President & Politics

[DarkRange55]

Just some thoughts…

Presidents generally reflect the general moral and demographic imperative. The president is a reflection.

Politics is all about self interest. If you make a lot of money you probably don't want to pay a lot of taxes. If you're poor, you probably want the government to help you out, to help you get more money. Everybody's after their own self interest.

I've always liked the analogy Democrat versus Republican is like fast food getting a soft or hardshell taco where the filling is all the same, but the rapper is the only difference.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Obviously the Executive Branch is more than just the president. There's a lot more that goes on behind the scenes. The president does have too much power as it is already. Technically, the presidents only real focus should be foreign affairs and the military, and they shouldn't even be suggesting legislation.
I think the Senate should go the way of the House of Lords and become more ornamental because the House of Representatives is more direct democracy.

Absolute power has its benefits in very specific situations like national emergencies, stuff like that but in general absolute power probably isn't the best thing.

I do believe that some form of government is needed and I have no problem with paying some taxes to fund some universal needs. I like maintaining roads, providing basic needs like some form of healthcare, general law enforcement for protection from theft and violence things of that nature. But there is a limit. I don't think that laws should govern anything that doesn't hurt anyone else. Politics however in its present form is bullshit. Although I will admit that like it or not some form of politics is probably necessary for government to function.

You know, one thing I hate about political races? Trump, Biden, Hilary. And other countries, I sometimes watch debate. They never talk about this stuff. Maybe they hit on testing and vaguely educational concepts. Most of the stuff they talk about is war. Which is destruction. Sometimes it's necessary. But is that really what you wanna base a civilization on? Massive conversations about war? They talk about tax cuts. It's not tax cuts you need, it's the appropriate direction of the funds. You can keep the taxes the same or higher or lower. It's efficiency. It's just like giving someone a million dollars from a VC (venture capital) fund. Some people waste the million bucks. And some people build a billion dollar company from it. It's the efficiency. It's know what to do with the money that matters. So all this talk about raising and lowering, come on. You really think that's the primarily indicator of country's greatness? I can show prosperous countries with high taxes, like up in Scandinavia, where I just was. And I can find you basically zero tax countries like Dubai, where I briefly lived. You know, the UAE has basically no tax. It's not really the tax that matters that much.

In my opinion it's not about reducing wealth inequality through taxes specifically, it's about using the surplus of money from actually taxing the wealthy to enrich our schools and infrastructure which just gives people a better shot at life in general.
Old families (I can personally attest to this) have already made it near impossible to compete, in fact they bought and rigged the system to make sure.

 

[noname223]

Just some thoughts…

Presidents generally reflect the general moral and demographic imperative. The president is a reflection.

Politics is all about self interest. If you make a lot of money you probably don't want to pay a lot of taxes. If you're poor, you probably want the government to help you out, to help you get more money. Everybody's after their own self interest.

I've always liked the analogy Democrat versus Republican is like fast food getting a soft or hardshell taco where the filling is all the same, but the rapper is the only difference.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Obviously the Executive Branch is more than just the president. There's a lot more that goes on behind the scenes. The president does have too much power as it is already. Technically, the presidents only real focus should be foreign affairs and the military, and they shouldn't even be suggesting legislation.
I think the Senate should go the way of the House of Lords and become more ornamental because the House of Representatives is more direct democracy.

Absolute power has its benefits in very specific situations like national emergencies, stuff like that but in general absolute power probably isn't the best thing.

I do believe that some form of government is needed and I have no problem with paying some taxes to fund some universal needs. I like maintaining roads, providing basic needs like some form of healthcare, general law enforcement for protection from theft and violence things of that nature. But there is a limit. I don't think that laws should govern anything that doesn't hurt anyone else. Politics however in its present form is bullshit. Although I will admit that like it or not some form of politics is probably necessary for government to function.

You know, one thing I hate about political races? Trump, Biden, Hilary. And other countries, I sometimes watch debate. They never talk about this stuff. Maybe they hit on testing and vaguely educational concepts. Most of the stuff they talk about is war. Which is destruction. Sometimes it's necessary. But is that really what you wanna base a civilization on? Massive conversations about war? They talk about tax cuts. It's not tax cuts you need, it's the appropriate direction of the funds. You can keep the taxes the same or higher or lower. It's efficiency. It's just like giving someone a million dollars from a VC (venture capital) fund. Some people waste the million bucks. And some people build a billion dollar company from it. It's the efficiency. It's know what to do with the money that matters. So all this talk about raising and lowering, come on. You really think that's the primarily indicator of country's greatness? I can show prosperous countries with high taxes, like up in Scandinavia, where I just was. And I can find you basically zero tax countries like Dubai, where I briefly lived. You know, the UAE has basically no tax. It's not really the tax that matters that much.

In my opinion it's not about reducing wealth inequality through taxes specifically, it's about using the surplus of money from actually taxing the wealthy to enrich our schools and infrastructure which just gives people a better shot at life in general.
Old families (I can personally attest to this) have already made it near impossible to compete, in fact they bought and rigged the system to make sure.

