

Okay, but why. Why do you think that's a bad thing?

The idea that everything should be private and the government should not be involved in anything has been very effectively sold in the United States for years.
 
nolalady said:
The counter argument around choice is also quickly falling to the wayside. With large monopolies taking over our healthcare space, we are being "steered" (and yes, in the health insurance industry we "steer" people to providers) to certain low cost providers. We have "access" to any provider, but most providers and services are very costly and we all have high deductible health plans (HDHP), that we can't actually go to most of the doctors we have "access" to nor can we get most of the services we have "access" to. The health insurance industry has now come up with a term for those people with health insurance who are unable to use it due to cost; they are called the under insured. Thus, I have "access" to life saving cancer treatment, but as recent analysis into cancer cost found, 42% of all people that paid for cancer treatment for two years or more end up burning through all their assets (and this analysis was done prior to the adoption of HDHP and CAR-T oncology therapy). So the argument of choice is a fallacy for the majority of the people getting medical services. They are absolutely limited by what and who their insurance will cover--and this list is getting smaller and smaller.

There's a bit of a fallacy with the per capita spend thing. Yes, we do pay the most per capita in health care spend, but a broader analysis showed that the reason the Brits (in particular the Brits because they were so close to us regarding health outcomes) spend more on other social safety nets so their spending does eventually equal ours, but theirs includes things like public transportation and other social services that are just too "commie" for us Americans to stomach. But the integrity of your argument still stands in that the Brits are able to fund so many more social services per capita than Americans largely due to our for profit system.
Click to expand...
Excellent points. Which reinforce the argument that, increasingly, the bitter divide over taking health care public in the United States revolves around the wealthy, who are the greatest political contibutors and beneficiaries.

Now, to get really controversial - there has always been a faction within the Republican party, which has now taken it over, which is white supremacist and beholden to the wealthy elite. They block broader public access to both education and health care, as they actually want to keep a significant part of the population dumb and sick. Natural selection, I suppose.

Just as with Covid restrictions, they use 'freedom' and the 'Constitution' as their foils. The broad misuse of both are largely the crux of the divide. Freedom isn't about choice, which has been misconstrued as being able to do what the fuck the person wants. And continuing to misapprehend the Constitution to what they claim is a 'literal' interpretation - no such thing exists - instead of viewing it through the lens of contemporary norms - is a major stumbling block no one seems to have the courage to address.

The insanity of Covid behaviors and attitudes magnifies this. Donald Trump stated at the outset of Covid that it was a little flu. Then he said it would be all over in a few months. Then he said that deaths would peak at about 150,000. Now, America has hit over 800,000 deaths - a staggering number - and will hit 1,000,000 by spring.

And this is still open for debate??

Here in Ontario, we have what can only be considered a right wing conservative government. The brother of the late, notorious Mayor Rob Ford, star of late night television. And we have had the longest lockdown in the world, and still have significant restrictions. No one goes anywhere without a mask - period. Not on the subway, the bus, or a plane. Offices are still remote, and will be for at least the next 6 months. A Vax passport is in effect - and it is enforced. No one gets in a restaurant or bar without one. If the establishment violates that, it isn't just a fine. They get shut down.

That's becuase 'freedom' here means freedom from the actions of others that may cause you harm, and 'freedom' also means 'for the greater good'.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Both my grandmother and aunt said over Thanksgiving that would would not ever want the government to take over our healthcare.

I asked them why. And there only answer is, "the government should not be involved with healthcare".

Okay, but why. Why do you think that's a bad thing?

The idea that everything should be private and the government should not be involved in anything has been very effectively sold in the United States for years.
Click to expand...
It's that mistrust of government that has been a selling point to mask greed for so long. The straw man in the room.

Yet, when there is a disaster - a flood, a hurricane, or whatever - they instantly turn to government, not their blessed private sector.

The takeover of religion in the United States by money interests also contributes.

I was in a room many years ago where privately, Michael Bloomberg said "There are some things so big that only government can do them." - maybe not a popular position in America, but very true.
 
I recently read that the #1 reason in the US people go bankrupt is medical bills and expenses. That's staggering and sad.
I can offer a personal story about it:
A few years ago a close friend of mine was beaten nearly to death by an acquaintance. He was lucky he didn't die, but since he was never unconscious he was able to call 911 after the assailant stormed off and before he bled to death. They got the guy, and he did some time in jail, but was let out and put on probation. He was ordered to pay 180K in restitution but instead works for cash under the table and has no intention of paying the money. Meanwhile my friend is still being garnished weekly for the six figures he owes for the care given while on death's door. He's in his 50s and now and has lasting eyesight damage and other complications from the beating. Now after a hospitalization from Covid he will most definitely be in medical debt for the rest of his life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top