This nation as we know it.

[tidelaw2004]

Socialism has failed every time it has been tried. Why some people think it needs to be tried in the United States (the most successfull nation in the history of the world) is completely beyond my comprehension.

 

[BAMAFAN IN NY]

I guess I'd better stick with the football board. 'Cause I love the Crimson Tide! Politics is a NASTY business and I need to stay off the non-sports board.

So bye!

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

Socialism has failed every time it has been tried. Why some people think it needs to be tried in the United States (the most successfull nation in the history of the world) is completely beyond my comprehension.

Over-generalize much?

I'll assume you mean pure socialism, because if you mean socialist-leaning countries, then you are horribly misinformed. For instance, I'm not sure there is a statistic (e.g., citizen happiness, health, education) where the United States outperforms countries like Finland, Norway, or Sweden.

 

[seebell]

Over-generalize much?

I'll assume you mean pure socialism, because if you mean socialist-leaning countries, then you are horribly misinformed. For instance, I'm not sure there is a statistic (e.g., citizen happiness, health, education) where the United States outperforms countries like Finland, Norway, or Sweden.

Come on Man? We got nukes and a big army!

 

[Rasputin]

Over-generalize much?

I'll assume you mean pure socialism, because if you mean socialist-leaning countries, then you are horribly misinformed. For instance, I'm not sure there is a statistic (e.g., citizen happiness, health, education) where the United States outperforms countries like Finland, Norway, or Sweden.

To be fair, if I lived in a country where the women looked like they do in Finland, Norway, and Sweden I would stay pretty damn happy too!

 

[cbi1972]

Over-generalize much?

I'll assume you mean pure socialism, because if you mean socialist-leaning countries, then you are horribly misinformed. For instance, I'm not sure there is a statistic (e.g., citizen happiness, health, education) where the United States outperforms countries like Finland, Norway, or Sweden.

Yeah well they, as previously homogeneous countries, are none too happy about having to take on freeloading immigrants of foreign culture by order of the EU, either. Stay tuned.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

To be fair, if I lived in a country where the women looked like they do in Finland, Norway, and Sweden I would stay pretty damn happy too!

Good point. Hadn't thought about that, but you'd think, inversely, that would hurt their education performance.

 

[jthomas666]

clicky

I awoke this morning knowing our country continued to be greatly divided and that emotions were running high and I checked in on my favorite social media sites to see how everyone was faring.

But my fascination quickly turned to disgust when I kept seeing the same status popping up over and over again:

“A sad and tragic day for our nation.”

Disappointing? Sure, if your guy didn’t win, I’m sure you’re feeling disappointed.

Frustrated? Nervous? Deflated? If you were counting on a different outcome, then of course you’re likely to feel these things.
But to exclaim that this is a tragic day for our nation?

Really?

To those who truly believe the Presidential election results are tragic, let me refresh your memory of what tragic really looks like, because it seems so many have clearly forgotten:

This is what TRAGIC looks like. Photo courtesy 9/11 Photos via Flickr

Again. This is what tragic looks like. Photo courtesy 9/11 Photos via Flickr

If I sound like I’m scolding some of you, it’s because I am. Get it together people and gain some perspective. Because this country will go to hell in a hand basket not because of a single man, but because we allow ourselves to forget just how amazing and resilient and FREE our nation truly is.​

Maybe you woke up this morning feeling frightened about your future because you were counting on the other guy to make things better. But you also woke up in the same country where you are Free to express your religious beliefs, Free to speak your mind, Free to choose where you want to live, and Free to think idiotic things such as “this is a tragic day for our nation.”

​

I urge you to find a way today to remind yourself just how good we have it, even if you’re facing economic strife or some sort of adversity. I can tell you this much: as a mom of a special needs child, there’s nowhere else in the world I’d rather be because I know that even though we have a long way to go in the way of awareness, accessibility, and acceptance, we are light years ahead of so many other countries in the world.
​

 

[TideEngineer08]

Except that we aren't exactly that "free" anymore.

 

[cbi1972]

I'd take ten more 9/11s to get out from under the national debt.

 

[twofbyc]

I'd take ten more 9/11s to get out from under the national debt.

So somebody please do the math and tell me what this works out to per human life....

 

[cbi1972]

So somebody please do the math and tell me what this works out to per human life....

Over $500,000

 

[Tide1986]

Over $500,000

How many lives did you assume?

 

[cbi1972]

How many lives did you assume?

3000 dead in 9/11
16T debt

 

[Tide1986]

3000 dead in 9/11
16T debt

I had forgotten it was that high. I just started with 2,000 (20K over ten years).

For many Americans, I would think $500K is less than their lifetime value. It'd have to be the right 30K to justify the human sacrifice.

 

[Tidewater]

So somebody please do the math and tell me what this works out to per human life....

Bad as it was, 9/11 was not even the bloodiest day in American history. 17 September 1862 holds that "honor."

It is not about dollars and cents, but the most serious existential threat these United States have ever faced, bar none. Over a period of decades, the people of the United States has displayed a stubborn inability to deal with the national debt, and eventually, this issue will destroy the country. After Pearl Harbor, few were the Americans who deluded themselves as to the seriousness of the country's situation. The same could be said for 911.
Dealing with the amount of national debt, however, appears to be completely beyond the ability of the American electorate. Heck, most voters can't even recognize that the Federal debt is a problem. Americans seem to vote for the guy who promises the most goodies, consequences be darned. Eventually, the bill will come due and the ensuing economic carnage will devastate millions.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

Dealing with the amount of national debt, however, appears to be completely beyond the ability of the American electorate. Heck, most voters can't even recognize that the Federal debt is a problem. Americans seem to vote for the guy who promises the most goodies, consequences be darned. Eventually, the bill will come due and the ensuing economic carnage will devastate millions.

I agree with the sentence in bold, but think the rest is a bit off the mark.

Our system of democracy and political campaigning at the federal level (and in most states) sets us up to fail on the tough issues - on which I agree the debt is the toughest. Tough decisions lead to lost reelection campaigns and light campaign coffers.

I disagree that it is simply about "promising goodies" so to speak, though maybe that's a way to characterize what I'm thinking of. It's far more about the special interests and voters intent to protect their piece of the pie (e.g., the creation and maintenance of a state nursing board intent on protecting and/or expanding their scope of practice), as well as an even more fundamental fear of change. In the nursing board example, a politician's mention of eliminating that board would quickly mean a huge cash infusion for their opponent.

Elections are popularity contests - and it is very unpopular to shrink the pie for reasons other than "goodies." As I continue to hold, the budgeting process must somehow be more insulated from the pressures of elected office.

 

[cbi1972]

I agree with the sentence in bold, but think the rest is a bit off the mark.

Our system of democracy and political campaigning at the federal level (and in most states) sets us up to fail on the tough issues - on which I agree the debt is the toughest. Tough decisions lead to lost reelection campaigns and light campaign coffers.

I disagree that it is simply about "promising goodies" so to speak, though maybe that's a way to characterize what I'm thinking of. It's far more about the special interests and voters intent to protect their piece of the pie (e.g., the creation and maintenance of a state nursing board intent on protecting and/or expanding their scope of practice), as well as an even more fundamental fear of change. In the nursing board example, a politician's mention of eliminating that board would quickly mean a huge cash infusion for their opponent.

Elections are popularity contests - and it is very unpopular to shrink the pie for reasons other than "goodies." As I continue to hold, the budgeting process must somehow be more insulated from the pressures of elected office.

Sounds to me like your nursing board is voting with dollars for whoever promises the most goodies, just like everyone else.

 

[Tidewater]

Our system of democracy and political campaigning at the federal level (and in most states) sets us up to fail on the tough issues - on which I agree the debt is the toughest. Tough decisions lead to lost reelection campaigns and light campaign coffers.

Well, the constitutional limitations on Federal powers means most problems are simply not Federal issues. By preventing the Federal government from having the authority over the issue, the Founders hoped to isolate the Federal government from such a corrupting process.

I disagree that it is simply about "promising goodies" so to speak, though maybe that's a way to characterize what I'm thinking of. It's far more about the special interests and voters intent to protect their piece of the pie (e.g., the creation and maintenance of a state nursing board intent on protecting and/or expanding their scope of practice), as well as an even more fundamental fear of change. In the nursing board example, a politician's mention of eliminating that board would quickly mean a huge cash infusion for their opponent.

The Constitution allows the Federal government to exercise certain powers, and denies the Federal government powers not enumerated. If you use the yardstick of last year's budget, then the losers and winners will feel the losses and the wins. I would argue that this is a corrupted measuring stick, however. This leads to our current political situation in which one party screws over the country for the benefit of their donors. Then the other party says, "Hey, we want to screw over the country for the benefit of our donors for a while."
John Taylor of Caroline wrote about this extensively.

Elections are popularity contests - and it is very unpopular to shrink the pie for reasons other than "goodies." As I continue to hold, the budgeting process must somehow be more insulated from the pressures of elected office.

If the Federal judiciary would fulfill its constitutional role and negative Federal acts that go beyond Article I, Section 8, the Federal judiciary could insulate the budget process from the pressures of elected office. Were the Federal judiciary to throw out such laws, the elected officials could tell their donors, "I tried to enact your [desired but unconstitutional] program, but those darn judges threw it out. Dadgum it. Can I have some money nevertheless?"

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

Sounds to me like your nursing board is voting with dollars for whoever promises the most goodies, just like everyone else.

Not goodies as in something tangible. Things like licensing boards often serve a legitimizing function and distinct (officially recognized) regulatory voice within a government. That's why the medical community always kills bills creating things like naturopath boards in their cribs.