What Is Wrong With America ?

[House]

WHAT about if you got into a bad car accident and became paralyzed from the neck down, and you required personal/medical care 24/7, for the rest of your life ? First thing that will happen ? If you have private insurance, they will drop you like a hot potato. Unless you have VA coverage, you'll be screwed (without the ACA)

As for the patriot Act, I doubt if any of us really knows what would have happened since 9/11 if it hadn't been enacted. I doubt if we know what terrorist attacks it has prevented. A lot of this stuff takes place behind the scenes, and is hard to assess.
I do know that I have not been negatively impacted by the Patriot act since its inception.

Right, because clearly that situation has left millions of people screwed over the past couple hundred years without MalpracticeCare because there was no Medicaid, MediCare, or Hospice.

Enjoy the delicious sarcasm.

Herp. Derp.

As for TPA, there are hundreds of shining examples of abuse of power since its inception. I don't need to expound on its corruption, it's obvious to anyone that actually cares to do their due diligence.

I don't see the connection between your first paragraph and mine. Could you please answer the question >> "WHAT about if you got into a bad car accident and became paralyzed from the neck down, and you required personal/medical care 24/7, for the rest of your life ?"

If there are "hundreds of shining examples of abuse of power since the inception of the Patriot Act, then you shouldn't have a problem with citing a few here, right. So please do (with links please)

PS - at the same time, maybe you could note some of the helpful examples of the PA.

If you don't see the connection between our first paragraphs, I don't see a reason to break it down all first grader style; and if you're too lazy to do a simple Google search for TPA abuse, I'm too lazy to bother doing your research for you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Trying to blame the corruption all on "rich people" as a class
is as smallminded and wrongful as trying to blame crime on "poor people" as a class.
There are as many "rich people as poor people" who get robbed or cheated of their
labor by the people committing crime and corruption.

The problem is the people who commit crime or corruption
aren't required to pay back restitution, so the state creates jobs and makes
money off the problems instead of capitalizing on solutions.

If we started rewarding Constitutional enforcement and good civil conduct
with citizenship, and started revoking or fining people for crimes and violations
until the debts/damages/restitution is paid back, maybe we'd see more consistent
standards as well as a sustainable economy instead of paying more for crime
and corruption than we do for lawful behavior.

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

 

[dcraelin]

Getting paid a pension you were promised is not welfare. Getting paid the SS checks you paid for, is not welfare.

Welfare is getting paid based on need alone.

No, I would not be ok with a tax designed to force the wealthy to pay for the debt accrued by the entire country and current retirees. Again, asking someone else to pay your debts because they happen to have more income or assets than you is abhorrent.

the average retiree has not paid in near enough to cover what they get in benefits. I believe I've read on average its less than 30% of the cost.

we live in a market system and compensation is largely based on supply and demand. "Abhorrent"? You put way to much moral emotion into this, its just practicality.

I wonder if that calculation has taken decades of inflation into account. Example - if a retiree received $900 this year from Social Security, that is equivalent to $114.36 in 1960.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

I believe what I saw compensated for inflation, tho I cant find the figures now. Did find that social security can only invest in government backed debt. Was set up when people didnt live as long and their were more workers per retiree in the system.

 

[protectionist]

the average retiree has not paid in near enough to cover what they get in benefits. I believe I've read on average its less than 30% of the cost.

we live in a market system and compensation is largely based on supply and demand. "Abhorrent"? You put way to much moral emotion into this, its just practicality.

A kid once sold a Micky Mantle baseball card to a pawn shop for $10. The owner turned around and sold the card for $50,000 to a collector. The parents of the kid cried foul, the pawn owner replied "Ain't my ******* problem, a voluntary deal was made."

What you claim is mostly false, but also irrelevant. The federal government forces a mandatory requirement on the population. Those who pay in have fulfilled their requirement. IF the government loses money on the deal, it an't my ******* problem. And it SURE THE **** isn't welfare. The government sold a product, by force. If they fucked up and priced it wrong, it's their problem.

so your comparing taxpayers being ripped off to a greedy pawn shop owner taking advantage of an uninformed kid?

Not to minimize your (OK) post, but I've heard even worse comparisons.