About the last paragraph. Doesn't it need a good social net while trying to increase the social mobility? One would need massive fundamental changes of the US system so that it gives people a better shot in life. However, the imbalance is that strong and rigged in favor of the rich that it would need decades to reach that goal. The reform process would need a lot of time and there would be many setbacks. Moreover, noone could promise they finally reach that goal. In the meantime there is a need for a strong social safety net in my opinion.

There would be needed so many reforms that it seems utopian to reach this goal because many developments go in the wrong direction currently. For example the opiod pandemic in the US. If you have the wrong condition and the wrong doctors you are simply fucked. It is not your own mistake that got you into this predicament. In the US you can go bankrupt for medical bills. It is a joke. People are avoiding medical examinations because they fear to pay money for it. While it costs way more if the cancer is not recognized in an early state. It is worse for the individual and for the society if the medical industry works that way. The systemic issues are obvious.

And this is only one example. If you have bad luck in the US you are fucked and in many instances the system is flawed not the individual. This is at least my European perspective. This is also why I think social mobility is as important as a strong social safety net. Life is a lottery or Russian roulette which ever metaphor you prefer. The inequality is also bad for the political polarization. It helps to divide and conquer the masses.

 

[DarkRange55]

About the last paragraph. Doesn't it need a good social net while trying to increase the social mobility? One would need massive fundamental changes of the US system so that it gives people a better shot in life. However, the imbalance is that strong and rigged in favor of the rich that it would need decades to reach that goal. The reform process would need a lot of time and there would be many setbacks. Moreover, noone could promise they finally reach that goal. In the meantime there is a need for a strong social safety net in my opinion.

There would be needed so many reforms that it seems utopian to reach this goal because many developments go in the wrong direction currently. For example the opiod pandemic in the US. If you have the wrong condition and the wrong doctors you are simply fucked. It is not your own mistake that got you into this predicament. In the US you can go bankrupt for medical bills. It is a joke. People are avoiding medical examinations because they fear to pay money for it. While it costs way more if the cancer is not recognized in an early state. It is worse for the individual and for the society if the medical industry works that way. The systemic issues are obvious.

And this is only one example. If you have bad luck in the US you are fucked and in many instances the system is flawed not the individual. This is at least my European perspective. This is also why I think social mobility is as important as a strong social safety net. Life is a lottery or Russian roulette which ever metaphor you prefer. The inequality is also bad for the political polarization. It helps to divide and conquer the masses.

Our medical system runs on medical fraud and insurance fraud. We have the A+++ best cream of the crop surgeons and doctors here.

If someone could put a proposal in front of me that gives us a way to make prices reasonable so that poor people can get fuckin' healthcare without the government having to offer healthcare to them, I'm all for that. If you can find a way to do that without the government having to introduce its own program, you can sell me on that. But that doesn't seem to be going down. The insurance companies are fucking evil. I think that they could find a way to pass new laws to regulate the way that insurance companies are run that would eliminate the need for a government program. Cost is outrageous. And you know that the cost on drugs is way more than it needs to be because now you can get all the generic versions of older drugs, more common drugs for almost nothing. So what's the excuse on all these newer drugs that they come out with? I don't think an insurance company should be able to fucking drop you because you get sick. Whats the point of health insurance if they won't pay for your health.

I feel somewhat biased against these social services being in the upper class, while they are great for the 50% or so of the population that doesn't get get access to good health insurance etc (Since you have to be dirt poor or a high earner to get good coverage in this country). My current insurance is probably better than what we would get for the government, so I selfishly still want the option for that. I really think it needs improvement but I really would want a hybrid system kinda like Germany.

I forgot the exact number but we spend the same amount on healthcare or social services as Sweden when adjusted for scale.
Something like 17% of GDP is spent on healthcare in the US.

US healthcare is fucked and is shitty for anyone who doesn't have a high paying job for a company that pays the insurance bill. But the fully government health care by the UK is great for the poor sucks for everyone else. Some European country has a regulated private insurance market that seems to work way better I'll try and figure out which country. Maybe Germany.

I have some cousins that are billionaires that own a goant insurance company and one of my aunts has basically been head of healthcare in the US for the last couple decades. She is head of healthcare for the fortune 1000 business round table and was basically the head lawyer writing Obamacare and is at the White House 3 to 4 times a week for health insurance legal work she's basically the only one that understands it. She is the co-chair of health for one of the largest international law firms in the world. She's in CEO of a medical startup company. Nobody apparently understands health insurance quite as well as she does from a legal regulatory standpoint in the US. So she makes a few million dollars a year. She does all the insurance plans for AT&T and Verizon and all the big companies and the government.

Interesting with the Covid vaccine was subsidized but insulin for diabetes continues to increase price…

That's just touching on US healthcare as far as actual national forms that's a very broad topic

About the last paragraph. Doesn't it need a good social net while trying to increase the social mobility? One would need massive fundamental changes of the US system so that it gives people a better shot in life. However, the imbalance is that strong and rigged in favor of the rich that it would need decades to reach that goal. The reform process would need a lot of time and there would be many setbacks. Moreover, noone could promise they finally reach that goal. In the meantime there is a need for a strong social safety net in my opinion.

There would be needed so many reforms that it seems utopian to reach this goal because many developments go in the wrong direction currently. For example the opiod pandemic in the US. If you have the wrong condition and the wrong doctors you are simply fucked. It is not your own mistake that got you into this predicament. In the US you can go bankrupt for medical bills. It is a joke. People are avoiding medical examinations because they fear to pay money for it. While it costs way more if the cancer is not recognized in an early state. It is worse for the individual and for the society if the medical industry works that way. The systemic issues are obvious.

And this is only one example. If you have bad luck in the US you are fucked and in many instances the system is flawed not the individual. This is at least my European perspective. This is also why I think social mobility is as important as a strong social safety net. Life is a lottery or Russian roulette which ever metaphor you prefer. The inequality is also bad for the political polarization. It helps to divide and conquer the masses.

I'm sure we can have a discussion ad nauseam why prices in the US are so absurdly ridiculous and why there's rush of seniors to buy cheap medication's from Canada and all of the stuff…

If you or anyone anyone else is interested in having that discussion or discussion about actually changing the landscape of the US as a whole I am definitely more than willing to take that discussion

 

[noname223]

Our medical system runs on medical fraud and insurance fraud. We have the A+++ best cream of the crop surgeons and doctors here.

If someone could put a proposal in front of me that gives us a way to make prices reasonable so that poor people can get fuckin' healthcare without the government having to offer healthcare to them, I'm all for that. If you can find a way to do that without the government having to introduce its own program, you can sell me on that. But that doesn't seem to be going down. The insurance companies are fucking evil. I think that they could find a way to pass new laws to regulate the way that insurance companies are run that would eliminate the need for a government program. Cost is outrageous. And you know that the cost on drugs is way more than it needs to be because now you can get all the generic versions of older drugs, more common drugs for almost nothing. So what's the excuse on all these newer drugs that they come out with? I don't think an insurance company should be able to fucking drop you because you get sick. Whats the point of health insurance if they won't pay for your health.

I feel somewhat biased against these social services being in the upper class, while they are great for the 50% or so of the population that doesn't get get access to good health insurance etc (Since you have to be dirt poor or a high earner to get good coverage in this country). My current insurance is probably better than what we would get for the government, so I selfishly still want the option for that. I really think it needs improvement but I really would want a hybrid system kinda like Germany.

I forgot the exact number but we spend the same amount on healthcare or social services as Sweden when adjusted for scale.
Something like 17% of GDP is spent on healthcare in the US.

US healthcare is fucked and is shitty for anyone who doesn't have a high paying job for a company that pays the insurance bill. But the fully government health care by the UK is great for the poor sucks for everyone else. Some European country has a regulated private insurance market that seems to work way better I'll try and figure out which country. Maybe Germany.

I have some cousins that are billionaires that own a goant insurance company and one of my aunts has basically been head of healthcare in the US for the last couple decades. She is head of healthcare for the fortune 1000 business round table and was basically the head lawyer writing Obamacare and is at the White House 3 to 4 times a week for health insurance legal work she's basically the only one that understands it. She is the co-chair of health for one of the largest international law firms in the world. She's in CEO of a medical startup company. Nobody apparently understands health insurance quite as well as she does from a legal regulatory standpoint in the US. So she makes a few million dollars a year. She does all the insurance plans for AT&T and Verizon and all the big companies and the government.

Interesting with the Covid vaccine was subsidized but insulin for diabetes continues to increase price…

That's just touching on US healthcare as far as actual national forms that's a very broad topic

I'm sure we can have a discussion ad nauseam why prices in the US are so absurdly ridiculous and why there's rush of seniors to buy cheap medication's from Canada and all of the stuff…

If you or anyone anyone else is interested in having that discussion or discussion about actually changing the landscape of the US as a whole I am definitely more than willing to take that discussion

You covered the issues of the medical industry very broadly in your response. But your response also shows that reforming it isn't that easy and very close to hopeless. However, you did not adress my argument that life is a gamble and that that there is need for a strong safety net to serrve justice. There are so many systemic flaws in the US system that the attempt to give people a better shot in life is simply not enough. If you agree with the diagnosis that living in the US sucks ass for the bottom 1/3 of the society and that there is no meritocracy right now or in the future. Moreover, that many things in life happen arbitrarily and most successful people did not actually earn their privilege/wealth. Why isn't there a need for a strong safety net if that's the current state of the US?

I think Rawls did some interesting thought experiments how a social justice would look like. With the veil of ignorance. We always look at societal ills from our current perspective. I think I would not defend a strong social safety net as much if I wasn't so scared about poverty. Lol. But the thought experiment is like imagining a just society as someone who does not know which class he will belong to eventually. I think that's a good way at looking at it.

