All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Gray Lensman]

Regulations are critical to the health and well being of humanity. Without them we would have a lot of issues, including issues in the drinking water (see what happened with Flint), the air (smog and other things can kill people), medicine (or you know we can go back to ancient remedies that can give us the plague like eating bladders of animals or ingesting snake venom into our systems), the cars we drive (You really want that steering wheel to be defective man, or that seat belt to snap when you get hit by someone), hell even our livelihood in regulating the amount of money that's printed and the like and what that paper is worth.

Regulations have been enacted for a long ass time and no it doesn't limit your freedoms. I mean, if you wanna try some untested creek water to drink, be my guest sir. I'll stick with my regulated tap water and plan on living a long life.

The point of equal opportunity is to allow for equal success.

As others have asked already, what exactly do you believe in? What is your point in not wanting regulations?

I mentioned the same thing to my father - pollutants have this nasty habit of not staying were you put them. If it gets in the river, it flows downstream into the next town, or state. If it gets into the air it blows downwind, often several states away. If it gets into the water table it diffuses across a few counties. I like knowing that a coal mining company a state or two upriver isn't allowed to just dump waste into one of the primary sources of my drinking water.

Now do I think we have too many regulations? Very likely. What can be consolidated for easier compliance, serving both the public and businesses better? What seems to exist solely to increase the price of entry into the marketplace, keeping out the entrepreneur? What ended up catching unintended people and businesses in its wake, or worse, had the opposite effect? Those are the regulations I want looked at - but I don't trust the Republican party to look at things this way - they seem to go after the regulations that protect me first, and the ones that cause problems for little to no benefit last.

[KOSLOX]

Were it not for regulation small business would be almost entirely shut out of the federal procurement process.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The famous quote from the Declaration of Independence is "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" not 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness only for those who can afford it.'

When you pay taxes, the money goes not just to schools, but to roads, garbage collection, and so on. If one road get's repaved, they don't put up a sign saying only those who live along this street can drive on it. Public roads get maintained for everyone's benefit.

Public schools are the same, they are for the public benefit. It is an understood fact of life in the US. If someone doesn't want to pay taxes, they are free to find a country that doesn't require the paying of taxes (if they can).

The money paid into taxes gets applied across a school system, ideally without favoritism to wealthy areas over poorer areas.

If a person is wealthy enough, or lucky enough to send their child to a private school, then good for them. That doesn't mean that they can stop paying taxes. The investment isn't short term, but long term. So, maybe you child goes to a fancy private school, then maybe your grandchildren go to public school. So, if their public school is in bad shape that is not just because current residents aren't paying enough in taxes, it's also because there is a history of residents not paying enough in taxes to sustain the system long term.

It's short-sighted and self-centered to view this as a case of I don't want to pay for something I'm not using. Thinking long term, and widely, you are supporting your community, your descendants, and indirectly yourself.

Everyone wants to live in a nice community, but there is a cost involved in that. I don't have any children, but I still pay taxes. if I want a say in how the money is spent, I attend Board and council meetings and speak up, but I don't refuse to pay since that only hurts my community, which means it only hurts me.

You are not an island, your actions affect others and they affect you.

Exactly. If you want to have your own separate thing on the side that you think is better quality, you can pay for it. You don’t get to take yourself out of the communal pool and say you aren’t paying taxes because you chose not to use a public option. It screws over everyone who isn’t rich and creates a country of separate classes. So what you can build a private road that only rich people who can afford to pay for it can drive on while their are no funds for regular roadways, or create a private police force and underfund the public one so now poor people have less protection?

That’s where that argument goes. You want to create a revolution where people start dying over it, by all means go ahead

[KOSLOX]

Money paid to schools doesn't get distributed uniformly.

Where I live it's based on property tax and district, which they change routinely in order to exclude lower income areas, thus reducing their available funding.

If they were to institute vouchers they would also lower the amount of student in those underserved districts and eliminate additional funding.

But, since most of the kids seek voucher are white it's pretty easy to see this as a methods solely devised in order to perpetuate the removal of funds from minorities and redistribute them toward middle and upper middle class white children.