 

[dcraelin]

Getting paid a pension you were promised is not welfare. Getting paid the SS checks you paid for, is not welfare.
Welfare is getting paid based on need alone.
No, I would not be ok with a tax designed to force the wealthy to pay for the debt accrued by the entire country and current retirees. Again, asking someone else to pay your debts because they happen to have more income or assets than you is abhorrent.

the average retiree has not paid in near enough to cover what they get in benefits. I believe I've read on average its less than 30% of the cost.
we live in a market system and compensation is largely based on supply and demand. "Abhorrent"? You put way to much moral emotion into this, its just practicality.

Theft at the point of a gun is not "practicality." If someone comes to your home and walks off with the food in your freezer, or your car that you need to drive to work, is that "practicality?" We make out like taking a % of someone's income is just the way it is, but when the money is taken from peter to pay paul it's no different than a felonious assault. We just white wash it and call it tax and spending policies.
When you look at the SS/Medicare stuff the bottom quintile get more out than they put in, the second quintile breaks even. The third quintile may or may not break even based on how many years they live past the average. The fourth quin-tile gets royally screwed over and the upper quintile gets a tax exemption preventing him from being more screwed over than the fourth quintile.

Isnt there something in the bible about it being hard for rich men to get into heaven?

Perhaps you should look at it this way, the government is just trying to make sure you make it into heaven.

 

[protectionist]

Right, because clearly that situation has left millions of people screwed over the past couple hundred years without MalpracticeCare because there was no Medicaid, MediCare, or Hospice.

Enjoy the delicious sarcasm.

Herp. Derp.

As for TPA, there are hundreds of shining examples of abuse of power since its inception. I don't need to expound on its corruption, it's obvious to anyone that actually cares to do their due diligence.

I don't see the connection between your first paragraph and mine. Could you please answer the question >> "WHAT about if you got into a bad car accident and became paralyzed from the neck down, and you required personal/medical care 24/7, for the rest of your life ?"

If there are "hundreds of shining examples of abuse of power since the inception of the Patriot Act, then you shouldn't have a problem with citing a few here, right. So please do (with links please)

PS - at the same time, maybe you could note some of the helpful examples of the PA.

If you don't see the connection between our first paragraphs, I don't see a reason to break it down all first grader style; and if you're too lazy to do a simple Google search for TPA abuse, I'm too lazy to bother doing your research for you.

End result. You couldn't answer the question because you know that your original statement calling the ACA a "problem" with this country, has a major flaw. And that flaw is that YOU could NEED that ACA someday (maybe even tomorrow, anytime). Like I said, you get into a car accident, become a quardraplegic, your insurance co. dumps you as a liability, and you've got the ACA to fall back on. >> IF it's available. So there it is broken down for you- first grader style.

PS - having been in computer forums for 8 years, I can tell you that if you're adverse to providing sources (AKA being "too lazy" to do it), and backing up your words, you're not going to carry much credibility here (or in any forum)

PPS - Well, I'm not too lazy to provide a little meat on the bones of this subject. Here's a few good things about the Patriot Act >>> (WITH SOURCE LINKS)

1. Title III - This section of the Patriot Act is aimed at cutting off the financial support of terrorist groups. It has provisions requiring banks to take steps to prevent money laundering, allows law-enforcement agencies to gather information from banks and creates longer prison terms for money laundering and smuggling.

2. Title IV - This section has provisions intended to strengthen border security. It authorizes increased funding for border patrols, customs officials and immigration officials. Foreigners with ties to terrorist organizations are banned from entering the United States, and the monitoring of foreign students is expanded.

3. Title VI - contains provisions for providing financial compensation to victims of terrorism and their families.

4. Title VII - Authorization and budgeting for increased sharing of information between law-enforcement agencies and jurisdictions.

5. Title VIII - adds several crimes to the list of things considered acts of terrorism, including attacking a mass transit system, using a biological weapon, supporting terrorism and computer hacking. The penalties for terrorist crimes are also increased.

6. Title IX - This section creates a method for the sharing of national intelligence information between government agencies.

7. Title I - pertains to the protection of civil liberties. It authorizes federal money to accomplish much of the act's provisions and authorizes the Secret Service to create a nationwide electronic crime task force. This section also gives the president the authority to confiscate the property of any foreign person who is believed to have aided in a war or attack on the United States.

