U.S. Politics Thread

[Netto Azure]

People also tend to not realize how heterogeneous the parties were before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. The "Southern Strategy" adopted by Nixon and the Republicans, alongside the rise of Reagan and Neoliberalism in the 80's pretty much exacerbated the ideological sorting of the parties.

People might argue that both parties are the same, but there are glaring differences in beliefs between them nowadays.

[Heibi]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Yes, Democrats used to stand for racism, this is public knowledge.

It is also public knowledge that Republicans have successfully wrestled the racism vote from them later on, intentionally, and as such I fail to see your argument. Saying Democrats used to be Racist is pointless, when your suggestion is that it is equivalent to be racist TODAY.

The Democrats today are more of a quiet racist party now. Look at what the policies they have advocated have destroyed the African American family and community. The Democrats give the equivalent of handouts to the African American community in hopes of maintaining a voting block that they try to keep uneducated and ignorant of what they can really achieve in the US - if they'd only stop blindly voting Democrat. And any African American who sides with the GOP is instantly labeled an Uncle Tom. Luckily many are starting to realize that the wool has been pulled over their eyes and are starting to question such blind obedience to the Democrats.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by germanturkey

lets start with foreign policy. his desire to fulfill his campaign promise of get troops out and no more war etc. backfired horribly in the middle east. the power vacuum formed by rapidly withdrawing troops allowed ISIS to do its its thing, which is now a bigger problem than Iraq initially was. but obama's desire to appease his (radially shrinking) fan base is what spurred ISIS' rising.

I agree with the 1st point, but as for the last point about "fan base", let's be fair: even the vast majority of the Conservative (seen on foxnews message board) want to get the troops out. At least until the ISIS executed an American on screen, even the conservative by and large don't care about the mess left over there and wanted to get the troops out. But of course, their reasoning for that is different from the left.

which leads me to a second question: how many people here would actively want to pay for someone else's medical care? like if you could individually sponsor someone else's medical needs, would you (on your current pay)? no? thought so.

As a libertarian myself, I understand the sentiment. But again, let's be fair: The majority of developed nations have nationalized healthcare in some way, and over 50% of the people there supported them (Japan, UK, France, German, Canada, etc). And as a Canadian myself, I can confirm that majority of Canadians do support it in general despite common complain about long wait time.

So statistically speaking, they ain't hard to find. Their actual mindset may not be all that charitable of course, but as long as they don't dodge taxes, you can't really accuse them of being hypocrites. Your question is purely about giving, when NHC is about give and take, for alot of people. (minus the choice part for those against it )

[MeoTwister5]

What exactly is it that abhors people with the idea of any sort of program that aims to help with the help care needs of their fellow human beings? As a medical practitioner in a third world country even the poorest of the poor actively help each other with health expenses and I've found myself more than once having to pay for some of the medical costs of my patients. Is it some sort of me myself and I mentality over there because here sometimes it's automatic in families and close circles.

[Ithekro]

It seems more based on the idea that people are getting away with what could be called stealing from the government via various government programs. The idea that someone else could effectively not do anything and yet get the benefits from your earned dollars is what turns people off towards any program that gets called a handout.

The idea that a person or family can not work at all and yet make more money with more benefits than someone working part-time for minimum wage (which is about all one can get most of the time due to companies not wanting to pay benefits for full time employees) is what seems wrong to people. It poisons the programs in the minds of many people even if said programs are beneficial for more than are just riding along and playing the system (check these boxes in and get free stuff). There are classes and programs that tell you how to get government money you may or may not be entitled to get, and some people play that so they don't have to work a job.

That seems to be a First World problem.

[Urzu 7]

It is bogus that a lot of people who are so opposed to welfare will on the other hand defend the very wealthy and ultra wealthy. "Give them tax breaks! Don't tax them more, it's their money, it wouldn't be fair!" Yeah, let's go easy on the people who are rich and have much more than enough money to get by but let's be totally hard on low income people who struggle to get by, some of them struggling to support their families. These people get so bent out of shape because *some* of these people play the system...but they don't bat an eye when very wealthy and ultra wealthy people play the damn system! Many rich people will play around with technicalities in tax laws and use the loops holes so that they save lots of money or even don't lose any money (some even make money?) without breaking the law. THAT is playing the system. Or what about these rich punks who put all their money into the Cayman Islands because it is a tax haven? So these people can play the system and it is cool, but we should gut welfare because some people play the system.. smh

And then you got these religious nutjobs quoting the bible about why we shouldn't have food stamps for people. Some verse about "whoever doesn't work in a day should not eat for that day". Who cares what the context of the verse is, these idiots take it and use it in arguments against welfare and food stamps. Typical of so many Christians in this country to pick and choose what they like from the bible in order to judge and condemn any people they don't like, or act and be in any way they wish to be. While these people will use that bible verse to condemn welfare, something that is really quite charitable (a Christian virtue), they never seem to on the other hand go after the rich (like I was talking about) or corporations, which are out of control. What about the bible verses "it is harder for a rich man to make it into Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle" or "the love of money is the root of many kinds of evil"? Naw, Christians would rather not focus on those verses and how it applies to so much corruption in America today. They'll turn a blind eye to how greed has caused so much immorality in America and instead target gays and bis and treat them like they are the worst sinners there are or say liberals have declared war on Christmas or some such.

Speaking of the 'war on Christmas'...it started way before people started saying "Happy Holidays". Capitalism declared war on Christmas...and won. People want to call this a Christian nation and whine about a 'war on Christmas' because some people say "Happy Holidays" or schools put up trees and call them "Holiday Trees" and don't even realize that American businesses and corporation declared war on Christmas and won long ago. They take this second most important Christian holiday and make it very secular. They made it become, first and foremost and by a large margin, about consumerism and material goods.

[Ithekro]

Some prefer their charity be something voluntary, rather than state (or church for that matter) mandated.

As for the rich and tax loopholes. People complain about that too. Sometimes the same people, because they don't want higher taxes to pay for welfare programs, but also want the rich to pay quivalent to what they they rest of the taxpayers are paying (percentage wise).

These are usually also the people that don't want to give the government anymore money because the governement is considered wasteful and can't seem to balance its budget. The argument (if I recall it right) was, "if I fail to balance my budget I could lose a lot more and even end up in jail. If the government does that, it asks for a raise (taxes) and loses more money on even more programs it can't afford. And they just keep adding programs without getting rid of the old ones, increasing the lose of money." At least that is how it goes last I heard.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Some prefer their charity be something voluntary, rather than state (or church for that matter) mandated.

As for the rich and tax loopholes. People complain about that too. Sometimes the same people, because they don't want higher taxes to pay for welfare programs, but also want the rich to pay quivalent to what they they rest of the taxpayers are paying (percentage wise).

These are usually also the people that don't want to give the government anymore money because the governement is considered wasteful and can't seem to balance its budget. The argument (if I recall it right) was, "if I fail to balance my budget I could lose a lot more and even end up in jail. If the government does that, it asks for a raise (taxes) and loses more money on even more programs it can't afford. And they just keep adding programs without getting rid of the old ones, increasing the lose of money." At least that is how it goes last I heard.

I remember this conversation with a civil servant :

She : But they are spending it on you!
Me : You mean on our votes.
*cue flak thereafter*

I broke a very important rule that day : never argue with a woman.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Some prefer their charity be something voluntary, rather than state (or church for that matter) mandated.

Yeah, but it is weird that is such a big deal to some Americans. Like some have said in this thread, people from other countries than the U.S., they help support others and their healthcare needs (collectively) and people don't really begrudge it, as someone said. A lot of Americans just feel like "I have 'mine', I don't care if others don't".

Originally Posted by Ithekro

As for the rich and tax loopholes. People complain about that too. Sometimes the same people, because they don't want higher taxes to pay for welfare programs, but also want the rich to pay quivalent to what they they rest of the taxpayers are paying (percentage wise).

Yes, some of them will complain about the rich playing the system. I did say that 'a lot' of people won't be hard on the rich while being hard on those on welfare, but did not say all of them are like that. I'd say there are many who are like that and many who are not. How proportional things are, I couldn't tell you.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Yeah, but it is weird that is such a big deal to some Americans. Like some have said in this thread, people from other countries than the U.S., they help support others and their healthcare needs (collectively) and people don't really begrudge it, as someone said. A lot of Americans just feel like "I have 'mine', I don't care if others don't".

It's a matter of what you're used to, I guess. They mostly don't mind paying for other people's basic education, police or firefighting.

[Ithekro]

Some Americans have the feeling they earned what money they have and are just getting by (by American standards of course) and don't feel like handing any out because they don't think they have any to lose. They aren't always correct (because they are saving for the new car, or some other form of entertainment while also trying to keep the deby away), but they would rather hand out money on their own terms rather than have someone tell them what they "must" do with their money.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Yeah, but it is weird that is such a big deal to some Americans. Like some have said in this thread, people from other countries than the U.S., they help support others and their healthcare needs (collectively) and people don't really begrudge it, as someone said. A lot of Americans just feel like "I have 'mine', I don't care if others don't".

A lot of it comes from the fact that many people here understand that one simple disease can become the difference between life and death for a poor as dirt family. I've seen stroke patients come in a whole month after their first symptoms, the time when you can barely do anything for them anymore. But when it hits, communities help their fellows and charitable organizations mobilize to do what they can. Even them most of the time the funding is still not enough, but at the least lessens the impact if not outright reverse the patient's condition.

And speaking of rich people, a lot of the local rich here are very supportive of charitable healthcare institutions because many of them are what you could call new rich, people who have also lived through poverty and have not forgotten how much it crushes your spirit.

The Philippines as it stands cannot realistically support universal health care, although now at the very least anyone above 65 are automatically coevered by government health insurance. You could ask any government doctor and they'll tell you how much they, and I being one of them, find jealousy in those countries with successful universal healthcare programs.

At least then we won't have to watch so many patients die everyday, with nothing to do for them because they can't afford even the most basic healthcare. Sometimes it's just heartbreaking.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Some Americans have the feeling they earned what money they have and are just getting by (by American standards of course) and don't feel like handing any out because they don't think they have any to lose. They aren't always correct (because they are saving for the new car, or some other form of entertainment while also trying to keep the deby away), but they would rather hand out money on their own terms rather than have someone tell them what they "must" do with their money.

One problem is how many who hate welfare are racial bigots who still buy the 'welfare queen' thing. A lot of them think most welfare recipients are African Americans, but the truth is that less than 25% are African American, less than 25% are Latino or Hispanic, and 48% are white...

@MeoTwister: It is nice that, although your country can't afford UHC, that many of your fellow citizens still believe in trying to be charitable to less fortunate people when it comes to health care.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Some Americans have the feeling they earned what money they have and are just getting by (by American standards of course) and don't feel like handing any out because they don't think they have any to lose. They aren't always correct (because they are saving for the new car, or some other form of entertainment while also trying to keep the deby away), but they would rather hand out money on their own terms rather than have someone tell them what they "must" do with their money.

That's only because they don't notice how much help they are receiving from the government. Many Americans simply live in a myth that they are self-sufficient and depend on nobody. That reminded me of that guy on TV who said "I was on food stamps. Nobody helped me".

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Some prefer their charity be something voluntary, rather than state (or church for that matter) mandated.

As for the rich and tax loopholes. People complain about that too. Sometimes the same people, because they don't want higher taxes to pay for welfare programs, but also want the rich to pay quivalent to what they they rest of the taxpayers are paying (percentage wise).

These are usually also the people that don't want to give the government anymore money because the governement is considered wasteful and can't seem to balance its budget. The argument (if I recall it right) was, "if I fail to balance my budget I could lose a lot more and even end up in jail. If the government does that, it asks for a raise (taxes) and loses more money on even more programs it can't afford. And they just keep adding programs without getting rid of the old ones, increasing the lose of money." At least that is how it goes last I heard.

Yeah well fuck them.

The notion that the richest country in the world cannot take care of its poor, its weak, its sick and its suffering is morally repugnant. The notion that it is unwilling to do so because of selfishness and stubbornly racist and classist notions of those who need the assistance is utterly repugnant.

And even if we take the moral question out of the picture, public health policies that takes away the worry of cost from the patient are absolutely the golden standard. Prevention, early detection, patient commitment and continuous care, significant cost- and life-saving measures, all depend on removing the financial and social barrier to access care. Yes, wisdom saves money. And lives.

This isn't some brand new frontier. The U.S. is not unfamiliar with large scale public health measures, or subsidies -- which are needlessly complicated precisely because there is no single universal system. Medicare/Medicaid effectively serve as national insurances for two high need populations. The flu shot is a massive success in reducing rates of influenza, and the cost of care thereof (not to mention rates of fatality among the most vulnerable populations) and it's all free -- for the patient -- wisely subsidized so that a poor person or family doesn't have to worry about paying for the shot.

Hell, the U.S. is -world leader- (as it should be, 'Murica) in the fight against AIDs. Do you know the U.S. government completely subsidizes ARV drugs which not only allow HIV-positive people to live nearly normal lives, but massively reduce the rates of infection? Science indicates that the earlier HIV positive people take these drugs, the likelier they are that the virus becomes effectively undetectable -- preventing it to "get a beachhead" and significantly decreases the risk of adverse health effects and infections. Even more surprisingly, ARVs allow for healthy partners of HIV-positive people to avoid infections if they take it about 1-3 days before or after exposure.

And, with San Francisco leading the way in implementation measures, of which the cornerstone would be, "you don't have to pay," the public policy is following the sciences.

These drugs are absurdly expensive. Nobody but the filthiest of the filthy rich can afford them without going bankrupt -- if the U.S. government has not had the wisdom to fight the epidemic head-on, by making it so that people who need it don't have to think about the cost. Are those people welfare queens? Should we tell them to fuck off and pay for their own drugs? They're often gay, so you can even say it's their own moral fault (while snickering about "queens")!

If you are honest with where you really stand, you will say yes, because that's what is being outlined in these beliefs. And you will have one million people die and five million people more in the U.S. alone infected on your watch. You bear their deaths on your precious taxpayer hands, darling.

Or maybe, just maybe, the fight against AIDs -- a single dramatic, outlier case that costs a few aircraft carriers' worth (other public health policies tend to cost "a bit" less per patient) -- is a display of what the U.S. is really capable of, when it is at its moral best, when it is ready and willing to implement effective social policies, when it accepts the science and the wisdom behind removing the stress and factor of cost from those who are least ready to bear it. It's not even a liberal measure. President Bush was the person who committed the U.S. all-in to the massive, worldwide fight against AIDs. Of the things that man did right, his moral strength to throw the U.S. head-on into that fight was one of his greatest legacies.

[Archon_Wing]

Silly lazy poor people always wanting their entitlements. If they actually pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, forming lobbies and buying politicians off while saturating the waves with their propaganda, they'd be able to succeed and gain subsidies and tax cuts. Those are totally not entitlements; those are subsidies which are well deserved because you have enough lawyers. Poor people need to work harder to keep the rich people rich. That's the American way after all. This is why we need to bail out huge businesses for being irresponsible and lazy because it will save America, and not bail out that guy on welfare because he is irresponsible and lazy because poor people suck. Indeed, we could solve world hunger by throwing the poor people into a meat grinder and feeding the rest of the poor with it.

In all seriousness, the tendency to associate poverty and needing help with moral decadence is pretty gross. It certainly craps on those that do work hard just to stay alive and ignores whatever issues in life that they had to handle like disease and disasters. But of course, in this country, one is always on their own and the same generic thing is said to everyone-- and you'll get shit like telling a guy with no legs to run as long as he tried a bit harder. It's his fault all the same though.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Speaking of the 'war on Christmas'...it started way before people started saying "Happy Holidays". Capitalism declared war on Christmas...and won. People want to call this a Christian nation and whine about a 'war on Christmas' because some people say "Happy Holidays" or schools put up trees and call them "Holiday Trees" and don't even realize that American businesses and corporation declared war on Christmas and won long ago. They take this second most important Christian holiday and make it very secular. They made it become, first and foremost and by a large margin, about consumerism and material goods.

I remember, as a child, what was probably* the first fictional work that made me think about the issue of economic inequalities, and the importance of helping the poor.

That fictional work was Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". The story of a cold and miserly wealthy man who learned that there's more to life than making money, and that there's value in generosity, peace, and goodwill to all. As a teenager, I acted as Ebeneezer Scrooge in a class Christmas play, and it's one of my fondest teenage memories. Every December, there's a lot of charitable activity in and around my local community, much in the spirit of the classic Dickens tale. I try to take part in it a little bit at least.

I'm not American, so I can't speak much to what's true in America. But I will say that at least where I live, capitalism did not defeat Christmas. And if America is lacking in caring for the poor, it might be good if Christmas classics like A Christmas Carol and How The Grinch Stole Christmas were promoted more during this time of year. They can have an impact on people.


*The original Annie and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movies were other fictional works that influenced my view of the poor.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Silly lazy poor people always wanting their entitlements. If they actually pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, forming lobbies and buying politicians off while saturating the waves with their propaganda, they'd be able to succeed and gain subsidies and tax cuts. Those are totally not entitlements; those are subsidies which are well deserved because you have enough lawyers. Poor people need to work harder to keep the rich people rich. That's the American way after all. This is why we need to bail out huge businesses for being irresponsible and lazy because it will save America, and not bail out that guy on welfare because he is irresponsible and lazy because poor people suck. Indeed, we could solve world hunger by throwing the poor people into a meat grinder and feeding the rest of the poor with it.

In all seriousness, the tendency to associate poverty and needing help with moral decadence is pretty gross. It certainly craps on those that do work hard just to stay alive and ignores whatever issues in life that they had to handle like disease and disasters. But of course, in this country, one is always on their own and the same generic thing is said to everyone-- and you'll get shit like telling a guy with no legs to run as long as he tried a bit harder. It's his fault all the same though.

American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress.

[Xellos-_^]

i posted that a few years ago.

in all seriousness, i think the middle class does need it is own lobbyist.

[Hiss13]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i posted that a few years ago.

in all seriousness, i think the middle class does need it is own lobbyist.

If the middle class gets its own lobbyist, Fox News will call communism. Fox News calls anything that helps anyone who is poorer than them communism.

Frankly, what we really need is to make it so that lobbyists hold much less power than they do nowadays. That's the permanent solution. Giving the middle class its own lobbyists is nothing more than a small patch for a larger problem.