But, that's par for the course.

[Tami]

Money paid to schools doesn't get distributed uniformly.

Where I live it's based on property tax and district, which they change routinely in order to exclude lower income areas, thus reducing their available funding.

If they were to institute vouchers they would also lower the amount of student in those underserved districts and eliminate additional funding.

But, since most of the kids seek voucher are white it's pretty easy to see this as a methods solely devised in order to perpetuate the removal of funds from minorities and redistribute them toward middle and upper middle class white children.

But, that's par for the course.

My comments were kind of idealized, as in how it should work. But yeah, it doesn't always work that way.

Still, it is something worth working on improving.

[Darkspellmaster]

I believe the government should protect all the people of the country through a strong national defense, secure borders. We are a nation of laws and I believe in equal application of those laws, it's not right for the government to let those who violate laws to do so just because they agree with the violators political views.

So does that mean you agree that Trump should have been fully impeached as he was violating the laws? Do you think it's right that the Senate has allowed for him to impose people who are large spenders to his campaign into an office that they are fully unqualified for and allowed for him to not be fully prosecuted to the laws that they swore to uphold?

I believe they should enact policies and laws that provide equal opportunity for all people, regardless of class, color creed or condition. If someone is wrongfully denied said opportunity based on any of these, the government should hold those responsible accountable, not implement broad based programs mandating quotas

So how do you feel about the President paying others to do his course work? Do you feel that the government should allow for a loan based program to assist those that want to start up a business for themselves? How do you think these people should be held responsible for these actions if the Senate isn't willing to do that? What about children who are born here and want to have an opportunity but can't due to the cost of student loans and the like?

. I believe it is dependent on the individuals to be responsible for their own success, not the government. The government should have permanent safety nets in place for those who cannot provide for themselves based on physical, mental factors and temporary safety nets in place for those who may need it due to loss of job or severe medical condition.

Why not have an all encompassing safety net for those that can't find work due in part to older generations needing to keep working because the cost of living keeps rising due to those who have lots of money causing things to cost more, see the Stock Market. Do you think that the Stock Market should not be regulated? Or that those that were caught in the 2008 housing crises shouldn't get a house back as they were hurt by the actions of mortgage lenders.

I believe they should tax at a fair rate for all individuals and not demonize or punish success. I believe a good education is the basis for all success and as such, people should be allowed to use the tax dollars they pay and send their children to go to a school of their choosing.

Do you then think that a person should be taxed based on the income they make, in this case what I mean is that if a person is in the 1% it's only fair given that they have a large quantity of money they should be taxed for the amount of cash they have and make? You say demonized, but how is it demonizing something to go back to the way it was before Reagan where there was a higher tax rate for the wealthy based on their income, which in turn they still could afford expensive things. See Rhode Island's mansions. Do you really think it's fair that those with large incomes should be allowed to tear down existing homes to build mansions that no one will live in all for speculation houses?

So If I chose to send my child to a school in Japan, you agree that the tax money that I'm paying the state should then go into funding that school in Japan, is that correct? Or do you mean in the 50 states? should my tax dollars go to say Hawaii because I want my child to go to school in Hawaii? Do you feel that Taxes should be equal across the board and rather than by district all taxes for schools should be paid equally to all schools? Because the issue going on right now is that the money that is being spent is not equally distributed across a state. A town like Elizabeth down in Southern Illinois is not having the same tax allocation for schooling like those in Naperville or Western Springs Illinois.

I believe a good job is better than any government program in ensuring success, access to quality healthcare, a good education and as such, the government should implement common sense regulations, taxes and trade deals that support PRIVATE industry. I believe the nation should be energy independent and right now that does mean fracking and oil even as we move to cleaner tech.

The problem is that so many companies now only care about keeping their stockholders happy that they don't want to ensure that those good jobs exist. A number of jobs are shipped out of the US due to deregulations of the 1980s and now it's harder to find a good job. Hell some tech jobs are moving out of the states as well leading to people that used to say work on clothing and the like here in the states not being able to find work because a lot of clothing is made outside of the US for cheaper prices on workers. Even when the government does TRY to help INDUSTRIES they tend to screw things over, see what happened during the Banking crises and how they used money for bonuses for the top CEOs and the like.

The only way to get energy independent is to actually get away from oil and gas. Hydrogen, electric, hell even steam if possible, all could work better than oil does. Fracking also hurts our natural resources.

I don't believe in the use of government funds for abortion as it is a violation of many taxpayers religious beliefs.

Why? Such things were happening during the time of Christ as well you know. If you believe in the idea of choice for schools why should that not apply to choice for a woman to deal with a situation that they may need to?

I don't believe in government run healthcare as it stifles innovation and reduces quality of care that a private competitive system provides for. The government has no business telling any religious organization they have to pay for health care that goes against their beliefs, nor does it have the right to force individuals to pay simply because they chose NOT to have healthcare.

How? Government pay for innovations to happen, when they give grant loans. Do you think that private organizations don't get money from the government to help pay for experimentation? Do you realize the cost of drugs or other pharmaceutical would be at if it was just paid for by the sales of items? It would be insane. You need the money from taxes to help pay for innovations. And by that token the Religious organizations have no business telling the government what they should allow for in healthcare as Healthcare is not part of the Religious doctrine. So then it's totally okay for a doctor to deny someone based on them not having healthcare, right?

Do we as nation do all of these things? I think we can agree (WHAT!!??) that we do not. But in my mind that doesn't mean we need more and bigger government, or more programs that apply to only certain groups or give unfair advantage to them, or excuse their actions.

I assume you mean that anyone that is not a straight white male should not get help from the government. This is in conflict with what you said at the start of this.

We need to enforce the laws we have on the books and remove obstacles to opportunity rather than legislate "success". We need to trust in our people to live their own lives and be responsible for themselves rather than having the government tell us we shouldn't be drinking a Big Gulp. The government didn't build the greatest (but by no means perfect) nation in the world, the PEOPLE did.

Tami, thanks for asking...

Laws change over time, and legislation is key to helping people of all walks of life to get a foot in the door. Um...You can drink a big gulp, but by your logic I should have the right to deny you help for the diabites from said big Gulp because you may not follow the same religion as me. Yes people did, (after they took land away from the Natives that lived here already) and if not for the congress drafting that first bill of rights, we may still be subjected to monarchy. Or would you be okay being like the UK where they still have a serf mentality that those with older houses and old money are the ones in charge of things?

Well...I think people in Portand, Chicago, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, NYC, Seattle just might have a different view..

Now THAT was easy!

Chicagoan here, fast fact, we have riots every summer, this is nothing new because of various things going on. Hell, while I disagree with the breaking of businesses, as it way to much reminds me of shit in World War II, I am not going to stand there and say that people aren't cheering on the protests because we are. You can replace material things, insurance and all, but you can't replace a persons life. So I think there's more here to it.

Then why be afraid of school choice? Crazy thought...maybe competition would make for a better product...

Maybe if Taxes from the whole state were more evenly distributed so all schools would have an equal chance, and maybe if the US started to pay teachers proper wages and decrease class sizes and allow for a TA in every class to help out, then maybe we wouldn't need to have a whole "School Choice".

[Darkspellmaster]

Better question- explain to why a parent cannot take their hard earned money and send it to a school of their choice so their child can attend? Why is that not the fair thing to do? Why no choice for the most precious thing in their lives that they want to succeed?

As for competition, it may not solve every problem bit it sure makes things better. What competition would you eliminate? The COVID vaccine? Gas prices? Food prices? The Dem Presidential candidate? Cell phone plans? Cancer treatments? Prospective spouses? Which one of those doesn't make the final choice better?

Again, by you're logic, I should be allowed to send my tax money to Japan for a Japanese school. Because if you loose schools in neighborhoods you loose the chance for students, who's parents don't have the money to send them to mucho exclusive schools, stuck with text books and tech that's outdated. If taxes are equally distributed you wouldn't have this issue in the first place.