 

[DarkRange55]

You covered the issues of the medical industry very broadly in your response. But your response also shows that reforming it isn't that easy and very close to hopeless. However, you did not adress my argument that life is a gamble and that that there is need for a strong safety net to serrve justice. There are so many systemic flaws in the US system that the attempt to give people a better shot in life is simply not enough. If you agree with the diagnosis that living in the US sucks ass for the bottom 1/3 of the society and that there is no meritocracy right now or in the future. Moreover, that many things in life happen arbitrarily and most successful people did not actually earn their privilege/wealth. Why isn't there a need for a strong safety net if that's the current state of the US?

I think Rawls did some interesting thought experiments how a social justice would look like. With the veil of ignorance. We always look at societal ills from our current perspective. I think I would not defend a strong social safety net as much if I wasn't so scared about poverty. Lol. But the thought experiment is like imagining a just society as someone who does not know which class he will belong to eventually. I think that's a good way at looking at it.

As far as my personal beliefs: yes, I believe the only reason we have a government is to service us. We pay into for social services and the societal safety net that those programs provide.

First of all I think it's within the government's power and within its scope to provide welfare for people. I don't have a problem with that. Well the problem I have with welfare in general is the way that we go about doing it. Because there's this unfortunate tendency of people who don't get welfare to think all the people on welfare are just slackers and they just don't wanna work. And while that's probably true for some of these people and there's always people who take advantage of anything. But the thing is most people don't want to be unemployed, most people don't wanna have to feel like they're dependent on somebody else for their livelihood. And so instead of just handing these people a check which doesn't do anything to move them up in society. We need to provide them with access education, better jobs. Money alone doesn't do anything. And so much of that is just waste. And there's no way to regulate what that money is being spent on. I'm for legalizing drugs but I don't think we should be paying for people's drug habits if possible.

Homeless for example. Multilayered issue: high cost of housing, addiction, mental health, employment, ect.

California spent billions on homelessness, but failed to track effectiveness, audit says

California's spending on homelessness increases each year, but the homeless population continues to rise.

www.nbclosangeles.com

"As KOMO previously reported, Seattle has spent more than a $1 billion on homelessness, only as the number of unsheltered people grew." if I remember correctly, the city was spending $100 million a year for 10 years.

Does Seattle's budget move signal a big change on regional homelessness response?

On Thursday, elected leaders were careful not to comment on the letter that started leaking out the day before.

komonews.com

Again homelessness is entire issue itself. I understand some countries like Taiwan and Japan. There's much more of a cultural component involved with abandoning family members so it's not really socially acceptable. I know that's a whole other topic and I understand that most homelessness in this country is actually invisible so it's people that are one away from being kicked out out of their apartment or it's people that are living in their cars. A lot of the stuff you see on the street is visible homelessness, which is actually only a small minority of the problem… but clearly the most, and requires the most attention and help

You covered the issues of the medical industry very broadly in your response. But your response also shows that reforming it isn't that easy and very close to hopeless. However, you did not adress my argument that life is a gamble and that that there is need for a strong safety net to serrve justice. There are so many systemic flaws in the US system that the attempt to give people a better shot in life is simply not enough. If you agree with the diagnosis that living in the US sucks ass for the bottom 1/3 of the society and that there is no meritocracy right now or in the future. Moreover, that many things in life happen arbitrarily and most successful people did not actually earn their privilege/wealth. Why isn't there a need for a strong safety net if that's the current state of the US?

I think Rawls did some interesting thought experiments how a social justice would look like. With the veil of ignorance. We always look at societal ills from our current perspective. I think I would not defend a strong social safety net as much if I wasn't so scared about poverty. Lol. But the thought experiment is like imagining a just society as someone who does not know which class he will belong to eventually. I think that's a good way at looking at it.

Listen once you guys elect me, king of the world, I can implement my grand strategy and fix everything for the better!

I promise I will be a benevolent AI overlord

You covered the issues of the medical industry very broadly in your response. But your response also shows that reforming it isn't that easy and very close to hopeless. However, you did not adress my argument that life is a gamble and that that there is need for a strong safety net to serrve justice. There are so many systemic flaws in the US system that the attempt to give people a better shot in life is simply not enough. If you agree with the diagnosis that living in the US sucks ass for the bottom 1/3 of the society and that there is no meritocracy right now or in the future. Moreover, that many things in life happen arbitrarily and most successful people did not actually earn their privilege/wealth. Why isn't there a need for a strong safety net if that's the current state of the US?

I think Rawls did some interesting thought experiments how a social justice would look like. With the veil of ignorance. We always look at societal ills from our current perspective. I think I would not defend a strong social safety net as much if I wasn't so scared about poverty. Lol. But the thought experiment is like imagining a just society as someone who does not know which class he will belong to eventually. I think that's a good way at looking at it.

Also, another thing a note with homelessness is there's a lot of rackets to that. I can definitely tell you having had a lot of experience in NGO's. A lot of that stuff is just fraud. To be clear I'm not talking about homeless people and talking about the nonprofits that are supposed to be helping them. I can post an extremely good video about a nonprofit that literally goes around giving out free heroin to people in Seattle. It's fucking ridiculous.

This is America. Everything is in business here whether it's medical or homelessness or whatever.



(I've worked at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the CFO of their charity plays golf with my uncle). NGO's are corrupt.

 

[noname223]

As far as my personal beliefs: yes, I believe the only reason we have a government is to service us. We pay into for social services and the societal safety net that those programs provide.

First of all I think it's within the government's power and within its scope to provide welfare for people. I don't have a problem with that. Well the problem I have with welfare in general is the way that we go about doing it. Because there's this unfortunate tendency of people who don't get welfare to think all the people on welfare are just slackers and they just don't wanna work. And while that's probably true for some of these people and there's always people who take advantage of anything. But the thing is most people don't want to be unemployed, most people don't wanna have to feel like they're dependent on somebody else for their livelihood. And so instead of just handing these people a check which doesn't do anything to move them up in society. We need to provide them with access education, better jobs. Money alone doesn't do anything. And so much of that is just waste. And there's no way to regulate what that money is being spent on. I'm for legalizing drugs but I don't think we should be paying for people's drug habits if possible.

Homeless for example. Multilayered issue: high cost of housing, addiction, mental health, employment, ect.

California spent billions on homelessness, but failed to track effectiveness, audit says

California's spending on homelessness increases each year, but the homeless population continues to rise.

www.nbclosangeles.com

"As KOMO previously reported, Seattle has spent more than a $1 billion on homelessness, only as the number of unsheltered people grew." if I remember correctly, the city was spending $100 million a year for 10 years.

Does Seattle's budget move signal a big change on regional homelessness response?

On Thursday, elected leaders were careful not to comment on the letter that started leaking out the day before.

komonews.com

Again homelessness is entire issue itself. I understand some countries like Taiwan and Japan. There's much more of a cultural component involved with abandoning family members so it's not really socially acceptable. I know that's a whole other topic and I understand that most homelessness in this country is actually invisible so it's people that are one away from being kicked out out of their apartment or it's people that are living in their cars. A lot of the stuff you see on the street is visible homelessness, which is actually only a small minority of the problem… but clearly the most, and requires the most attention and help

Listen once you guys elect me, king of the world, I can implement my grand strategy and fix everything for the better!

I promise I will be a benevolent AI overlord

Also, another thing a note with homelessness is there's a lot of rackets to that. I can definitely tell you having had a lot of experience in NGO's. A lot of that stuff is just fraud. To be clear I'm not talking about homeless people and talking about the nonprofits that are supposed to be helping them. I can post an extremely good video about a nonprofit that literally goes around giving out free heroin to people in Seattle. It's fucking ridiculous.

This is America. Everything is in business here whether it's medical or homelessness or whatever.



(I've worked at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the CFO of their charity plays golf with my uncle). NGO's are corrupt.

Sorry for my delayed answer I went to sleep.

I think if we ask unemployed people whether they have a fulfiling live most will answer no. But not all of them miss working. There is this misconception all people would define themselves over work/would not be content without a job. Which is only a narrative to keep the sheep in line. There are many people unable to work who are not responsible for their own misery who barely survive on welfare. I don't believe sentences like: "And so instead of just handing these people a check which doesn't do anything to move them up in society. We need to provide them with access education, better jobs. Money alone doesn't do anything. And so much of that is just waste. And there's no way to regulate what that money is being spent on."

First of all, yes there are measures to regulate what the money is spent on. Germany just did that for welfare for refugees. Moreover, it is such a stereotype to think the first thing an unemployed person would buy was drugs if they had the money. Instead most people would re-activate some of their old hobbies which they were unable to participate in because of the lack of money.

There are people who are too ill for being part of the work force no matter in which programs you will put them. Welfare in the US is that low that most people struggle to survive. They are in desperate need for money. Money makes a difference. A real difference. Solely the mental stress of not knowing how to provide for you and your children can be overwhelming. In Germany there are many single moms not knowing how get by. Many are close to the poverty line and they certainly would not buy drugs if we gave them more money. I have made a poll in this forum recently with the question where they would prefer to live in the US or a European country and most people preferred Europe. The US is known for the promise "from rags to riches" while European countries are known for better social safety nets. I think it is easy to pretend "money was just a waste" for poor people if one is not affected by it. Such arguments are always made by people who don't have to worry how to pay the bills at the end of the month. Most people in dire need have a diametrical opinion on it. And these are the voices that matter in this discussion in my opinion.

 

[noname223]

Still waiting for a response @DarkRange55

 

[DarkRange55]

Still waiting for a response @DarkRange55

You will have it shortly, sir.

Sorry for my delayed answer I went to sleep.

I think if we ask unemployed people whether they have a fulfiling live most will answer no. But not all of them miss working. There is this misconception all people would define themselves over work/would not be content without a job. Which is only a narrative to keep the sheep in line. There are many people unable to work who are not responsible for their own misery who barely survive on welfare. I don't believe sentences like: "And so instead of just handing these people a check which doesn't do anything to move them up in society. We need to provide them with access education, better jobs. Money alone doesn't do anything. And so much of that is just waste. And there's no way to regulate what that money is being spent on."

First of all, yes there are measures to regulate what the money is spent on. Germany just did that for welfare for refugees. Moreover, it is such a stereotype to think the first thing an unemployed person would buy was drugs if they had the money. Instead most people would re-activate some of their old hobbies which they were unable to participate in because of the lack of money.

There are people who are too ill for being part of the work force no matter in which programs you will put them. Welfare in the US is that low that most people struggle to survive. They are in desperate need for money. Money makes a difference. A real difference. Solely the mental stress of not knowing how to provide for you and your children can be overwhelming. In Germany there are many single moms not knowing how get by. Many are close to the poverty line and they certainly would not buy drugs if we gave them more money. I have made a poll in this forum recently with the question where they would prefer to live in the US or a European country and most people preferred Europe. The US is known for the promise "from rags to riches" while European countries are known for better social safety nets. I think it is easy to pretend "money was just a waste" for poor people if one is not affected by it. Such arguments are always made by people who don't have to worry how to pay the bills at the end of the month. Most people in dire need have a diametrical opinion on it. And these are the voices that matter in this discussion in my opinion.

So to clarify what I meant by "simply giving people money doesn't help move them up in society," what I mean is — generally speaking, its used as a stop gap measure because in the US as well as Europe, many people use the system not out of necessity but out of personal advantage. I know a "career student" in the EU for example. My step-sister's ex was a career welfare junkie yet he had graduated law school. The money here is not tracked and tracking cash even food stamps - I know a guy who buys and sells other people's food stamps. Is this the norm? Is this everyone? No. But my issue is, we need to be creating job training programs, we need to be investing in better social services like mental health, like education, we need a revamped tax code for things like child tax credits.
US healthcare took a step in the right direction under Obama. It's not hopeless. Nobody has a crystal ball but it seems like the desire for universal healthcare is growing but I haven't looked at any stats.
The US is more economically advanced than Europe in that we have a system that allows entrepreneurs to fail and recover. our bankruptcy laws around business, taxes, permits, ect. So in the US you get a better shot at making it big. If thats your goal, great. Look at the most billionaires and millionaires and biggest companies per capita. Look at the US stock market - 60% of the global stock market. the EU has a population and GNP greater than the US. Our system gives you a better shot to make it big, but not a better chance at surviving.

Government's not here to be efficient. It's here to protect the public, to serve the public good. As I said above, I think welfare is well within the scope and responsibility of the government. I just don't like the way the US currently structures its system.

I have a problem that the government creates jobs either through creating more regulations (you need more inspectors and committess - more bureaucracy) or they create temporary jobs. Public works projects that employee people until it's built. Then its over. Whereas companies make lasting jobs that create and support other jobs that grow the company to create more jobs. The government is 20% of the population. It used to be 1/10 of 1/10th of 1%. I think job training programs would be great. And we have really done a massive disservice in this country by getting rid of so many trade schools. That said I would like to see a revitalization of the US Civil Corps of Engineers. The infrastructure in the US is crumbling. Public investment is needed in many things. And yes, for people living check-to-check, getting a flat tire can ruin them. That can be the end. They can't afford it, can't get to work. So I'm not dismissing that getting financial aide helps. Thats not what I'm saying.

I'm not sure where the impasse is?

Sorry for my delayed answer I went to sleep.

I think if we ask unemployed people whether they have a fulfiling live most will answer no. But not all of them miss working. There is this misconception all people would define themselves over work/would not be content without a job. Which is only a narrative to keep the sheep in line. There are many people unable to work who are not responsible for their own misery who barely survive on welfare. I don't believe sentences like: "And so instead of just handing these people a check which doesn't do anything to move them up in society. We need to provide them with access education, better jobs. Money alone doesn't do anything. And so much of that is just waste. And there's no way to regulate what that money is being spent on."

First of all, yes there are measures to regulate what the money is spent on. Germany just did that for welfare for refugees. Moreover, it is such a stereotype to think the first thing an unemployed person would buy was drugs if they had the money. Instead most people would re-activate some of their old hobbies which they were unable to participate in because of the lack of money.

There are people who are too ill for being part of the work force no matter in which programs you will put them. Welfare in the US is that low that most people struggle to survive. They are in desperate need for money. Money makes a difference. A real difference. Solely the mental stress of not knowing how to provide for you and your children can be overwhelming. In Germany there are many single moms not knowing how get by. Many are close to the poverty line and they certainly would not buy drugs if we gave them more money. I have made a poll in this forum recently with the question where they would prefer to live in the US or a European country and most people preferred Europe. The US is known for the promise "from rags to riches" while European countries are known for better social safety nets. I think it is easy to pretend "money was just a waste" for poor people if one is not affected by it. Such arguments are always made by people who don't have to worry how to pay the bills at the end of the month. Most people in dire need have a diametrical opinion on it. And these are the voices that matter in this discussion in my opinion.

And yes, I forgot the name of it, but there is a principle in economic theory that regardless of the system: communist, capitalist, socialist, whatever. There will always be something like 10% or 20% of people that do not want to participate and do not want to work.
And yes, I probably support expanding medicaid for all. I'm not against social services, I want them expanded in certain places like mental health. Some people are not able to work but I think they still have a value to society or at least as human beings. So yes, I do support welfare. My issue is the implementation.
Government carries only through the weight of own immensity. Ever expanding.
A lot of people that got hose $1,200 stimulus checks and stuff during the lockdowns, a lot of people spent that money to pay down debts or put into savings. So yes, again, I agree with you that it makes a difference a lot of people.

 

[noname223]

You will have it shortly, sir.

So to clarify what I meant by "simply giving people money doesn't help move them up in society," what I mean is — generally speaking, its used as a stop gap measure because in the US as well as Europe, many people use the system not out of necessity but out of personal advantage. I know a "career student" in the EU for example. My step-sister's ex was a career welfare junkie yet he had graduated law school. The money here is not tracked and tracking cash even food stamps - I know a guy who buys and sells other people's food stamps. Is this the norm? Is this everyone? No. But my issue is, we need to be creating job training programs, we need to be investing in better social services like mental health, like education, we need a revamped tax code for things like child tax credits.
US healthcare took a step in the right direction under Obama. It's not hopeless. Nobody has a crystal ball but it seems like the desire for universal healthcare is growing but I haven't looked at any stats.
The US is more economically advanced than Europe in that we have a system that allows entrepreneurs to fail and recover. our bankruptcy laws around business, taxes, permits, ect. So in the US you get a better shot at making it big. If thats your goal, great. Look at the most billionaires and millionaires and biggest companies per capita. Look at the US stock market - 60% of the global stock market. the EU has a population and GNP greater than the US. Our system gives you a better shot to make it big, but not a better chance at surviving.

Government's not here to be efficient. It's here to protect the public, to serve the public good. As I said above, I think welfare is well within the scope and responsibility of the government. I just don't like the way the US currently structures its system.

I have a problem that the government creates jobs either through creating more regulations (you need more inspectors and committess - more bureaucracy) or they create temporary jobs. Public works projects that employee people until it's built. Then its over. Whereas companies make lasting jobs that create and support other jobs that grow the company to create more jobs. The government is 20% of the population. It used to be 1/10 of 1/10th of 1%. I think job training programs would be great. And we have really done a massive disservice in this country by getting rid of so many trade schools. That said I would like to see a revitalization of the US Civil Corps of Engineers. The infrastructure in the US is crumbling. Public investment is needed in many things. And yes, for people living check-to-check, getting a flat tire can ruin them. That can be the end. They can't afford it, can't get to work. So I'm not dismissing that getting financial aide helps. Thats not what I'm saying.

I'm not sure where the impasse is?

And yes, I forgot the name of it, but there is a principle in economic theory that regardless of the system: communist, capitalist, socialist, whatever. There will always be something like 10% or 20% of people that do not want to participate and do not want to work.
And yes, I probably support expanding medicaid for all. I'm not against social services, I want them expanded in certain places like mental health. Some people are not able to work but I think they still have a value to society or at least as human beings. So yes, I do support welfare. My issue is the implementation.
Government carries only through the weight of own immensity. Ever expanding.
A lot of people that got hose $1,200 stimulus checks and stuff during the lockdowns, a lot of people spent that money to pay down debts or put into savings. So yes, again, I agree with you that it makes a difference a lot of people.

I think stories about people exploiting the welfare system are often based on anecdotal evidence. Stuff that sells good in yellow press. It is similar to the cultural panic about trans people. You will always find single cases that evoke attention and moral outrage. Most statistics say that welfare exploitation is rare in my country but you will say we cannot trust the statistics behind that. I heard interviews of staff of job centres actually I even had an internship in one. And most of the staff says their clients who are not cooperating with them have often major issues in life. Like health issues or major blow of fates. People who systematically exploit the system are very rare. But such cases get a lot of media attention. We are in a forum full of living proofs of that. If you read some threads on disability in the US they say it is absurdly hard to get. And I think the people on this forum are not faking it.

I completely agree with you on: "But my issue is, we need to be creating job training programs, we need to be investing in better social services like mental health, like education, we need a revamped tax code for things like child tax credits. " I completely and fully agree on that. HOWEVER, I still think that there are many people not able to survive on their own. And the conditions of US welfare is not enabling a dignified way to live. Doing all of that does not hinder us to offer a social net for the one's who can't provide for themselves. There are many organization in Germany that criticize the amount of welfare in Germany. There is an index how much you have for food, transportation,, education etc. And almost everyone agress participation in society is close to impossible with the amount of money they offer. These social organizations have no monetary incentive to pretend this. And this is in good old Germany. In the US masses live on the street and noone cares.

"Our system gives you a better shot to make it big, but not a better chance at surviving."
It depends I think. You are right that the US is more entrepreneur friendly. It is easier to get capital for risky projects and often those projects blow off. However, social mobility is not far advanced if you have to pay several thousands for going to college. The college system favors the rich and makes it harder for poor people to prosper. It is not impossible. There are success stories. And they are very popular. But for most people these are fairy tale stories you will only read in the newspaper. It is not the usual case. In fact it is irrational hoping to be the one who makes it to the top out of the masses. Rationally only very few selected individuals can make it to the top. Exactly this attitude makes the US elite so detached from the average Joe and Jane. They think a meritocracy was in place. But in reality it was just a mix of luck, talent and probably connections (nepotism) that made it possible for them.

"And yes, I forgot the name of it, but there is a principle in economic theory that regardless of the system: communist, capitalist, socialist, whatever. There will always be something like 10% or 20% of people that do not want to participate and do not want to work." Well according to some right-wingers in the US Germany resembles socialism and currently we have an unemployment rate of 6%. Not a few of them work part-time, do elderly care or they volunteer in their freetime. Minus the people who are just too ill for work. Or people who cannot speak German enough and are hence not allowed to work in many fields. In Germany it is an issue that people get offered low skilled jobs even if they have a higher qualification but these qualifications are not acknowledged because they were achieved in non EU states. Or the people are assigned to jobs which do not fit to the strengths of the worker(or it is not a longterm job. For example in order to fulfil deadlines they are assigned to any job that is available. But it would be way smarter to wait for an offer where the full potential can reached. It is also better for the job markert because Germany lacks qualified high skilled workers. Such considerations are better implemented in Scandinavia. However, good old Germany is way superior to the US when it comes to considering such soft factors. From rags to riches is a fairy tale.

 

[DarkRange55]

I think stories about people exploiting the welfare system are often based on anecdotal evidence. Stuff that sells good in yellow press. It is similar to the cultural panic about trans people. You will always find single cases that evoke attention and moral outrage. Most statistics say that welfare exploitation is rare in my country but you will say we cannot trust the statistics behind that. I heard interviews of staff of job centres actually I even had an internship in one. And most of the staff says their clients who are not cooperating with them have often major issues in life. Like health issues or major blow of fates. People who systematically exploit the system are very rare. But such cases get a lot of media attention. We are in a forum full of living proofs of that. If you read some threads on disability in the US they say it is absurdly hard to get. And I think the people on this forum are not faking it.

I completely agree with you on: "But my issue is, we need to be creating job training programs, we need to be investing in better social services like mental health, like education, we need a revamped tax code for things like child tax credits. " I completely and fully agree on that. HOWEVER, I still think that there are many people not able to survive on their own. And the conditions of US welfare is not enabling a dignified way to live. Doing all of that does not hinder us to offer a social net for the one's who can't provide for themselves. There are many organization in Germany that criticize the amount of welfare in Germany. There is an index how much you have for food, transportation,, education etc. And almost everyone agress participation in society is close to impossible with the amount of money they offer. These social organizations have no monetary incentive to pretend this. And this is in good old Germany. In the US masses live on the street and noone cares.

"Our system gives you a better shot to make it big, but not a better chance at surviving."
It depends I think. You are right that the US is more entrepreneur friendly. It is easier to get capital for risky projects and often those projects blow off. However, social mobility is not far advanced if you have to pay several thousands for going to college. The college system favors the rich and makes it harder for poor people to prosper. It is not impossible. There are success stories. And they are very popular. But for most people these are fairy tale stories you will only read in the newspaper. It is not the usual case. In fact it is irrational hoping to be the one who makes it to the top out of the masses. Rationally only very few selected individuals can make it to the top. Exactly this attitude makes the US elite so detached from the average Joe and Jane. They think a meritocracy was in place. But in reality it was just a mix of luck, talent and probably connections (nepotism) that made it possible for them.

"And yes, I forgot the name of it, but there is a principle in economic theory that regardless of the system: communist, capitalist, socialist, whatever. There will always be something like 10% or 20% of people that do not want to participate and do not want to work." Well according to some right-wingers in the US Germany resembles socialism and currently we have an unemployment rate of 6%. Not a few of them work part-time, do elderly care or they volunteer in their freetime. Minus the people who are just too ill for work. Or people who cannot speak German enough and are hence not allowed to work in many fields. In Germany it is an issue that people get offered low skilled jobs even if they have a higher qualification but these qualifications are not acknowledged because they were achieved in non EU states. Or the people are assigned to jobs which do not fit to the strengths of the worker(or it is not a longterm job. For example in order to fulfil deadlines they are assigned to any job that is available. But it would be way smarter to wait for an offer where the full potential can reached. It is also better for the job markert because Germany lacks qualified high skilled workers. Such considerations are better implemented in Scandinavia. However, good old Germany is way superior to the US when it comes to considering such soft factors. From rags to riches is a fairy tale.

I've definitely got some concrete responses with data. I'll follow up soon.

 

[noname223]

I've definitely got some concrete responses with data. I'll follow up soon.

I am curious but also fearful for the reply.