8. Title II - This section broadens the ability of law-enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance on "agents of foreign powers." It allows the interception of communications if they're related to terrorist activities and allows law-enforcement agencies to share information related to terrorist activities with federal authorities. Also authorizes roving surveillance -- that is, a court order allowing surveillance on a particular person allows officers to use any means available to intercept that person's communications, regardless of where the person goes. Previously, a court order would only allow a wiretap on a specific line in one location. if a target attempts to defeat surveillance by throwing away a phone and acquiring a new one, by moving, or by any other methods, another surveillance order would usually need to be applied for. However, a "roving" wiretap follows the target, and defeats the target's attempts at breaking the surveillance by changing location or their communications technology.Further, it allows the government to order files from the providers of communications services with details about specific customers' use of the service. For example, an Internet service provider can be ordered to provide information on IP addresses, login times and sites visited.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/patriot-act.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roving_wiretap

 

[protectionist]

Trying to blame the corruption all on "rich people" as a class
is as smallminded and wrongful as trying to blame crime on "poor people" as a class.
There are as many "rich people as poor people" who get robbed or cheated of their
labor by the people committing crime and corruption.

The problem is the people who commit crime or corruption
aren't required to pay back restitution, so the state creates jobs and makes
money off the problems instead of capitalizing on solutions.

If we started rewarding Constitutional enforcement and good civil conduct
with citizenship, and started revoking or fining people for crimes and violations
until the debts/damages/restitution is paid back, maybe we'd see more consistent
standards as well as a sustainable economy instead of paying more for crime
and corruption than we do for lawful behavior.

Who said anything about corruption ? You just changed the subject. The OP is talking about the fact that rich people don't make qualified public officials, because they are not experienced with the day in and day out lives and problems of middle class and poor people. Simple as that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

so your comparing taxpayers being ripped off to a greedy pawn shop owner taking advantage of an uninformed kid?

No, I'm explaining why the demagoguery you employ is logically false and ethically corrupt. You seek to attack people who played by the rules because corrupt bureaucrats forced a system, over their objections on them.

The only "rip off" was by Franklin Roosevelt and the corrupt democrats who forced this Ponzi Scheme on the nation. Every retiree collecting Social Security earned every dime they get.

 

[dcraelin]

so your comparing taxpayers being ripped off to a greedy pawn shop owner taking advantage of an uninformed kid?

No, I'm explaining why the demagoguery you employ is logically false and ethically corrupt. You seek to attack people who played by the rules because corrupt bureaucrats forced a system, over their objections on them.

The only "rip off" was by Franklin Roosevelt and the corrupt democrats who forced this Ponzi Scheme on the nation. Every retiree collecting Social Security earned every dime they get.

sigh, its not "demagoguery", it not logically false, its not ethically corrupt. I'm not attacking these people I'm pointing out to you, who are so SO against welfare, that Social Security and medicare is really a type of welfare.

And it IS illogical, especially in the same paragraph, to say that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and then turn around and say every retiree earned every dime they get.

 

[Contumacious]

so your comparing taxpayers being ripped off to a greedy pawn shop owner taking advantage of an uninformed kid?

No, I'm explaining why the demagoguery you employ is logically false and ethically corrupt. You seek to attack people who played by the rules because corrupt bureaucrats forced a system, over their objections on them.

The only "rip off" was by Franklin Roosevelt and the corrupt democrats who forced this Ponzi Scheme on the nation. Every retiree collecting Social Security earned every dime they get.

sigh, its not "demagoguery", it not logically false, its not ethically corrupt. I'm not attacking these people I'm pointing out to you, who are so SO against welfare, that Social Security and medicare is really a type of welfare.

And it IS illogical, especially in the same paragraph, to say that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and then turn around and say every retiree earned every dime they get.

Social Security and Medicare are UNconstitutional socialist scams.

But guess what , Americans have been forced to "contribute" to the schemes. Are they wrong for trying to somehow retrieve their money??????

.

 

[Toro]

Typical Reaganist talking point. Trying to put words in peoples' mouths that tax the rich policies are really tax the middle class policies. HA HA. People would have to be pretty stupid to fall for that. Don't you guys ever come up with anything new ? Pheeeeww!!

One would have to be a complete moron to not agree with the point that the super rich have, quite literally, thousands of ways earn money that are not taxable as income. Income and capital gains taxes impact the upper middle class a helluva lot more than they do the billionaires.

Sounds like you would agree with me then that we should raise taxes ON THE RICH. Make the ways they get money TAXABLE. Do what it takes. And close the loopholes, and keep closing new ones as they arise. This is part of what we're paying our legislators for. Let them earn their pay (and maybe their approval rates just might go up a bit)

I'm paying my legislator to keep those loopholes open!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Social Security and Medicare are UNconstitutional socialist scams.

But guess what , Americans have been forced to "contribute" to the schemes. Are they wrong for trying to somehow retrieve their money??????

.

They have government unions who want that money. It doesn't matter if these calls of "welfare" are a pile of shit, they want that money for their unions.

 

[House]

I don't see the connection between your first paragraph and mine. Could you please answer the question >> "WHAT about if you got into a bad car accident and became paralyzed from the neck down, and you required personal/medical care 24/7, for the rest of your life ?"

If there are "hundreds of shining examples of abuse of power since the inception of the Patriot Act, then you shouldn't have a problem with citing a few here, right. So please do (with links please)

PS - at the same time, maybe you could note some of the helpful examples of the PA.

If you don't see the connection between our first paragraphs, I don't see a reason to break it down all first grader style; and if you're too lazy to do a simple Google search for TPA abuse, I'm too lazy to bother doing your research for you.

End result. You couldn't answer the question because you know that your original statement calling the ACA a "problem" with this country, has a major flaw. And that flaw is that YOU could NEED that ACA someday (maybe even tomorrow, anytime).

Wrong, I actively refuse to participate in it. Obama's tax police can do wtf ever they want to me, I won't be a part of communist healthcare.

You can stop spouting that tired "people need it" bullshit anytime you want. There's nothing new or revolutionary about ACA except for insurance companies getting a bigger paycheck and taxpayers getting reamed harder by government & big business combined.

 

[dcraelin]

No, I'm explaining why the demagoguery you employ is logically false and ethically corrupt. You seek to attack people who played by the rules because corrupt bureaucrats forced a system, over their objections on them.
The only "rip off" was by Franklin Roosevelt and the corrupt democrats who forced this Ponzi Scheme on the nation. Every retiree collecting Social Security earned every dime they get.

sigh, its not "demagoguery", it not logically false, its not ethically corrupt. I'm not attacking these people I'm pointing out to you, who are so SO against welfare, that Social Security and medicare is really a type of welfare.

And it IS illogical, especially in the same paragraph, to say that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and then turn around and say every retiree earned every dime they get.

Social Security and Medicare are UNconstitutional socialist scams.
But guess what , Americans have been forced to "contribute" to the schemes. Are they wrong for trying to somehow retrieve their money??????
.

At the time the Constitution was written I think the majority of people would have welcomed the programs, as people did at the time of their implementation.

I didnt say people participating in the program are wrong, dont twist my words.

But they are doing much more than "trying to somehow retrieve their money", they are retrieving others peoples money along with their own. It is a bit hypocritical of you, if you accept payment from the program, to rail against unearned benefits and redistribution, which I suspect you do.

 

[Bombur]

No, I'm explaining why the demagoguery you employ is logically false and ethically corrupt. You seek to attack people who played by the rules because corrupt bureaucrats forced a system, over their objections on them.

The only "rip off" was by Franklin Roosevelt and the corrupt democrats who forced this Ponzi Scheme on the nation. Every retiree collecting Social Security earned every dime they get.

sigh, its not "demagoguery", it not logically false, its not ethically corrupt. I'm not attacking these people I'm pointing out to you, who are so SO against welfare, that Social Security and medicare is really a type of welfare.

And it IS illogical, especially in the same paragraph, to say that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and then turn around and say every retiree earned every dime they get.

Social Security and Medicare are UNconstitutional socialist scams.

But guess what , Americans have been forced to "contribute" to the schemes. Are they wrong for trying to somehow retrieve their money??????

.

So the Supreme Court ruled them "UNconstitutional"?

Or are you one of those internet Constitutional scholars that knows better than everyone else?

 

[RKMBrown]

Typical Reaganist talking point. Trying to put words in peoples' mouths that tax the rich policies are really tax the middle class policies. HA HA. People would have to be pretty stupid to fall for that. Don't you guys ever come up with anything new ? Pheeeeww!!

One would have to be a complete moron to not agree with the point that the super rich have, quite literally, thousands of ways earn money that are not taxable as income. Income and capital gains taxes impact the upper middle class a helluva lot more than they do the billionaires.

Sounds like you would agree with me then that we should raise taxes ON THE RICH. Make the ways they get money TAXABLE. Do what it takes. And close the loopholes, and keep closing new ones as they arise. This is part of what we're paying our legislators for. Let them earn their pay (and maybe their approval rates just might go up a bit)

NO! Most certainly not! IMO we should all pay the same tax rates for the same items.

I see so we should eliminate all tax shelters like say Bill Gate's Charity Foundation. This to increase the amount of taxes we get from him. Is that your point?

Bill not dumb he'd just buy an island and leave you tax and spenders.

 

[RKMBrown]

the average retiree has not paid in near enough to cover what they get in benefits. I believe I've read on average its less than 30% of the cost.
we live in a market system and compensation is largely based on supply and demand. "Abhorrent"? You put way to much moral emotion into this, its just practicality.

Theft at the point of a gun is not "practicality." If someone comes to your home and walks off with the food in your freezer, or your car that you need to drive to work, is that "practicality?" We make out like taking a % of someone's income is just the way it is, but when the money is taken from peter to pay paul it's no different than a felonious assault. We just white wash it and call it tax and spending policies.
When you look at the SS/Medicare stuff the bottom quintile get more out than they put in, the second quintile breaks even. The third quintile may or may not break even based on how many years they live past the average. The fourth quin-tile gets royally screwed over and the upper quintile gets a tax exemption preventing him from being more screwed over than the fourth quintile.

Isnt there something in the bible about it being hard for rich men to get into heaven?

Perhaps you should look at it this way, the government is just trying to make sure you make it into heaven.

1) I don't worship my government...
2) I doubt seriously that god will see my taxes stolen by force as tithes given freely to his church.
3) There's also a part in there that talks about casting pearls before swine.

"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." Matthew 7:6 in Jesus' sermon on the mount.

 

[RKMBrown]

the average retiree has not paid in near enough to cover what they get in benefits. I believe I've read on average its less than 30% of the cost.

we live in a market system and compensation is largely based on supply and demand. "Abhorrent"? You put way to much moral emotion into this, its just practicality.

Theft at the point of a gun is not "practicality." If someone comes to your home and walks off with the food in your freezer, or your car that you need to drive to work, is that "practicality?" We make out like taking a % of someone's income is just the way it is, but when the money is taken from peter to pay paul it's no different than a felonious assault. We just white wash it and call it tax and spending policies.

When you look at the SS/Medicare stuff the bottom quintile get more out than they put in, the second quintile breaks even. The third quintile may or may not break even based on how many years they live past the average. The fourth quin-tile gets royally screwed over and the upper quintile gets a tax exemption preventing him from being more screwed over than the fourth quintile.

Someday you may BE that "Paul". Then what ?

Can't happen. I maxed out my SS/Medicare payments before I turned 35. I'm 50 now and have now paid well over 2times into SS/Medicare what I would receive if I lived to a ninety. I suppose if I retire early and live to 120-140 years old it might happen, but only because the dumb asses don't earn interest on my deposits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you tuned in ? Did those poor people spend their money in a country which was foreign TO THEM ? (or in their own country)

The lived in this country and rarely spoke the language of the country they shopped in, so you tell me.

So you're saying most of the poor people you grew up around, lived in the USA and spent their money in a foreign country ?

It was a simpler time, ti was actually possible to walk to a foreign country, do your shopping, and walk back, all without getting hassled about having the proper papers.

 

[RKMBrown]

What gives you the idea that I can't discern that difference? And why are you talking to me about paying people to not work ? Did I ever say I liked that idea ? Fact is, I hate it, and it's one of the reasons why I'm so adamant against illegal immigration (have you been reading this thread ?)

As for paying people based on need, I don't see that as an issue of conservative vs liberal, as long as the needy people getting the $$ really need it, can't help themselves, and are AMERICANS. If you have a gripe with that, then just wait until YOU become one of them someday, and then you can talk. See Post # 890 (first paragraph).

As for me lying about being a conservative, HA HA. That's a good one. The liberals in this forum whom I've been fighting tooth and nail in my other OPS, must be gagging right about now, having heard you say that. LOL.

Clearly, you can't make up your mind. First you say you are against welfare based on need (FYI: based on need is not based on work), then you say you are for welfare based on need if they really need it. Uhm... hello! Anyone in there? Adding the adjective "really" for emphasis does not change the fact that you are caving in to welfare based on need, in translation, you are paying people to not work if they really need it.

The definition of "really needing help in this country" is you don't have a job. So quit your job and we'll pay you to stay out of work. As far as extra bonus checks such as for disability, most of the people on disability are scamming the system. Note: I don't count people who are collecting insurance for injuries encountered on the job the same as people who are collecting disability from our government for social and behavioral problems they are not insured for. I don't care how much people need help, our government should not be used as a charity organization. Leave charity to charities. Charity should be voluntary not done at the point of a gun through government re-distributions.