View Poll Results: If you had to choose and these were the only options available, which of the followin

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Option A

    19 43.18%
  • Option B

    8 18.18%
  • Option C

    16 36.36%
  • Option D

    1 2.27%
Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 175

Thread: The Future of The USA

  1. #131
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Clearly you are not privy to how I believe the environment can be changed for the better. Its all about incentives and proper policies. Find a behavior that you want to see and reward it. Simple behavioral tactics. I like how you are starting to get what I am saying in your post below....
    It's not simple behavioral tactics because adults are not children. Simple behavioral tactics work on children. Adults already have their own incentives built in. They find a way to support themselves and reap the rewards of supporting themselves, or they don't and they suffer the consequences of not. It is not "simple" to suddenly start throwing money that either a) was taxed away from someone else or b) created out of thin air (which is still in the long run the same effect as a tax) and then aim it toward "good" behaviors that already have their own natural incentives built in. Are we going to pay parents not to abuse their children? Are we going to pay pregnant women not to smoke crack? The incentive structures are already there. If there's a problem somewhere, it's that we're creating cushions around bad behavior and distorting the risks of those "bad" behaviors.

    Now you are getting somewhere. You are starting to understand that having a sense of financial security (one that is dependent upon hard and/or smart work), having strong mental and cognitive characteristics (something that can be accomplished by alleviating the large burdens many face in concert with adequate mental health care - also teaching values is important), and also making sure everyone is educated. These are all great things and I am glad you pointed them out. It seems we are finding common ground here. We must realize that people are a product of their environment and people do the best they can with what they know.
    That's all well and good, but we already provide mental health care, we already have an educational system, et cetera et cetera. We don't just lower our brow and ponder harder on it and suddenly "change the environment for all," happily ever after. We do what we can within sane limits. Making all sorts of higher education "free" is not sane (for example).

    I am not sure where you are going with this... are you saying I am liberal?
    Not necessarily.

  2. #132
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    If this is true... then why would the World Health Organization list the healthcare systems in the way they did?
    Because the WHO has stupid measures, such as equitability. For example, if Country A and Country B both have a 85% mortality rate to colon cancer, and then Country A figures out how to provide a treatment to half of that 85% that cures colon cancer, then Country A will drop in the WHO ratings relative to Country B, despite the fact that Country A now has a 42.5% mortality rate, whereas Country B still has it's 85% mortality rate.

  3. #133
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Future of The USA

    The European model.

    A very wealthy class. 1.1 million more millionaires under Obama
    A large government class as the desired and reliable employment.
    Virtually no upper middle class.
    Declining income of the middle class. Add inflation, middle class income dropped over 20%
    A growing lower income and poor class, dependent upon government.

    This is what is proven the unstoppable evolution of the USA and what people voted that evolution to be.

    As the government and lower income population grows, the trend will grow. The wealthy, gaining in relative status, will approve this.

  4. #134
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Please enlighten us with examples
    Heck, I got decades:


  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tampa
    Last Seen
    09-24-13 @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,526

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Because the WHO has stupid measures, such as equitability. For example, if Country A and Country B both have a 85% mortality rate to colon cancer, and then Country A figures out how to provide a treatment to half of that 85% that cures colon cancer, then Country A will drop in the WHO ratings relative to Country B, despite the fact that Country A now has a 42.5% mortality rate, whereas Country B still has it's 85% mortality rate.
    if true then that is very silly.

  6. #136
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by roflpublican View Post
    if true then that is very silly.
    It is true, and I agree, it is silly.

  7. #137
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    After reading some interesting arguments and articles regarding governmental structures and how the US should move forward, I constructed the following hypothetical situation. I realize that these options may seem limited, but from what Iíve read, they seem to key in to some of the main large issues that are argued and or contemplated. I am on the fence with which option I would prefer. So Iíd like to hear some other peopleís opinions.

    If you had to choose and these were the only options available, which of the following options would be best for the US?


    Option A:
    Being number one in the world economy.

    Increasing the current disadvantage of those born into poor families.

    No free access to healthcare.

    No free access to any level of education.

    No food and shelter safety nets.

    Being number one in military power.

    Voting power is decided by the level of monetary contributions in taxes.



    Option B:
    Being among the top 10 economic forces in the world.

    Slightly decreasing the disadvantage of those born into poor families.

    Free access to only the most minimal health care for the poor.

    Free access to no more than secondary education for the poor.

    Food and shelter safety nets that serve only to keep people alive.

    Being among the top 10 military powers in the world.

    Everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes.


    Option C:
    Being among the top 50% of the economic forces in the world.

    Almost complete removal of the disadvantage of those born into poor families.

    Free access to quality health care for the poor.

    Free access to all schooling levels and all schools for those capable of completing the coursework.

    Food and shelter safety nets that serve to allow equal physical health.

    Being among the top 50% of military forces in the world.

    Progressive taxation is applied without loopholes.


    Option D:
    Unknown world economic power status.

    Enforcing equality of outcome (not to be confused with equality of opportunity).

    Unknown world military power status.

    Taxes are decided based on the amount needed to create equality of outcome.


    Also, if there are other areas that are important for consideration that would not effect the position of the other parts of the options, please list and or explore those.
    None of the above. You seem to be assuming that equalizing opportunity causes economic weakness. The reality is that it is quite the opposite. Economies are strongest when potential is met by more individuals making up that economy, and equalization of opportunity provides the only mechanism to do that.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  8. #138
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: The Future of The USA

    [QUOTE=Neomalthusian;1061112126



    That's not what I said, so the straw man is yours. Elite athletes who earn millions per year are an infinitesimal percentage of all athletes, let alone all PEOPLE, but nonetheless you advised that we should invest in all people the same as we invest in elite athletes. A tiny percentage of people have the sort of potential that would make them worth that investment. You don't put everyone through Michael Phelps' training regimen and get a bunch of Michael Phelpses. You don't put everyone through Harvard Medical School and result in the same caliber of doctor as the guy who got a full ride to Harvard Med on his own merit. Your ideas are just squirrely and then you come after me with your own ad hominems and straw men. Under the present system, if you don't pay students while they are in college, you get what you pay for--mostly dry holes and blowouts.