Competition only goes so far, especially when various business buy up other business and turning things into monopolies, what we don't want. The Corvid Vaccine and any other vaccine for that matter should not be a competition. Gas prices should not be so damn high. The problem is that there's a limited number of groups that create our gas. You compete for spouses? What the hell! What is this, a reality game show? Have we gone back to the whole "Children are property" thought processes?

Lay out, in detail, how competition has reduced this sort of thing...

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal...2-2020-release

Come to think of it...

Please lay out, in pretty specific detail, how competition has driven down the price of a vial of insulin over the last twenty years.

Edit:

Better yet, please list the improvements in treatment that have made "Injection..." as a delivery system a thing of the past while improving management of diabetes.

Whelp I agree with Number Thirty. This is a shock.

Parents are welcome to take their own money and pay for private schools. More power to them. But they are not welcome to my tax dollars.

BTW, you still haven't answered why schools just shouldn't be equally funded. Why do you keep dodging that?

And actually, private schools are a prime example of the failure of competition. They don't complete because they can exclude low performing students. When teachers are incentivized by bonuses for good grades, many have been known to cheat

Thank you, that's how I feel about privatization of education.

[Darkspellmaster]

I never said they should have your tax dollars. I'm talking about their tax dollars. Why don't you think they should be allowed to spend their school tax dollars to send their child to a school of their choice?

By this logic I shouldn't then have to pay a cent for the school if I have no children at all, or have to support it in in any way shape or form, is that correct?

Because the tax dollars should equally be distributed to the point where all schools have the same amount of money and have equal set ups and can teach students to the same degree.

Because that takes money away from kids who can't afford ti go to the schools.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You don't mind that scenario, but I do.

I know that, because you still refuse to say what's wrong with all schools in a state being equally funded.

Bingo!

And that's the sad fact when you have non equal distribution of funds.

The famous quote from the Declaration of Independence is "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" not 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness only for those who can afford it.'

When you pay taxes, the money goes not just to schools, but to roads, garbage collection, and so on. If one road get's repaved, they don't put up a sign saying only those who live along this street can drive on it. Public roads get maintained for everyone's benefit.

Public schools are the same, they are for the public benefit. It is an understood fact of life in the US. If someone doesn't want to pay taxes, they are free to find a country that doesn't require the paying of taxes (if they can).

The money paid into taxes gets applied across a school system, ideally without favoritism to wealthy areas over poorer areas.

If a person is wealthy enough, or lucky enough to send their child to a private school, then good for them. That doesn't mean that they can stop paying taxes. The investment isn't short term, but long term. So, maybe you child goes to a fancy private school, then maybe your grandchildren go to public school. So, if their public school is in bad shape that is not just because current residents aren't paying enough in taxes, it's also because there is a history of residents not paying enough in taxes to sustain the system long term.

It's short-sighted and self-centered to view this as a case of I don't want to pay for something I'm not using. Thinking long term, and widely, you are supporting your community, your descendants, and indirectly yourself.

Everyone wants to live in a nice community, but there is a cost involved in that. I don't have any children, but I still pay taxes. if I want a say in how the money is spent, I attend Board and council meetings and speak up, but I don't refuse to pay since that only hurts my community, which means it only hurts me.

You are not an island, your actions affect others and they affect you.

Wonderfully said! Kudos to you Tami!

[Gray Lensman]

So does that mean you agree that Trump should have been fully impeached as he was violating the laws? Do you think it's right that the Senate has allowed for him to impose people who are large spenders to his campaign into an office that they are fully unqualified for and allowed for him to not be fully prosecuted to the laws that they swore to uphold?



So how do you feel about the President paying others to do his course work? Do you feel that the government should allow for a loan based program to assist those that want to start up a business for themselves? How do you think these people should be held responsible for these actions if the Senate isn't willing to do that? What about children who are born here and want to have an opportunity but can't due to the cost of student loans and the like?



Why not have an all encompassing safety net for those that can't find work due in part to older generations needing to keep working because the cost of living keeps rising due to those who have lots of money causing things to cost more, see the Stock Market. Do you think that the Stock Market should not be regulated? Or that those that were caught in the 2008 housing crises shouldn't get a house back as they were hurt by the actions of mortgage lenders.



Do you then think that a person should be taxed based on the income they make, in this case what I mean is that if a person is in the 1% it's only fair given that they have a large quantity of money they should be taxed for the amount of cash they have and make? You say demonized, but how is it demonizing something to go back to the way it was before Reagan where there was a higher tax rate for the wealthy based on their income, which in turn they still could afford expensive things. See Rhode Island's mansions. Do you really think it's fair that those with large incomes should be allowed to tear down existing homes to build mansions that no one will live in all for speculation houses?

So If I chose to send my child to a school in Japan, you agree that the tax money that I'm paying the state should then go into funding that school in Japan, is that correct? Or do you mean in the 50 states? should my tax dollars go to say Hawaii because I want my child to go to school in Hawaii? Do you feel that Taxes should be equal across the board and rather than by district all taxes for schools should be paid equally to all schools? Because the issue going on right now is that the money that is being spent is not equally distributed across a state. A town like Elizabeth down in Southern Illinois is not having the same tax allocation for schooling like those in Naperville or Western Springs Illinois.



The problem is that so many companies now only care about keeping their stockholders happy that they don't want to ensure that those good jobs exist. A number of jobs are shipped out of the US due to deregulations of the 1980s and now it's harder to find a good job. Hell some tech jobs are moving out of the states as well leading to people that used to say work on clothing and the like here in the states not being able to find work because a lot of clothing is made outside of the US for cheaper prices on workers. Even when the government does TRY to help INDUSTRIES they tend to screw things over, see what happened during the Banking crises and how they used money for bonuses for the top CEOs and the like.

The only way to get energy independent is to actually get away from oil and gas. Hydrogen, electric, hell even steam if possible, all could work better than oil does. Fracking also hurts our natural resources.



Why? Such things were happening during the time of Christ as well you know. If you believe in the idea of choice for schools why should that not apply to choice for a woman to deal with a situation that they may need to?



How? Government pay for innovations to happen, when they give grant loans. Do you think that private organizations don't get money from the government to help pay for experimentation? Do you realize the cost of drugs or other pharmaceutical would be at if it was just paid for by the sales of items? It would be insane. You need the money from taxes to help pay for innovations. And by that token the Religious organizations have no business telling the government what they should allow for in healthcare as Healthcare is not part of the Religious doctrine. So then it's totally okay for a doctor to deny someone based on them not having healthcare, right?



I assume you mean that anyone that is not a straight white male should not get help from the government. This is in conflict with what you said at the start of this.



Laws change over time, and legislation is key to helping people of all walks of life to get a foot in the door. Um...You can drink a big gulp, but by your logic I should have the right to deny you help for the diabites from said big Gulp because you may not follow the same religion as me. Yes people did, (after they took land away from the Natives that lived here already) and if not for the congress drafting that first bill of rights, we may still be subjected to monarchy. Or would you be okay being like the UK where they still have a serf mentality that those with older houses and old money are the ones in charge of things?




Chicagoan here, fast fact, we have riots every summer, this is nothing new because of various things going on. Hell, while I disagree with the breaking of businesses, as it way to much reminds me of shit in World War II, I am not going to stand there and say that people aren't cheering on the protests because we are. You can replace material things, insurance and all, but you can't replace a persons life. So I think there's more here to it.



Maybe if Taxes from the whole state were more evenly distributed so all schools would have an equal chance, and maybe if the US started to pay teachers proper wages and decrease class sizes and allow for a TA in every class to help out, then maybe we wouldn't need to have a whole "School Choice".

An outsider's take on Chicago and law enforcement...

If 40% of the total city budget goes to the police department alone, which is the second largest by percentage of total in the entire country (Oakland is first at 41%), and the place still has high crime and riots, then maybe a serious rethink of how to handle law enforcement is in order. When you spend top money, you should get top results.

Which let's me take that point into health care - we are doing it wrong in the United States. We spend more per capita than any other nation on Earth, and more as a share of income as well. Yet life expectancy in the US is mediocre compared to other developed countries. Paying top dollar for mediocre results is called failure, and if that vaunted free market needs to be protected from socialized medicine (supposedly a horribly inefficient method) then it seems the free market has failed. Poor results and a need to be isolated from competition? Sounds like a failure to me.

Not that there is really such a thing as a free market in health care. Medicines are made by monopolies or oligopolies, there is often no competition in who provides care on top of it, laws are tilted towards the providers (who can do the wrong stuff, and still collect payment for their error), and the commodity being bought and sold is your very life and well being. In some cases it comes across as an armed robbery, just with a lawyer and a bill collector instead of a Mask and a gun, but the end result is the same: cough up the cash or die.

[numberthirty]

...

Whelp I agree with Number Thirty. This is a shock.

Don't even get me started.

Has competition lead to an effective male birth control option that would make the birth control pill that my mother was on before she died in the nineties a thing of the past?

[Kirby101]

Can I stop giving the US my tax dollars when my State gets 75 cents back. Can I spend my tax dollars in my State and not give it to Kentucky that gets $.25 for every $1 they pay?

[Jack Dracula]

I believe the government should protect all the people of the country through a strong national defense, secure borders. We are a nation of laws and I believe in equal application of those laws, it's not right for the government to let those who violate laws to do so just because they agree with the violators political views. I believe they should enact policies and laws that provide equal opportunity for all people, regardless of class, color creed or condition. If someone is wrongfully denied said opportunity based on any of these, the government should hold those responsible accountable, not implement broad based programs mandating quotas. I believe it is dependent on the individuals to be responsible for their own success, not the government. The government should have permanent safety nets in place for those who cannot provide for themselves based on physical, mental factors and temporary safety nets in place for those who may need it due to loss of job or severe medical condition. I believe they should tax at a fair rate for all individuals and not demonize or punish success. I believe a good education is the basis for all success and as such, people should be allowed to use the tax dollars they pay and send their children to go to a school of their choosing. I believe a good job is better than any government program in ensuring success, access to quality healthcare, a good education and as such, the government should implement common sense regulations, taxes and trade deals that support PRIVATE industry. I believe the nation should be energy independent and right now that does mean fracking and oil even as we move to cleaner tech. I don't believe in the use of government funds for abortion as it is a violation of many taxpayers religious beliefs. I don't believe in government run healthcare as it stifles innovation and reduces quality of care that a private competitive system provides for. The government has no business telling any religious organization they have to pay for health care that goes against their beliefs, nor does it have the right to force individuals to pay simply because they chose NOT to have healthcare.

Do we as nation do all of these things? I think we can agree (WHAT!!??) that we do not. But in my mind that doesn't mean we need more and bigger government, or more programs that apply to only certain groups or give unfair advantage to them, or excuse their actions. We need to enforce the laws we have on the books and remove obstacles to opportunity rather than legislate "success". We need to trust in our people to live their own lives and be responsible for themselves rather than having the government tell us we shouldn't be drinking a Big Gulp. The government didn't build the greatest (but by no means perfect) nation in the world, the PEOPLE did.

Tami, thanks for asking...

I see a lot here that Democrats also support and that maybe you've been led to believe they don't. I also see some misconceptions of how much free enterprise actually benefits the average citizen. Maybe you should spend less time listening to the Conservative talking heads and do some independent research. I think you'd benefit from some unbiased points of view. Not to be insulting but you come off like a middle-class white college student whose never really seen or experienced life beyond your own little bubble.

[Tami]

Watching the DNC Convention, and this is the most visually interesting and entertaining political convention I have ever seen. They should do it like this every year.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Watching the DNC Convention, and this is the visually interesting and entertaining political convention I have ever seen. They should do it like this every year.

Honestly yeah. I care more about substance. Don’t need the team sports cheering

[Tami]

Michelle Obama is giving one heck of a speach. If you aren't watching, look for the video. It's well worth it.