    So now we have the guy suggesting we should just produce money out of thin air to fund education indiscriminately starting to talk about financial non-viability... maybe we're getting somewhere. Or maybe not.[/QUOTE] The straw man is that you claim that I intend to offer this to everyone who wants to go to college. Do the universities give athletic scholarships to anyone who wants to play college football? My idea is original; we are brainwashed that only professional sources can suggest changes that aren't "squirrelly."

    People do not have a right to go to college any more than they have a right to play college football. Only those with the most talent should be allowed to do either. In order to get the best in both, they have to be offered a natural and immediate incentive. What caliber of college athletes would be recruited if they had to live like the rest of the students, living miserably and childishly on part-time jobs? That proves how inferior college graduates are today.

    Of course, the children of the rich live on psychologically healthy allowances; that's why it is indentured servitude for everybody else. The university was always designed exclusively for students with an independent source of income. Througout most of history, it was merely a fancy finishing school for the rich; it provided no value to the economy. Athletics were started to provide an entertainment center for heirheads; nothing's changed there.

    And nothing changed in the class-biased structure of the university when its purpose completely changed to provide skilled professionals to the economy. It is pseudo-democratic to offer students not living off large allowances this fake and psychologically permanently damaging "opportunity." The present class-biased university is an insult to intelligence. High IQs, if they had not been trained to become meak weakling geeks since childhood, would use their brains only to destroy the rich who imposed this childish, depressing, and humiliating indentured servitude. But the rich are desperate to buy the love of their children by buying them a job, so they have to keep competition at a minimum instead of making it talent-based, which would ensure that most of the heirheads wound up with low-paying jobs. It also proves that the rich are crooks who must have gotten their own wealth through luck or cheating if they think they have a right to do that for their sons--and lately, daughters: feminism is just an upper-class scam for the rich to buy the love of their daughters too by offering them the same exclusive and unearned opportunities they set up their sons with.

    Education does not reflect the real world. In reality, if a businessmen wrote a brilliant memorandum but his secretary messed up the typing of it, he wouldn't get any credit for it. But in school, he would get an A and she would get an F. From childhood on, school is set up to isolate the individual and imply that nobody but himself gets any benefit from his talent. It is as if all majors were like a major in casino gambling. So people resent brilliant students and treat them like freaks and losers. This sets up the High IQs to not realize that unpaid education is the same kind of insult in that they are also treated like they only benefit themselves by going to college That's why your attitude towards investing in the only people who should be allowed to go to college is as if you were asked to invest in casino-gambling majors. By the way, I don't propose we should pay Liberal Arts majors or any other self-indulgent pseudo-intellectuals.

    This is not like welfare, which is money going down the drain, never to pay off. An investment in our most talented human resources is like an investment in an oil well. It will pay for itself many times over.
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

  9. #139
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    It is important to note that the greedy, hoarders are also a product of their environment and aren't evil; they are just doing what
    The problem is that in our EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness), such severe wealth differentials were not possible. Therefore, in a relatively short period of time (i.e. from when people first started using money and hoarding it), huge differentials in power (i.e. money differentials) have been able to occur with little time for humanity to evolve in response. In other words, we used to live in small tribes, were there was a certain degree of order, but that was also somewhat flexible or different members had different strengths. However, it is likely that not many people had the kinds of power over others that we see today. In addition, even those who were higher in the social hierarchy were still not ostracized from the group. Do to the flexibility and changeability of the power in these social hierarchies, people remained close, socially. This is not what we see today. Thus, the wealthy try to fill their social holes with money, snuffing those out beneath them. The only way to fix this problem is to bring the classes closer together; to get everyone interacting again. One of the ways to do this is to decrease the income differences we observe.
    If we have to do it on our own, so must the children of the rich. If we outlaw a plutocrat's privilege of setting up his children with opportunities far beyond what they could get on their own, he would have to use his economic dominance to make it more possible for the rest of us if we made his own children subject to the same competitive requirements as everybody else. Of course, because greedheads are nasty or negligent parents, they have to buy the love of anyone close to them to make up for their own distant and self-obsessed personalities. They'll throw a tantrum if they can't finance trophy children, so they'll have to be forced to quit their claim that they have a right to use their money for anti-social goals. The power of numbers defeats the power of money, but, unfortunately it is true in our slavish times, that it can't defeat money's ability to brainwash the majority into going against its own self-interest by licking the chains that enslave them.
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

  10. #140
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    If we have to do it on our own, so must the children of the rich. If we outlaw a plutocrat's privilege of setting up his children with opportunities far beyond what they could get on their own, he would have to use his economic dominance to make it more possible for the rest of us if we made his own children subject to the same competitive requirements as everybody else. Of course, because greedheads are nasty or negligent parents, they have to buy the love of anyone close to them to make up for their own distant and self-obsessed personalities. They'll throw a tantrum if they can't finance trophy children, so they'll have to be forced to quit their claim that they have a right to use their money for anti-social goals. The power of numbers defeats the power of money, but, unfortunately it is true in our slavish times, that it can't defeat money's ability to brainwash the majority into going against its own self-interest by licking the chains that enslave them.
    Start naming names, oh covetous one. Who specifically out there is a good example of this characterization?

    Personally I think your entire worldview requires stereotype.

Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •